The numbers put by Chupp are merely a suggestion, it might be usual, as you say, that doesn't mean anything is "granted".At the outset, its fairly important to note that fee shifting is not the default. Most causes of action don't allow fee shifting, although Texas has a broader than average fee shifting statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 38.001 that does allow fee shifting in many contract cases. Because contract cases are relatively common it has become standard practice in Texas for judges to estimate fees in the event of an appeal. Contrary to what you seem to think, these fee estimates are not just allowed they are something Texas courts do literally all the time.
In the end, the appeal judges are free to do whatever they want with the fees.
They could keep the bill at 220K, they could increase it to less than 500K, or to more than 500K, they could even reduce it.
So it's quite presumptuous to assert that the 500K is "a forgone conclusion", it's one possibility amongst many.
In my last sentence, I was talking ethics, not law. And I stand by what I said.Second, you seem to think that the court's fees order does something that it absolutely doesn't purport to do (...)
It's basically threatening people with a financial punishement for using their right to appeal.
The purpose doesn't matter, the end result is that it feels unethical.