The second step was demanding an expert witness to interpret the radar information because he claimed that the average cop doesn't have the expertise to address issues like how radar works around curves, etc. The radar expert would be so expensive for the State to bring in that they would probably just drop the ticket, and if they didn't, then you would at least have spitefully caused them to waste more money prosecuting the ticket than they would get from you paying the fine.
No, they just introduce the cop as an expert anyway. Then Mr. Ticket Lawyer can cross examine him on his qualifications and say they aren't enough, and ask that he be disqualified as a witness. Then the judge, 99% of the time, will say "Goes to weight and not to admissability," i.e. the fact-finder gets to decide how much weight to accord the police testimony.
Then unless the cop makes a complete idiot of himself, if you haven't introduced a superior expert, guess who has met their burden? In Minnesota, apparently, it's beyond a reasonable doubt (most states it is preponderance), but you have to introduce at least
some reasonable doubt.
So Nick isn't wrong. These things are all things you'd do but unless you had some serious reason to put this much effort into it, like an imminent loss of license, why?
Also you could probably do this yourself better than Nick in his current condition, considering you'd at least show up, presumably sober.
Though back to the original point, just the physical presence of a drunken lawyer isn't going to do anything, but a sober lawyer who knows traffic court and knows what deals they cut might do it more efficiently, so if the person is too tense and nervous to negotiate, they might want to do it (it is cheap as legal stuff goes and often a loss-leader to get more business later). You often get a compromise offer just by showing up.