I agree that it is troubling. That makes it appear like the U trying to get the outcome they desire by any means necessary.
But if Lee Hutton isn't giving his time for free to other college students in similar situations (not sure if he is or isn't, but let's assume he isn't), then how could you not look at it as improper benefits? How is it different than a dealership giving a player a car, and saying they did it for publicity?
And as far as the NCAA is concerned, he can't charge a discounted rate either UNLESS he routinely does it (income based pricing or college student discount, etc.). Again, think car dealership charging $1 for a corvette.
He could probably argue his time was equally divided between the players, thus charge a fraction (1/9th of his time for the hearing, 1/5th of his time for the restraining order to whom applicable).
Another example, which I personally think shows how ridiculous this can be - as a person who donates money to the U, if I stop for a stranded motorist on the side of the road I CANNOT give that individual a ride and can't even let them use my phone if they are on a team. Even though using my phone costs zero since I have unlimited minutes.
I don't think the U is trying to sway the outcome, they're just trying to remain on the good side of the NCAA. And based on what I know of the rules, I don't think their assessment is wrong.
I understand a lot of people will think this is different because they "needed" a lawyer, but the vast majority of students who go through this process don't have lawyers.