Interesting. I think she knows she has no case, but realized her eviction put them in violation of their liquor license, fighting back where it really hurt. Banning lawyers might not be the best idea.
High level, perhaps private venues shouldn’t be able to ban someone from a venue simply because of who employs them? Perhaps craft the legislation around annual patrons served.
On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case.
There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility.
That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.
I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.
Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for food.
The law firm's previous personal injury lawsuits against MSG were because they served alcohol to someone who later drove drunk. Multiple lawsuits were successful, in one case getting $20 million.
In general they appear to represent drunk driving victims and associate with MADD.