[oh_sigh]

Because the lawyer allegedly had her ex-husband pretend to be disabled in order to file the lawsuits.

Lawsuits require standing, which is defined as basically injury or adverse effect done to the suing party. Without that, you cannot sue(and expect to win).

[Pfhreak]

That's a different concern though. 200 lawsuits in and of itself isn't a problem. Pretending to be disabled to try and get standing is.

[oh_sigh]

OP said it starts to seem opportunistic, which I think is true, even if the party is actually disabled. Because the odds that a regular disabled person would encounter 200 unique buildings over a year that they couldn't access because of their disability seems quite slim.

And the opportunistic part comes in because these lawsuits are almost always "Fix the problem for $5*X, or pay me personally $X and I will drop the suit".

[Pfhreak]

> Because the odds that a regular disabled person would encounter 200 unique buildings over a year that they couldn't access because of their disability seems quite slim.

I would guess the opposite, that 200 buildings seems low for what a person might encounter in a year that failed to be accessible. That's basically saying, "It's a roughly 4-5 buildings a week" which absolutely seems in the realm of possibility to me. Especially in a older part of town.

[Dylan16807]

I don't know if very many people visit 200 unique buildings in a year period, let alone ones with accessibility problems.