Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

The $54 Million Pants Suit That Wouldn't Die

He's baaaa-ack: Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who filed, fought and lost a $54 million lawsuit against the Korean immigrants who own his neighborhood dry cleaners, chose the Fourth of July holiday to make it clear that he will not be going away.

Despite a clear finding by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff that Pearson's case against Custom Cleaners had no merit and that the cleaners' possible misplacing of a pair of Pearson's pants was not worth a penny to the plaintiff, Pearson is back. He wrote to defense lawyer Christopher Manning this week to let the Chung family know that Pearson plans to file today a motion arguing that Bartnoff failed to address Pearson's legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case.

Manning, who has said that the Chungs have already been wiped out financially by the need to defend themselves against Pearson's two-year legal jihad, responded to Pearson by asking that he end the misery for the Chungs, who face legal bills of more than $100,000. Manning asked Pearson to consider moving on, for the Chungs' sake and for his own.

But Pearson was unimpressed and responded to Manning that he will continue to fight in the best interests of all Washington residents. Pearson apparently continues to believe that his crusade to get rich off an immigrant family's small business would somehow better the lives of all D.C. residents.

Pearson is still putting in lots of hours pursuing the case--one of his emails to Manning was time-stamped at 4:05 a.m.

Meanwhile, Manning is pursuing his request for the court to require Pearson to pay for the Chungs' attorney's fees. Hundreds of readers have already donated to a legal defense fund for the Chungs (www.customcleanersdefensefund.com) and now there's also going to be a July 24 fundraiser for the family, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association. Details at www.chungfundraiser.com

And to complete the pants update, there's still no action from the panel that will determine whether Pearson is to be reappointed for a full, 10-year term as an administrative law judge. At Mayor Adrian Fenty's request, the panel put off consideration of Pearson's case until the mayor had a chance to fill a vacancy on the commission on the tenure of ALJs. Now that Fenty has made that appointment, the panel is apparently waiting for Bartnoff's decision on the attorney's fees aspect of the pants case, which could be some weeks away.

By Marc Fisher |  July 5, 2007; 9:18 AM ET
Previous: Snapping the Silver Spring Photo Ban | Next: The Photo Flap Moves to Rockville

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Pearson needs to get hit by a car or something. He's so far in Karma Receivership, he needs to save an infant from a burning building, carrying 2 puppies in his pockets, to have any chance of a decent 2nd half of his life.

Posted by: JD | July 5, 2007 9:34 AM

Why isn't the DC Bar considering whether to disbar him?

Posted by: DC Lawyer | July 5, 2007 9:46 AM

Well I'd say that when we see a Black Admin. Judge straight-faced suing a immigrant Asian family into the poor house over a pair of, abeit an expensive pair of pants, indeed equality in America has been achieved. Perverse isn't it?

Posted by: FalconFlight | July 5, 2007 9:53 AM

"But Pearson was unimpressed and responded to Manning that he will continue to fight in the best interests of all Washington residents."

Would someone please tell this moron that, as a DC resident, I do NOT want him representing ANY of my interests... most certainly not against this family (the Chungs) who have suffered so much already at the hands of this idiot.

And why hasn't he been disbarred yet???

Posted by: DC Resident | July 5, 2007 10:03 AM

The judge should have thrown him a bone. But no, she got caught up in the anti-Pearson hysteria and decided to throw a shut-out. I did not think that her opinion made sense -- she disregarded ALL of Pearson's witnesses after excluding most of them? She ignored the fact that the pants don't match the jacket? I said it before, a smart judge would have crafted a very narrow ruling that gave Pearson nominal damages. But she's not that smart, which is probably why she is on the DC bench. The Chungs ought to settle. And who in their right mind would subsidize people who are bad at running their business? All you are doing is subsidizing their lawyers (they surely wouldn't sue the Chungs to collect their legal bills, now would they?) Let them bribe an official to get a DC contract, like everybody else.

Posted by: RL | July 5, 2007 10:06 AM

I have a small phrase that Mr. Pearson should strongly consider, "Attorney General's Office Disciplinary Review Board." Seriously, how much brutality can one person be allowed to visit on someone before authorities step in and say stop. Mr. Pearson doesn't want justice, he wants money. Problem is, even if he were to win his lawsuit, he'll never see anything real from it. He's not doing anyone any favors.

