You mistake these situations to be analagous. Business/Politics(iepolicymaking) are definitely more connected, career wise, to the law then the fine arts are. Almost anything else (even Journalism, which I don't consider to be a fine art (ie PLAYING an instrument, CREATING visual art or ACTING)) is more directly related to the study and practice of law (covering legal stories). If you actually look at the conditions I set forth, it is easy to see that all the examples and arguments subsequent to my post (the one about hearing loss) did not meet either condition a or b, and thus do not fall within the scope of the claim. My point isn't particularly controversial. Those with the ability and passion sufficient to make a CAREER out of the fine arts don't go to law school. So, if you are going/applying then you lack either/both of these things. Someone mentioned dancers who plan to work as a lawyer after they can't dance, but I would argue that if they truly meet these two conditions they would find work MORE directly involved with dancing (ie teaching, choreographing) rather than simply being a lawyer who represents dancers/companies.
but a lawyer that works with dancers/companies is directly involved with dance. u r assuming that a career in the arts only means wrking in one aspect of that art meaning a singer can only sing or a dancer can only dance in some variation. however, the arts cover a large range of fields incuding business, law, history, etc. so artists are not limited to just doing art.
also, there are other reasons artists will go to law school. the dancers i know that have pursued graduate degrees did so AFTER a SUCCESSFUL CAREER as a performer/choreographer.