$65 million trousers?
We have all seen the media coverage of the Washington, DC administrative law judge who sued a "mom and pop" dry cleaner for $65 million over a lost pair of trousers. Those who want to destroy the civil justice system are trying to make this another "McDonald's hot coffee case" to mislead the public into "reforms" to diminish legal rights. But there are several reasons why this case should not provoke radical "reforms."
First, this is not a tort case or an injury case. It is commercial litigation involving a misapplication of District of Columbia consumer protection laws. The lawyer who filed the suit is not a trial lawyer but a District of Columbia government bureaucrat. He is a great example of the adage that "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." The lawyer defending the dry cleaners is a member in good standing of the District of Columbia Trial Lawyers Association.
Moreover, the suit violates the American Association for Justice (formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America) Code of Conduct, which reads in part that our members will "not prosecute or counsel any action, or assert any claim or defense, which is false, frivolous or wholly insubstantial."
We must not allow this irrelevant aberration to become the catalyst for robbing millions of honest citizens of substantial legal rights. Rather, the court should dismiss the case and impose sanctions, the DC government should remove this nut case from his judgeship, and the DC Bar should consider disciplinary action.
While I'm not thrilled about the amount of alleged damages claim - i.e. $65 Million, including transportation, etc. - I don't think the fact that he's a judge - so long as he doesn't use that fact to intimidate [of which there is no evidence] - should preclude him from the right to sue and or to be compensated for losses. He's an Admin. Law Judge who probably earns $100K/yr.
So those who, and the articles that, mention his being a judge as somehow relevant (maybe it's worthy of a footnote) are missing the mark, so to speak. Furthermore, it seems all the press are portraying the owners as these 'poor' [either literally or figuratively] sympathetic immigrant couple who has been totally wronged. But my experience [both personal and professional] with business owners - be it Best Buy or the cleaners down the street - is that they often fail to address problems and or complaints adequately.
In all likelihood - based on the summaries/stories I've read - they did lose the clothes, failed to take responsibility and generally gave him a hard time. So why all the sympathy for them and not him? They probably earn more than him, and it doesn't sound like they stepped up to the plate to accept responsibility for the loss; at least not until they were sued.
Futhermore, I also know how frustrating it is to see and rely upon signs that promise certain things - e.g. customer satisfaction - only to find they are false promises. If you're going to guarantee something, you better be ready to stand behind it or expect to be called on it if and when push comes to shove.
ALG, Esq.