Posted by: MC | July 5, 2007 10:07 AM

Surely there is an extralegal means of bringing this guy to heel. Can't they issue a ruling that he cannot/doesn't stand for all DC residents or something. Since the Chungs are already wiped out can't they just say "F*** it. File what you want, when you want, we can't fight any more." Then let him continue his charade through the DC court system. Which apparently has 0 standards for sufficiency.

Posted by: Stick | July 5, 2007 10:10 AM

RL: "The Chungs ought to settle."

They tried to. On several occasions. Pearson wouldn't take "yes" for an answer.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 10:11 AM

you are ignoring the fact that the chungs tried to settle, several times, with judge "pantless" pearson. the last offer to settle was for $12,000, i believe. pantless ignored their offer. he is a nutcase. as for the anti-pantless hysteria, i think the hysteria comes from ole pantless himself.

Posted by: to rl | July 5, 2007 10:12 AM

Pearson is representing the people of DC, huh? And the people of DC wonders why DC can't get statehood and have representation. DC is full of idiots!

Posted by: Maryland Mania | July 5, 2007 10:14 AM

Where's a drive-by when you need one.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 10:19 AM

If Fenty reappoints Pearson, then Fenty is no better than Pearson.

Posted by: Waiting Patiently | July 5, 2007 10:22 AM

God, why do Pearson apologists like RL even have to comment if they haven't been keeping up? As mentioned, the Chungs have offered a settlement, even in the excessively ridiculous sum of $12,000.

Pearson is a bully plain and simple. And he is far beyond redemption. I'll be laughing the day he has an aneurism or blod clot in the brain .

DC really ought to step in to stop this JUDGE! One can't help but wonder if this is the epitome of the DC government? Is Pearson what we should expect if DC is allowed a full US House Representative? For DC's sake, stop him now before he causes DCs reputation to fade even more!

Posted by: rhads | July 5, 2007 10:23 AM

Someone please get some psychiatric help for this man...he's obviously mentally ill!

Posted by: Terry | July 5, 2007 10:33 AM

At this point, can't the Chungs counter-sue for defamation of character, hell, how about malicious assault or something? Their lawyer should not pass go and should instantly file paperwork to sue for legal fees and an additional 54 million dollars for pain and suffering.

Seriously, this guy Pearson is an affront to all Lawyers, DC residents and people in general. He should be disbarred. Or maybe a little more serving...depantsed by a kid riding by on a skateboard or something.

Posted by: LV | July 5, 2007 10:35 AM

I think we should hand DC over to Iraq. Then, and only then, would someone be able to control Pearson via a bullet to his head.

Posted by: Pathetic DC | July 5, 2007 10:39 AM

Pearson would get along with the nut case who tried to argue he should be allowed to cut down trees on protected land since his children were deadly allergic to the nuts (though he had not thought to look at possible problems when he bought the land). They deserve each other.

Posted by: SK | July 5, 2007 10:42 AM

I have always been a strong advocate of statehood for the District. However, if Pearson continues to be employed I have to question if the DC government is even capable of home-rule, much less statehood.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 10:54 AM

I have always been a strong advocate of statehood for the District. However, if Pearson continues to be employed I have to question if the DC government is even capable of home-rule, much less statehood.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 10:54 AM

I have always been a strong advocate of statehood for the District. However, if Pearson continues to be employed I have to question if the DC government is even capable of home-rule, much less statehood.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 10:54 AM

To the person who said the judge should have thrown Pearson a bone and the Chungs should settle: No she shouldn't have, and they tried to settle. Pearson refused to accept the settlement (which was, if I recall, upwards of $10,000). Pearson was the one who made it an all or nothing game. Would he really have accepted a small judgment? Probably not, because he's delusional enough to believe he actually deserves $54 million. And some people, apparently, are delusional enough to believe he deserves anything other than a smack down.

Posted by: Courtney | July 5, 2007 10:57 AM

Perhaps Bar Reform and Mental Health advocacy groups could run a fundraiser for the Chungs as well as the corporate opportunists who are using this anomaly to push their so-called Tort-Reform agenda.

Posted by: Mike Licht | July 5, 2007 10:58 AM

The silliest thing about this is that everyone knows that the Chungs don't have anywhere near $54 million lying around in some slush fund awaiting disbursement for Pearson. What does he think he'll accomplish? He will NEVER see the kind of money he's seeking, and as a judge he KNOWS that. Let's say he did win the suit, and secured a judgment that the Chungs must pay him $54 million. Seems to me the Chungs would then just declare bankruptcy, and Pearson would collect probably something close to $12,000 from the bankruptcy estate. Gee, that number sounds a lot like what the Chungs offered MONTHS ago....

