>

IIRC this doesn't even have to do with losing/settling. The lawyers worked on behalf of Twitter to sue Musk to force the sale. Now that Musk bought Twitter, he still owes money to the lawyers that sued him, just like the offices owe rent, utilities, etc... Just because you bought a company doesn't mean you get out of their contractual obligations.
CRA says it signed a contract with three different law firms in the Musk litigation, all of which signed "on behalf of Twitter."

So Twitter hired CRA cause Musk countersued Twitter last year and now Musk has to pay for it?   
Oh I love the irony >

Twitter likely spent tens of millions on the litigation, which Musk now needs to pay. But it’s not unusual for the loser in a legal battle to get the total bill.
What is unusual is a firm like CRA, which is hired by the law firms, suing the underlying client. I’m guessing that Musk has stiffed the law firms involved as well. (Otherwise, it would be strange if Musk paid the law firms $10m but didn’t pay the consulting firm $2m) >


But it’s not unusual for the loser in a legal battle to get the total bill.

Actually, that's not the norm in the US (reason being that there shouldn't be a disincentive to bring a meritorious claim just because of fear that losing it will bankrupt you). You will see some judgments include legal fees and punitive damages but those are definitely for extraordinary behavior (frivolous/meritless claims, abuse of legal system, etc.)