As Charlotte Tubbs reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article "Agency, witness tangling over pay":
"Quietly, a two-year battle brewed behind the high-profile court case between the department and the witness it hired, George Rekers. The dispute involved department requests for billing explanations, Rekers' accusations that the department's attorney behaved unethically and department accusations that Rekers conducted unnecessary research."The whole article is quite interesting, with other unrelated bits of information such as how that department chooses experts for litigation:
"Professional and academic requirements are case-dependent. 'There are times when academic skills are important and sometimes experience is more important,' [Health and Human Services Department spokesman Julie Munsell] said."I wonder how this will affect the expert's reputation with other attorneys? With the court system in general? If he gets paid, will it be worth it?