Posted by: DC | July 5, 2007 11:08 AM

I really think Pearson needs a full psychiatric evaluation. There's no way even the worst shyster would think they could extract $54 million from a small dry cleaning company. Something short circuited in his brain. This is beyond even a vendetta.

If a judge loses all sense of proportion as Pearson has, he needs to be removed. How can anyone trust any decisions he makes on the bench? I suspect there's going to be a deluge of demands that any cases he decided be re-examined.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 11:10 AM

Re: psych eval - that's an interesting idea. If Pearson were declared incompetent he wouldn't have standing to bring further actions.

Posted by: msj | July 5, 2007 11:22 AM

Whether Pearson is mentally-ill or now is besides the point. He's emblematic of a DC culture that compensates for inadequate capabilities by taking down those who've achieved success with a lot less. Plus a district court that placates that culture by allowing this joke. Can it be seriously argued that any other district court in the country would have entertained this?

Those who work in the DC judicial system should wear clown suits and there should be a new statue of a pair of pants in front of the DC court house.

Posted by: smokeclearing | July 5, 2007 11:22 AM

At what point does Pearson's actions constitute extortion? Can the Chung's counter sue Pearson for the damages he has caused the dry cleaners? A good counter suit could be the only thing that stops Pearson.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 11:25 AM

This makes me really sad for the Chungs. As a reader, I am annoyed by Pearson, but for them this is a nightmare that just won't end. I hope he can be stopped now. It's pretty clear that he won't pay any of thier fees.

Posted by: sad | July 5, 2007 11:27 AM

JD and Pathetic DC - since when does being overly litigious call for death? Good grief, people! I agree that "Judge" Pearson ought to be umemployed, disbarred, and banned from all dry-cleaners in the city, but shot for being crazy? Where are your conflict managment skills? Further, where are Pearson's?! Perhaps THAT is what we in D.C. need more of....

Posted by: Maritza | July 5, 2007 11:43 AM

Any body else concerned about Judge Pearson's animosity toward Asian Americans? Shouldn't somebody review his judgments and opinions to check for his racial bias?

Posted by: Concerned Asian-American | July 5, 2007 12:01 PM

Maritza, this man is clearly deranged and nothing is going to stop him. He is obsessed with what he thinks is right and he does not have the ability to comprehend the thought that he may be wrong or that he needs to stop. His rants and actions are a clear sign of danger and it will only be a matter of time when his words will turn into dangerous actions when he does get his way.

Posted by: Pathetic DC | July 5, 2007 12:02 PM

Anybody else concerned about Judge Pearson's animosity toward Asian Americans? Shouldn't somebody review his judgments and rulings to check for his racial bias?

Posted by: Concerned Asian-American | July 5, 2007 12:02 PM

I don't wish ill will on people but for Pearson I'll make an exception. He is a loathsome individual.

Posted by: South Loudounian | July 5, 2007 12:03 PM

To Maryland Mania who stated that "DC is full of idiots!"
I think that its pretty idiotic to lump an entire district together with one crazy man. There are plenty of 'idiots' in Maryland, too.

Posted by: DC Resident | July 5, 2007 12:08 PM

Agree completely South Loudounian.

Although, if I happened upon the good judge and he was on fire, I might contemplate putting the fire out ... if I had a shovel.

Posted by: SoMD | July 5, 2007 12:09 PM

"Pearson is representing the people of DC, huh? And the people of DC wonders why DC can't get statehood and have representation. DC is full of idiots!"
Considering the people that Maryland tend to elect I think we should pull their statehood and representation. If every state "full of idiots" had their rights stripped away then we would ALL still be British subjects. Remember Florida in the 2000 election, anyone?

Posted by: maryland isn't the land of saints, either | July 5, 2007 12:29 PM

DC Resident, at least Maryland has STATEHOOD! More than what I can say about DC........

