This is not your business.
There is nothing you can do to change this.
You are wasting time with hypothetical scenarios.
You can ask any question you want, but understand an answer cannot be given, beyond conjecture and speculation if there are no facts given. The people that have the facts is the attorney who charged for his services and, your uncle who paid for those services. If he doesn't know what he paid for, and doesn't care to know---well, there it is.
Ideas abound and can be had and passed on by anyone---but won't help if you have no facts.
If the house was properly titled as joint tenants with right of survivorship, no will would have been needed (at least not regarding the house) and since his name would have been ALREADY ON the deed, nothing would have needed to be done to have his ownership reflected.
So the only possibility I can think of is that the house was titled only in the wife's name for some strange reason, so they would have had to go through probate under intestate succession and other assets or debts could have complicated the situation. Or there could have been other heirs who would have tried to interfere with the estate distribution. Or many other possibilities. But they all stem from the house not being titled in both names prior to her death.
Anyone so obsessed with something that's absolutely none of their business could benefit from a talk with a mental health specialist.
All law students should seek mental help then.
p.s. There are a lot of people on this forum who's legal expertise extends no further than a high post count. You'll get used to ignoring those.
Here are the details.
There was a married couple with a small child.
Both parents had a will, for their share of things.
The spouse that passed away, had a life insurance policy.
The beneficiary was the child.
The high legal fees had nothing to do with the house, per say.
It had to do with the life insurance.
The deceased's will had left the life insurance benefit to the young child.
But, the lawyer who wrote the will, had given the advice that the child should not get any of the money until age 30.
The surviving spouse had to spend the high legal fees, to get the deceased's will changed.
It was changed so the child would receive the funds at age 18, not 30.
The will had the "estate" holding the funds, until the child was aged 30.
The argument for the will change, was many fold.
The child might need the money for college, or get married and need the money, or pass away and never see any of it, and many more reasons why the child should get the money at age 18 instead of age 30.
It was costly, but the surviving spouse got the will of the deceased, changed.
The child got every last penny from the life insurance, and the surviving spouse got no benefits from the will change. Their purpose in getting it changed, was for the benefit of the child.
Then your uncle obviously didn't give a darn what he wife wished since he ignored her wishes. It was her estate and her decisions what was to be done with her estate. He had no business contsting her will.
First thing you can do is go to the courthouse and see how the title to the house was worded. That will give a good clue as to what might have happened.