still does not resolve the conflict of interest.

the defendant lawyer hired a firm which found evidence the defendant is not guilty.

The pro bono part raises more suspicions. One of the accused activist died of old age in a top tier hospital, not exactly a poor client requiring pro bono work.

So it was suspicious when you thought they were getting paid and now it’s even more suspicious when you learn they aren’t getting paid?

Your logic is... suspicious.

That is how the system works, conflicts of interest are presumed on both sides. The prosection wants people to say they're guilty, the defense wants people who say they aren't guilty.

The balance of evidence is against the prosecution now, and they can find their own expert witness if they disagree.

That being said, blatantly lying here would be a deathknell for the firm. Every case where they get involved will mean someone brings it up as a way to dismiss their testimony. It would take a staggering payment for most firms to even debate doing something like this intentionally. If it were my firm and I gave up all my morals, I would charge more than I could sell the firm for. I'm giving up basically all future revenue and tarnishing my own name; it wouldn't be something I casually did.

Are you talking about Stan Swamy who died in prison and who was refused a straw to drink, which he needed to cope with Parkinson's?