Posted by: Maryland Mania | July 5, 2007 12:35 PM

On the off chance that his attempts to revive this ridiculous trial actually result in any payment whatsoever, a group of D.C. residents should immediately sue Pearson to ensure that his "compensation" is placed in a publicly managed trust fund that will disburse equally to all D.C. residents. He is masquerading this trial as a fight for all D.C. residents, though I'm sure he has no plans to spread the results of his bullying beyond his own pocket. He is a loathsome man who has clearly taken leave of his senses. I certainly hope the Chungs don't have to give him a cent, but if they do, we have the responsibility to ensure that the money doesn't end up sitting in the bank account of this "people's advocate."

Posted by: John | July 5, 2007 12:36 PM

In fact, he is representing DC residents, whether you like it or not. That's the basis of consumer protection laws in DC. This isn't about Pearson's mental capacity.
It's about a culture in DC which considers it a success to belittle those of other cultures who've succeeded with a lot less. There are a significant number of people who consider this a positive.
In fact, when he's considered a success by many after being unsuccessful for so long, how could you consider him crazy?

Posted by: smokeclearing | July 5, 2007 12:47 PM

I strongly suspect Pearson suffers from a mental illness. I've seen such behavior before - not in legal filings, but in the similar obsessive grinding away at pointless or impossible missions, working at all hours, totally convinced that victory and vindication is close at hand. So, what legal steps can be taken to stop someone who is not mentally competent from wasting time and resources of the legal system? When a deluded person persists in filing motions or suits, what can the courts do other than dismiss each action?

Posted by: Lolly Gag | July 5, 2007 12:48 PM

I surmise, postulate that the Judge may possibly unknowlingly be overreacting to his very real sense of helplessness and hopelessness as a minority in this land, so maybe we should try harder not to judge, but to understand.

Posted by: falconflight | July 5, 2007 1:29 PM

I surmise, postulate that the Judge may possibly unknowlingly be overreacting to his very real sense of helplessness and hopelessness as a minority in this land, so maybe we should try harder not to judge, but to understand.

Posted by: falconflight | July 5, 2007 1:29 PM

Can we locate Pearson's home address and start a campaign where everyone mails him a pair of pants? Say you're cleaning out your closet and instead of sending that dingier-than-the-rest pair of pants to Good Will, you mail it to Pearson. Stick then in a good sturdy envelope and off it goes.

I think I have a pair of paint-splattered shorts that don't fit anymore.

Posted by: Just North | July 5, 2007 1:38 PM

FalconFlight- this man went to law school and was(is/) a judge- so if there is a " very real sense of helplessness and hopelessness as a minority in this land" by this guy- then he definitely needs a reality check. I also think he seriously needs court ordered psychiatric help.

Posted by: Areyoukidding | July 5, 2007 1:45 PM

falconflight, your comment looks like you still have your hand held out waiting for that reparation money.

Posted by: Huh | July 5, 2007 1:46 PM

I feel sorry for Pearson. He's obviously mentally ill and my guess is he is suffering much more than the oriental couple. Maybe there should be a fund for Pearson instead of the orientals.

Posted by: question authority | July 5, 2007 1:50 PM


haha. yes, the money being collected for the Asian couple is misguided. The money should be raised for a statue of a pair of pants in front of the courthouse.

Posted by: smokeclearing | July 5, 2007 1:53 PM

falconflight, so it's ok for one minority to go apesh*t on another minority and endlessly make every attempt to ruin the other minority? Judge Minority didn't even have enough sensibility to him to negotiate a settlement out of court. One-way minority.

Posted by: Pot calling the kettle... | July 5, 2007 1:57 PM

.... and that statue shall be titled: The Pants of Justice and the American Way!

Posted by: Five Spot | July 5, 2007 2:01 PM

I am well aware Pearson refused settlement offers. That was before the adverse judgment. He's lost at trial, so the conditions are even more adverse. All he has in his quiver is the prospect of continued appeals that will likely prove unsuccessful. Also, if he persists in his appeals, rightly or wrongly, it could affect his reappointment. If the Chungs offered $2K, it would be cheaper than the costs of defending Pearson's appeals, it would give Pearson some ability to save face, and it would close this mess once and for all. There is little point in trying to recover legal fees from Pearson, as he hasn't got it, and he may become unemployed. Pearson would be insane to reject a legitimate offer of settlement -- begging the question as to his present sanity. What clearly is the wrong path is for defense counsel to try and beat Pearson over the head with the trial court judgment -- he's not going away, he sees the situation in a fundamentally different fashion with the Chungs as essentially evil, and he has a right to file motions for reconsideration and appeal. [Parties that lose at trial regularly appeal on one hand and try to negotiate a settlement for a lesser amount on the other.] Which makes me wonder whether the Chungs' lawyer is out to try to make more money by forcing Pearson to file appeals that just result in more billable hours to be paid by the Chungs. . .

