 Administrative law judge Roy Pearson leaves court after the second day of his trial in Washington on Wednesday. Jin and Soo Chung are being sued by Pearson for $54 million for what he calls 'misleading signage' at their dry-cleaning business. |
Posted on 06/17/2007 12:45:46 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Pants lawsuit could cost D.C. judge his $100,000 job
Jun 15, 2007 3:00 AM (2 days ago)
by Scott McCabe and Dan Genz, The Examiner
(AP)
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson leaves court after the second day of his trial in Washington on Wednesday. Jin and Soo Chung are being sued by Pearson for $54 million for what he calls "misleading signage" at their dry-cleaning business. WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The boss of Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge whose $54 million pants lawsuit has turned the D.C. legal system into a punch line on late-night talk shows, has recommended that the city deny Pearson another term on the bench, D.C. government sources said Thursday.
In a letter to the three-person commission that will decide whether Pearson gets reappointed, District of Columbia Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone T. Butler said Pearson does not deserve a 10-year term to the post, which pays more than $100,000 a year.
“My sense is that the commission will not reappoint him,” a D.C. government source said.
Butler’s letter reverses his previous recommendation in support of Pearson that he sent to the commission before the pants suit case gained worldwide notoriety.
Butler would not comment on his recommendation, according to his office.
Administrative judges preside over disputes between a government agency and people bringing complaints against the agency.
Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would rule on Pearson’s lawsuit by next week. Pearson broke down on the stand twice trying to describe the day he learned that he would never see his pants again. He has requested $500,000 in legal fees for the 1,400 hours he says he put into the case. A friend testified that Pearson had no life outside the office because he was consumed with the case, working nights and weekends.
Pearson has had a history of doggedly pursuing legal matters.
Before he became a D.C. judge two years ago, Pearson was unemployed after working as legal aid attorney for 24 years. He worked on one tenant lawsuit for 18 years, appealing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
His former boss once called him the best attorney he ever hired, but their relationship soured and Pearson quit in 2002.
In 2005, in his divorce suit, Virginia courts ordered him to pay his ex-wife, also a lawyer, $12,000 for “creating unnecessary litigation” and threatening her and her attorney with disbarment.
At the time of the ruling, he had no steady job, no bank account and less than $2,000 in cash.
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson leaves court after the second day of his trial in Washington on Wednesday. Jin and Soo Chung are being sued by Pearson for $54 million for what he calls 'misleading signage' at their dry-cleaning business. |
I have a funny feeling this talentless hack thinks Koreans should be his slaves
Affirmative action at work?
This judge shouldn’t be trusted judging a coin toss.
THIS is a victimizer.
>>In 2005, in his divorce suit, Virginia courts ordered him to pay his ex-wife, also a lawyer, $12,000 for “creating unnecessary litigation” and threatening her and her attorney with disbarment.
At the time of the ruling, he had no steady job, no bank account and less than $2,000 in cash.<<
So of course they made him a judge...
You know the old saying: A judge is a lawyer who’s too lazy to chase his own ambulances.
He really loved those pants
Well, if he wins the 54 million, he won’t need a job.
This is serious. This is trouser reparations.
I’m surprised he wasn’t taken down already by a judicial ethics committee on grounds of being stark raving nuts crazy.
That's a disqualification?
It amazes me that a man with his education and status would pursue something so trivial and stupid. The conduct committee should terminate his office.
Why am I not surprised?
Surprises me that Al and Jessie were not there to lend their support for the judge.
Oh, there will be. Maybe offset by the value of the pants he lost. (Like removing a drop from a bucket.)
Like attorneys fees to the defendant and suspension of his law license.
100k/yr is all this ass-clown pulls down for being on the bench?
Be better to drive a taxi....
I have a feeling you are right, the man is mentally ill. He should be removed from the bench. The scary thing is, how did he get so far?
It's not over yet :)
Pearson should be made to pay the lawyer bills of the Dry Cleaners and also be made to work for nothing in the folks dry cleaning business for penance for a time.
There is One we need to adopt and I think you will agree. That is this Looser Pays ALL Cost. That would stop almost all frivolous suits. It would surely stop this one.
“”Surprises me that Al and Jessie were not there to lend their support for the judge.”
Yes, I should have guessed that this clown is one of the bros.
Smart move. /s
I think this man needs some kind of intervention by family; he has some serious mental problems and needs help. All the lawyer jokes notwithstanding, I feel sorry for the guy.
"leasing a car every weekend for 10 years because there is no dry cleaner close to his house"
After reading the rest of the replies to this thread, I have a question: why is nobody complaining about the “judge” who is hearing this case?
Why doesn’t he or she just throw the case out instead of perpetuating this circus?
Pearson did testify that he has between 40 and 60 pairs of pants hanging in his closet, none of which, he emphasized, has cuffs.
no joke to Jin and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Dry Cleaning. The legal bills they have incurred in fighting this lawsuit have wiped out their family’s savings. Three times they have offered Pearson a settlement, most recently for $12,000. Three times Pearson has refused.
Intervention? He needs incarceration. Look what he has done to the Chungs. He needs to be removed from the bench. He needs to be removed from society.
curiosity, would losing lawyer being paying bills, or losing litigant??
The old saying applies to Judge Pearson perfectly here: “What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?”
Answer: “Your Honor.”
>>After reading the rest of the replies to this thread, I have a question: why is nobody complaining about the “judge” who is hearing this case?
Why doesn’t he or she just throw the case out instead of perpetuating this circus?<<
My guess - the case is not without merit - as evidenced by the offer of a settlement. The amount he is asking for is insane and the guy suing is insane but there is an actual case for a pair of pants.
I can hear Jesse and Al now...”If the pants don’t fit, you must acquit...”
< /humor >
He needs to be forced to restore this poor couple that he victimized. He’s nuts.
Stupid is as stupid does. That being said, race has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I hope that when this case is finally tossed out, the Koreans turn around and sue him for the actual pain and suffering he has inflicted on them.
Professional courtesy,
there are some things you would do to a lawyer but not to a lab rat
Sharks although have been around for thousands of years unlike lawyers, sharks server a purpose
Only a fool would spend millions of dollars on a 180K a year job.
and only fools will continually reelect afore mentioned fools.
I did not say that it did.
I indicated that it is typical of something the “Justice Brothers: JJ and Al would pull. They spend their lives scamming.
At the very least, the man has a personality disorder (e.g., obsessive-compulsive). There are often mentally ill people who come to the attention of the public, but the State cannot act. The eventual results can range from mass murder to this sort of thing.
IMO, We are becoming a society increasingly unable to protect itself.
That sounds like a deadly mistake. It only encouraged him. He would have regarded it as a confession of judgement.
The guy is crazy as a sh*thouse rat, and should have been committed long ago.
In my pipedream of tort reform, it would depend on the lawyer-client relationship. In a contingency fee arrangement, the lawyer and client are essentially partners and should be jointly and severably liable. If the attorney has been hired strictly on a fee for service basis, the client would bear the primary responsibility.
Must have been one hell of a pair of pants.
He found someone he could bully in the Korean couple, and has made their life miserable.
I don't feel sorry for him, I despise him.
I really should have put “merit” in quotes...
Uhhhh . . .
how to safely talk about . . .
lost marbles
cranial rocks
loose screws
. . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.