My view is that a system of government, where material advantages are based on quality of legal representation -- is doomed to become non-representative.
The case in article is just an example of it.
That means, in short, wealthy (corporations or individuals) can afford good legal representation --therefore they will necessarily bias the case law. And case law, will necessary, bias the subsequent judicial decisions.
So a judicial system biased towards judging in favor of more expensive legal representation, is really the main reason why corporations become larger, why they create their own system of rules, that 'floats' on top of the system of rules for the mere mortal.
---
We often have a dialog and an argument about size of government, vs size of corporations, vs individual freedoms and so on.
But really what we first must recognize is that manipulation, disinformation and biases in the judicial systems must be eliminated.
Basically we have to remove information manipulation and judicial selectivity out of the society.
Then argue about other stuff.
A step in the right direction -- would be to assign legal representation to all sides involved in a dispute (or in a criminal case) -- from some sort of a pool (based on say some standardize algorithm).
This way in a dispute between Alphabet and a Joe Shmo would have equal legal representation.
Overtime, this will slowly change case law, and outcomes of legal disputes -- towards fairness.
Some might ask: would you do the same with Financial advisors, Doctors, University professors ?
I would say no, because they do not impact the fairness of judicial system.
Having said that, I do think that Job applications must hide (not include) what University an applicant had attended... but that's discussion for another post...