FWIW, here is my opinion on this topic.
The game of Survivor, to my way of thinking, is exactly that; a game about surviving.
If people actually valued finishing first as much as winning a whack load of cash, then you would not need to dangle a million dollar carrot in front of them to set the wheels of the game in motion. These people would be competing strictly for the sake of competition. For the pride that goes along with the title of sole survivor. To be one of the very few people to ever play this game would be cool enough. To be one of the very, very few who can say that they outwitted, outplayed and outlasted 15 other people would be incredible. I've often said that I would love to play this game even if there wasn't a huge cash prize for the winner. I'd just like to see how far I could go in the game. Don't get me wrong...the cash would be nice, but I'd definitely try the game without it.
But, the bottom line is, unless you have a large pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, people would be less inclined to care about whether or not they get booted. So, in this respect, the $1 million dollars becomes necessary as an incentive to push these people into doing and saying whatever they need to to stay in the game. Thus, the game becomes entertaining.
Carl (S2) was voted out of his tribe because he was a dentist with a nice car. His tribemates (at least the younger ones) came to the totally illogical conclusion that he did not need the money and therefore was not deserving of competing further in the game. This was absolute hogwash. Whether a person has $1 or $1,000,000,000 in his or her bank account should have no bearing on their worthiness of being crowned sole survivor. It should be about (among other things) who worked the hardest, played the smartest and forged the strongest alliances. And yet, every now and again, the old "they don't need the money" card is played. And what is truly ironic is that not once have I ever heard anyone who has used this "logic" to oust someone from the game turn around and give any valid reasons for why they, themselves are deserving of the money. I guess if they don't already have a million dollars, these people think that they automatically are entitled to a shot at it. Voting people out of Survivor because of perceived affluence is nothing more than a copout exercised by stupid people who cannot come to grips with what this game should be about brought on by a large cash prize which makes the game interesting to watch.
So, in answer to the original question, yes. Survivor should absolutely include people of wealth as contestants. They are just as deserving of consideration as anyone else.
And as far as the ranting about bad lawyers goes, I'll say this. Yes, there are bad lawyers. Just like there are bad teachers, plumbers, computer programmers, doctors, architects and politicians. Stereotyping, no matter who it is or what grounds it is on, is wrong. Period.