No, nobody here did as far as I know, sp. Mr Millar, QC posed the question. The entire matter is interesting. Setting aside for a moment the conspiracy theory that HM Queen may have had a finger in the pie, it seems from a number of sources - Mr Millar, some other Learned Friends and most importantly Mr Justice Wharmby, that the majority of her accusations against the Mail are entirely without merit. The judge used terms such as "vague" "irrelevant" and "speculative". No judge would do that without justification, especially in such a high profile case. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and "The Firm" really have had a hand in the proceedings (which personally I don't believe for a second) I'm sure the judge would have found more intricate language to dismiss the matters.
Another quote from Mark Stephens, a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy:
For Meghan this judgement is like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker on a level crossing. It's a complete disaster. She's been terribly badly advised to pursue this case against the Mail on Sunday. She's been humiliated."
Of course her own advisors couldn't really give two hoots. They get paid whatever the outcome. But it seems they are somewhat lonely in their opinion. So the question really is why (unless they badly need the money) did they advise her to take action on accusations that have been described as vague, irrelevant and speculative?