> "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice," a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement.
(a) Conlon does not practice law in New York where Radio City Music Hall is located.
(b) Conlon is not an attorney pursuing active litigation against the MSG Entertainment. She works for a NJ-based law firm who representing another party in litigation against an unrelated restaurant which now happens to now be owned by MSG Entertainment. She's not part of that ongoing litigation.
(c) > A recent judge's order in one of those cases made it clear that ticketholders like her "may not be denied entry to any shows."
(d) > "The liquor license that MSG got requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat," said Davis. "Taking a mother, separating a mother from her daughter and Girl Scouts she was watching over — and to do it under the pretext of protecting any disclosure of litigation information — is absolutely absurd.
Refusing her entry doesn't even make sense according to their stated policy, and it is absolutely _draconian_. She doesn't work on the case—she just happens to work for the same company. If this firm was representing a client suing Meta or Google or Apple, would it be okay for Meta/Google/Apple to ban all attorneys from using all of their services? This type of behavior just discourages firms from taking on clients suing large companies.
Does the law firm have 100,000 employees? According to their website, they have about 29 attorneys in the firm. Bringing up companies the size of cities compared to that is completely ridiculous and irrelevant. And companies like Meta, Google, Apple, etc. will absolutely enact draconian policies when IP and other litigations are going on. The secrecy and policies those companies put in place likely go well beyond simply not letting a lawyer part of a law firm that is suing one of your businesses into your building.
Why does it matter where she's licensed? It's irrelevant.
Lawyers play these little games all the time. I'm not necessarily for the policy or the use of facial recognition to enact it, but they were told ahead of time. They should know better. If they wanted to argue the points ahead of time and get approval, they could and should have.
How is that relevant? A stupid and harmful policy is stupid and harmful, regardless of who was notified and how. If I send an email to Google to notify my displeasure, it is not reasonable to expect all Google employees to be aware of it and avoid my business.
Despite the fact that personally punishing individual employees for a beef your holding company has with some of their colleagues is stupid. There is no other way of putting it.
> Lawyers expect others to abide by such notifications, do they not?
There is so much wrong here. Lawyers are not omniscient. They also expect companies to abide by their own terms of use, and routinely ignore unfounded or groundless “notifications”.
> Bringing up companies the size of cities compared to that is completely ridiculous and irrelevant.
So, where’s the limit? What company size makes this reasonable?
> And companies like Meta, Google, Apple, etc. will absolutely enact draconian policies when IP and other litigations are going on.
So, it is draconian after all. Show an example of individuals being booted off Google’s or Apple’s platforms only because of their employer.
> Why does it matter where she's licensed? It's irrelevant.
But then, none of the points you’ve made are, either.
I started out reading the article wondering 'OMG, what is it that this mom could've possible done that she's banned?' and then when it says "lawyer at adversarial law firm" I immediately switched to "oh yea, makes total sense".
None of the counterarguments here stand up to scrutiny.
"Isn't involved in litigation" and "not a Security threat" - she is totally a security threat: today she's a mother of a girl scout and is not working on the case, and tomorrow she's a loyal employee helping out with the case.
"Part of girl scouts trip" - Does she have a firewall in her brain between personal and professional?
'Conlon said she thought a recent judge’s order in one of those cases made it clear that ticketholders like her “may not be denied entry to any shows.” - You know what the best thing about America is? Our endless appeal system.
This entire article is a non-story (someone denied access to a business), and yet, it's somehow making the rounds. The paranoid cynic part of my brain is interpreting this entire situation as "A law firm that sent in an employee for some snooping, and then got caught, and now is making some noise in the papers." The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
This is kind of an ironic case because I've noticed that lawyers make themselves immune to non-compete clauses via state laws in most states. In California famously, regular employees are generally immune to N.C. In my state lawyers are not impacted by NC by law, but regular devs are subject to them, even sandwich makers have been blocked from changing jobs. There's been a big battle from devs to get rid of them, it hasn't yet passed the state legislature. My own leg rep said she didn't think there was a problem - of course she's a lawyer. The lawyer and business class wants to keep them.
