HARTFORD, CT—During a night out for dinner and drinks at Shooters Bar And Restaurant, probate attorney Michael Bradshaw built a strong case in re ordering nachos, Bradshaw's friends reported Tuesday.

Bradshaw (center) discusses issues of cost with two members of his party.

"Mike can be very persuasive when it comes to appetizers," said John Spence, one of eight diners swayed by Bradshaw's closing arguments. "There was a split among the eaters, with four people wanting hot wings and four wanting nachos. In the end, though, Mike convinced us all, beyond a reasonable doubt, that nachos was the appropriate verdict."

Bradshaw based his opening arguments on the prima facie evidence that each diner wanted to eat a substantial amount of food.

"Mike said that if we got hot wings, we'd only get two wings each," Spence said. "Nachos, on the other hand, would allow for a greater number of snacking opportunities for all of us. Also, he said that he could easily convince the waitress to give us a free bowl of salsa."

Hot-wing defenders argued that the wings would come with celery and blue-cheese dressing, but Bradshaw offered a convincing rebuttal.

"Only two or three of us are likely to eat the celery," Bradshaw said. "Not exactly a majority, is it?"

Bradshaw then called on fellow attorney Larry Paulson to determine which appetizer would leave a more damaging mark on a dress shirt. Though he had been a hot-wings supporter, Paulson admitted that the sauce could cause permanent stains.

"I bring this up because we're going to Club 66 later on, to try to get laid," Bradshaw said. "Can we all agree that the likelihood of failure will increase if we arrive with greasy spots on our shirts?"

Further objections were raised by eaters who claimed that nacho stains were more likely to occur than hot-wing stains.

"Yes, but most nacho stains can be removed with soap and water," Bradshaw said. "Hot-wing sauce leaves an incontrovertible red splotch."

Added Bradshaw: "Please suspend the ruling until I'm back. I gotta hit the john."

Upon returning, Bradshaw called amicus curiae Jim Oppel as an expert witness to the deliciousness of Shooters' nachos.

"Guys, the nachos are really great here," Oppel said. "We really should order those."

To further strengthen his case for nachos, Bradshaw cited numerous precedents, including the high price of the chicken fingers, the rubbery texture of the calamari, and a March 2002 incident in which Larry burned his mouth on a jalapeño popper. Bradshaw also cited a recent incident at an Indian restaurant.

"If you'll recall, Ray [Yung] pleaded nolo contendre to the charges of ordering those terrible meat samosas at Raga Palace," Bradshaw said. "Are we going to let him sway the vote again?"

Hot-wings proponents put forward a strong defense against ordering nachos, citing Eric Johnson's aversion to olives.

"We can have the olives on the side, no problem," Bradshaw said. "Case closed. We'll order the nachos."

Several of those present later admitted that they were displeased with the ruling.

"I really wanted hot wings," said Yung, an accountant. "I should've offered to pay for them. It's hard to stand up to Mike—he's a fast-talker who knows how to turn your words against you. How do you argue with someone who uses phrases like 'doctrine of unintended consequences' to say that the onion blossom once gave Jim the runs?"