plaintiff commences litigation. This could require up to three proceedings, call them A, B, and C, that are customarily run in sequence, that is, one after another. That is, if plaintiff wins A, there is no need to pursue B, and if the plaintiff loses both A and B, there is no point in pursuing C.
A judge in jurisdiction Y disclaims jurisdiction, citing jurisdiction X's priority. So the law firm appeals in jurisdiction Y. Meanwhile a judge in jurisdiction X advises plaintiff not to proceed with the underlying case, until he decides whether or not the defendant has the "standing" to be sued in its jurisdiction.
The law firm runs all three proceedings simultaneously (the appeal in jurisdiction Y, the standing case in jurisdiction X, and the underlying case in jurisdiction X). The effect is that it is collecting all three sets of fees, when the judges have advised the plaintiff to proceed with one proceeding at a time. Is this considered ethical or acceptable behavior? Is there anything the client can do to discourage this?