Agree, the article does not give reason/motive for the demotion, but it later goes into the Firm leading him to retirement, and in 2017 he was going to cease being a partner of any kind, so no Partner salary. He would only receive his portion of what he made off of his clients.
Law firms are not the cash cows and lucrative positions they once were. Many recent law school graduates over the last several years since the 2008 crash have been struggling to find work at firms. Sounds to me like, and this is only MOO, that the firm was trying to get off the hook for large salaries and expenses.
And I agree, this would be both humiliating and worrisome for McIver. If his personal finance are already in disorder (and they were because he was borrowing from Diane by putting up the ranch for collateral) then knowing that your firm is pushing you into retirement before you are ready financially and then in 2017, you will have no longer have a regular salary, then you are becoming desperate financially. And if you want your "beloeved ranch", which is how many articles have described it, to be handed down in your family, then you don't have many options. IMOO opinion, Diane McIver seemed to be definitely treating the money to McIver as loans in every sense of the word and legal terms, and not just giving money to McIver. So it seems like McIver was losing both financial control of the ranch and property ownership of the ranch.
So while the defense made it look like all of this was "fine" because they "loved" each other, in reality, McIver was losing control of the one thing he owned and used to have complete control over....the ranch.