Double threats

It almost always pays to read to the end of an interesting news story. It’s shocking how often news writers stick the most valuable lesson at the bottom of their tales.

Case in point: the last paragraph from a recent article in the Tampa Bay Times that says, “’The qualities of an NBA dancer, being able to dance in front of thousands of people, I have a presence that I can now bring into the legal field,’ she said. ‘I know what I can bring to the table.’”

Cheering in court?

Shooting T-shirts at the jury?

I don’t know, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. The point is that it makes sense to develop other skills to add to your value as a lawyer and serve your clients.

Lawyer/dancer may not be the obvious combination, but it does make sense. Dancing is a way to cheer up clients and get them on their feet. They may even lose weight and thank you for it.

Consider similar options: lawyer/comedian, lawyer/singer, lawyer/poet, lawyer/sommelier.

There are also combinations that can give you an edge in litigation. Lawyer/doctor is the most common example that gives you an expertise edge, but other fields can offer tactical advantages.

A lawyer/hypnotist can mesmerize the opposition or at least make clients nag less. A lawyer/fashionista can dazzle and distract the opposition and glow up clients. A lawyer/chef can make those endless discovery sessions tolerable and tasty.

And, of course, there’s always the traditional lawyer/costumed crimefighter. It’s a great way to stay in shape.

I should note that the opposite is also true — becoming a lawyer can help with your other professions.

That NBA dancer must be great at arguing with the refs.

Unfortunate phrase. Every now and then we come across a perfectly fine ruling that maybe should have been phrased a little better.

Case in point: A federal judge in Southern California has ruled that a guy in a wheelchair has no standing. The judge maybe could have worded that better, or maybe I shouldn’t have noticed it. Disabilities are not funny.

I’m sorry for reporting this but, in my defense, the disabled guy may not be all that sympathetic. It seems, according to the ruling, that he’s brought more than a hundred Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits and the court found that, at least in this particular case, he wasn’t actually prevented from going somewhere he wanted to go. You need to actually want to patronize a business in real life before you can sue.

“It is more likely that he went to the property … solely to look for ADA violations,” the judge wrote.

There’s nothing wrong with being a “tester plaintiff” — somebody’s got to enforce disability regulations — but you do have to be someone who’s been harmed.

In this case, the plaintiff submitted a photo of a different gas station than the one he supposedly didn’t have access to.

So there was definitely no standing.

I can’t believe I said that again …

I’m so ashamed.

Quote of the week. From a recent Los Angeles Superior Court motor vehicle collision complaint: “As the subject vehicle approached Alameda Street in Los Angeles, defendant driver and the driver of an adjacent vehicle engaged in a reckless and dangerous act by playing a game of rock-paper-scissors to determine who would proceed through traffic first.”

Neither rock, paper nor scissors beats car.