If he started the fraud in the middle of his career, $10M would equate to approximately $800K a year.
I would say that it is viable if he was able to circumnavigate internal controls, considering other notable fraud cases like Rita Crundwell, who embezzled $54M from her employer (a city) over 22 years.
ETA: It all depends on who is monitoring the finances and how critically they are being evaluated. MOO from what I have seen in the wild as a financial statement auditor.
Wow, the Rita Crundwell case is amazing in that the fraud scheme was not very sophisticated, yet very large scale and was able to continue despite audits from an outside bank.
Perhaps AM was able to make pay outs when needed to retiring or departing partners
via juggling internal funds ponzi style?
At the same time, the claimed number just seems large. "Sue'em" firms usually get 30% of the take- and can boost that percentage via creativity in pre trial expenses which are taken from the plaintiff share.
Part of that 30% is due to the attorney who handled the case. Another percentage is needed for operating expenses. Lets be very generous and say that 30% of firm's take could be salted away as future profit sharing and subject to embezzlement. This equates to 10% of the total settlement revenue.
The stated 10 million embezzled would then be based on 100 million in collected settlements. With taxes, the 100 million needed would be more. Maybe 120 million? This is based on a "30% of firm net profit" was embezzled model.
Yet, the firm was not exactly suing Boeing over 737 Max deaths. Railroad deaths due from faulty equipment / operators are rare. My bet is that mega lucrative coorperate "back hurt at work" settlements dried up generations ago. Local car wrecks and slipped at Marges cases only go so far in rural SC.
In short, most hype is based on some degree of truth. The firm is successful and embezzlement occurred. But, could reality be blurring into hype?