The point about NWNF lawyers is that they provide a service to litigants who don't want or aren't capable of suing a third party themselves. The lawyers in this case didn't volunteer to intrude on Stormy's life, she went to them because she wanted their help to sue somebody, and then she freely entered into an agreement with them which presumably entitled them to recover costs and expenses they incurred before she (allegedly) breached the contract by discontinuing the case.
If the OP has, by discontinuing the original claim, prevented the solicitors from recovering the expenses they have already incurred from their "success fee", then it seems perfectly fair* to me that they should seek to recover those costs from Stormy under their NWNF agreement. And I'm talking there about legitimate costs and expenses. I think Stormy is entitled to make them justify what they are claiming.
I'm not a fan of NWNF arrangements, but unless a litigant can afford to pay a retainer and pay as they go, how else will people have access to legal advice?
It's still not clear to me how a SAR assists Stormy in putting together a defence. If the NWNF agreement included terms where she agreed to co-operate fully with the firm and to comply with reasonable requests to assist in making the claim, it might backfire if the SAR reveals that the solicitors were having to chase her constantly for information and instructions.
*And that is still fair whether they are "ambulance chasers" or not. If they can't recover from a Stormy, they'll have to recover from other clients who may be posters here...
London1971 - apologies if I've misunderstood your views on lawyers. There are good and bad lawyers like in every other profession. I'm just concerned that some of your comments (which could be described as derogatory) might colour Stormy's approach to this. You were, after all, in an earlier post surprised at the positive reviews this firm got on social media...