Are you seriously stating that all law which has paid expert witnesses is now suspect solely because the expert is paid? Remember, Wakefield spoke garbage, paid or not. He had undisclosed conflicts of interest, his co authors retracted and the BMA withdrew his licence in the UK, his paper was retracted by the journal he published in.

The Dean was paid openly, directly, by one side of a case. As far as I know the meta analysis, which btw I do not think justifies the public health statements being made, has NOT been retracted, there are questions about methodology.

As you note, the case was lost. The judge used his discretionary powers to discount his evidence, and rightly so but the same judge will sit trial on case where he accepts the paid evidence of experts, routinely.