Trinity Elder Law & Estate Planning - January 2020

340 N. Main St., Suite 103 Butler, PA 16001 724.256.8850 www.TrinityElderLaw.com

PRST STD US POSTAGE PAID BOISE, ID PERMIT 411

I N S I D E This Issue

1

A Fresh Perspective

Changes to Social Security in 2020 Simple Pancakes From Scratch Positive Changes for 2020 Butler Community Events in 2020

2

3

The Curious Case of Roy Pearson’s Pants

4

WHO WEARS THE PANTS? LADY JUSTICE! HOW ONE JUDGE LOST A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT AND HIS DIGNITY A fter losing an article of clothing from a dry cleaner, most would say “c’est la vie” and move on. At most, someone might leave a bad review and ask for a few dollars to cover the loss, but for one administrative law judge, that wasn’t enough. He decided instead to launch an all- out legal battle. After the initial allegations, the dry cleaners scoured their business to find the pants and, to their credit, found the judge’s trousers untarnished. Even so, Pearson argued that he didn’t need to prove the pants were lost or damaged to satisfy his “satisfaction guaranteed” claim.

Unfortunately for the judge, the court found his position to be ridiculous and ordered him to pay the dry cleaner’s attorneys’ fees. In response, Pearson sought that his own attorneys’ fees be covered to oppose this motion. In the end, Pearson did pay the dry cleaner’s legal fees, but the case isn’t the only thing he lost. The verdict also cost the judge his job and any semblance of professional dignity. Ten years after the case closed, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility sought a 90-day suspension. As the board put it, Pearson “failed to conduct an objective appraisal of the legal merits of his position. He made and continues to make arguments that no reasonable attorney would think had even a faint hope of success on the legal merits.” From a legal standpoint, we’d call this judge’s behavior “dissatisfaction guaranteed.”

Roy Pearson, a Washington, D.C., judge at the time, sought $54 million to cover the loss of his pants after his dry cleaner lost them. He argued that the “same- day service” sign located in the window of the dry cleaners meant that the company had to provide same-day service. However, Pearson never specified a specific time he needed his clothes returned. He also insisted that the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign meant that the cleaners had to satisfy a customer’s wishes without limit. Based on those arguments, he claimed the signs were fraudulent.

www.TrinityElderLaw.com

4

trinityelderlaw.com

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker