>Isn’t it common sense that, as a lawyer, you don’t patronize businesses that you’re firm is litigating against though?

But if you work for a larger firm and aren't even practicing in the state the litigation is taking place in (as was the case with the Radio City mom), it probably isn't something which crosses your mind as you may not even know all the clients and cases your firm is involved in.

That said, MSG claims they sent out letters to the firms informing them of the blanket ban, so I do think at that point, even if they disagree with the policy, the onus is on the firms themselves to notify their employees that they are all banned from MSG properties.

​

>It seems like the lawyers should know better and are stealing the spotlight from the actual story about facial recognition being way more prevalent than most folks realize.

To be fair, the only reason this is a story is because attorneys are banned from MSG properties.

If the Rangers fan who sucker-punched that guy @ MSG complained about facial recognition tech. flagging/banning him from entry, nobody (outside of NYPost) would care.