So you're at a restaurant, and the seafood pasta you ordered doesn't have as much seafood as you'd hoped.  Do you:

a) say "Well, that's life," and eat it anyway?
b) talk to your server, and either get a few more shrimp thrown on or send it back and order something else?
c) eat the shrimp and scallops off the top, then call the server and their manager over to complain, get into a fight, and leave paying only a $3 tip on a $46 bill?

"He said he couldn't look himself in the mirror if he paid full price for such substandard fare."

For some reason, Angellino's Italian Restaurant took issue with Ralph Paul's choice of (c), and a lawsuit was born.  (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Tampabay/5_shrimp__5_scallops_.shtml)  But while there's been the usual discussion in the legal community (and, one presumes, in the waitstaff community) about Who Was Right, Carolyn Elefant over at Legal Blog Watch observes (http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2006/10/who_is_the_myst.html) that the real question might be "who's this mystery $500/hr Manhattan lawyer defending the guy?"
 
I for one think it'd be worth $500 an hour to have to defend a man who sees a $15.99 entree as a personal cause.  At any rate, a little later in the article the name at least one of Paul's lawyers is given as John Lauro, of Lauro Litigation.  (http://laurolawfirm.com/jsp3180097.jsp)

The entree Paul ordered is called "Shrimp and Scallop Verdura."

"Verdura in Italian," defense lawyer John Lauro told the jury in all seriousness, "means true."

Actually, it means "vegetables." Verita means truth.

Apparently he's magna cum laude from Georgetown, too.  And yet he doesn't seem to recognize one of the best known words in Latin?

"Shrimp and Scallop Truth."  It's a tough dish to digest.