Ah, the problem seems to be your chatbot level understanding of the relevant issues. The question of who the lawyers actually served as their client is an entirely legitimate question as to determine who ought to pay for their services. Lawyers that don't do their job for their actual clients don't get paid by said clients, suits regarding that are extremely common and normal, though like, say car crashes, the media typically wouldn't report on it unless they find it politically expedient.
Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients because politics is an entirely separate issue. Which yes, the left regularly engages in, and retaliation in kind may be necessary to compel a truce. Other people have commented on that, I have not previously, and you confused the second with the first because of ignorance.
Are you simply incapable of holding a conversation without insults? As to the actual substance, there is no question of who their clients were. They were retained by Twitter, Twitter were the ones who failed to pay, and it's Twitter they're suing. It's Twitter on all the paperwork. Now maybe you mean that they were acting at the bidding of Twitter senior management, rather than the company as a whole, but that is exactly how business works. It's literally the job of senior management to decide the goals and direction of the business. As for whether they did or didn't do the work they were hired for... Well, Musk dropped the case and refused to fight it on the grounds that he was unlikely to win. So, they achieved their objective. There really isn't any question about any of this. Which would be why I conflated your approval for that with other attempts at "Lawfare to harm lawyers that do actually do their jobs correctly for their actual clients" and
don't see it as some entirely separate issue.
Why should the Right accept lawfare against us, and then be expected to not turn around and fight back with it ourselves?
I mean, disregarding that the lawyers worked for individual members of the now ex-Twitter execs, and not the company itself, that means the ex-Twitter execs are the one's who should be paying these lawyers, not Musk.
This seems to have escaped you though, in your effort to poo-poo conservatives wanting to engage in lawfare of their own.
Well... That's all just untrue. I never said anything about it being okay for one "side" and not the other. Certainly I didn't poo-poo conservatives wanting to engage in lawfare of their own." In fact, exactly the opposite. All I've said is that it should be considered acceptable for everyone, or unacceptable for everyone. The idea that it's bad when "the left" do it, but a grand old thing when the "right" does it, is simply blatant hypocrisy.
Also as said previously, the lawyers
weren't retained by individuals. They were retained by Twitter, to do work for Twitter, Twitter failed to pay th, so they're suing Twitter.