Posted by: RL | July 5, 2007 2:55 PM

Actually, it should be titled:

"The part-Suit of Justive and the American Way."

Posted by: Statue | July 5, 2007 2:56 PM

I agree that Pearson has taken this way too far, but I think his INITIAL argument was fair. If you have a Satisfaction Guaranteed sign in your business, you need to live up to that guarantee. They lost his pants and wouldn't replace them and refused to accept that the ones they had given them were wrong. Again, this case has gone WAY too far, but dry cleaners should be held accountable for mistakes. At least for the replacement cost of lost items.

Posted by: VA Girl | July 5, 2007 2:57 PM

This man (Pearson) has obviously gone around the bend in his rabid pursuit of justice for 'all Washington area consumers.' However, I suspect that the attention he continues to receive in the media is at this point only feeding his mania. He's probably managed to convince himself that he's some sort of champion who must endure the slings and arrows of an ungrateful populace that is simply too ignorant to recognize his fight for the greater good. I think we should all stop giving him a forum. Ignore him -- maybe he'll go away.

Posted by: bobbyb | July 5, 2007 3:02 PM

VA Girl, the Chungs offered a generous settlement to Pearson but he refused.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 3:03 PM

DC is a city chock-full of tort/personal injury claimants and Pearson is no different. Thats one reason why I never drive in DC. I'm Asian-American and I imagine that if ever I got in a minor traffic accident, DC jury pool would automatically say that I'm at fault and I'm liable for $200,000.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 3:32 PM

DC Resident, at least Maryland has STATEHOOD! More than what I can say about DC........

Posted by: Maryland Mania | July 5, 2007 12:35 PM

---------------------

What, are you 12? Wow, it's way past time to grow up, Maryland Mania.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 3:37 PM

I think that it is telling that no party has stepped up to end this obvious abuse of the legal system. Surely there must be some means to do so, the judges, the courts, the bar association, someone.

Posted by: Stick | July 5, 2007 3:54 PM

look I know this all sounds crazy but some friends and I are actually going to the fundraiser. I want to see the Chung's and rumor has it Pearson may be crashing and if there's a blow up I want to be there to witness it. Plus this family is good DC peeps and why not throw a little cash their way. Can you imagine being thrust into this without knowing English?? Any way I can impact this is to help out the fam some. And maybe freaks like Judge Roy will realize they can't continue to abuse immigrants with our legal sytem.

Posted by: Sam L | July 5, 2007 4:04 PM

look I know this all sounds crazy but some friends and I are actually going to the fundraiser. I want to see the Chung's and rumor has it Pearson may be crashing and if there's a blow up I want to be there to witness it. Plus this family is good DC peeps and why not throw a little cash their way. Can you imagine being thrust into this without knowing English?? Any way I can impact this is to help out the fam some. And maybe freaks like Judge Roy will realize they can't continue to abuse immigrants with our legal sytem.

Posted by: Sam L | July 5, 2007 4:04 PM

look I know this all sounds crazy but some friends and I are actually going to the fundraiser. I want to see the Chung's and rumor has it Pearson may be crashing and if there's a blow up I want to be there to witness it. Plus this family is good DC peeps and why not throw a little cash their way. Can you imagine being thrust into this without knowing English?? Any way I can impact this is to help out the fam some. And maybe freaks like Judge Roy will realize they can't continue to abuse immigrants with our legal sytem.

Posted by: Sam L | July 5, 2007 4:04 PM

Love the "Drive By" comment!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 4:10 PM

All this publicity will serve Pearson well when his appeals versus the Chungs are finally exhausted and he can devote his energies to becoming DC's first Congressman.

Posted by: athea | July 5, 2007 4:16 PM

i really wish pearson would go away quickly. this case is just idiotic on its face and he's really making an A out of himself. the chungs tried to settle several times and he said no. . .how many times does he have to be laughed out of court to get the message!? karma is a trip!

Posted by: The Warner Sister | July 5, 2007 4:24 PM

I have an idea. Let's find out what Pearson's address is and send him pants. Yes, send him every pair of pants that you do not wish to have anymore. Maybe he'll get the message that his lawsuit is silly.

Posted by: Woodbridge | July 5, 2007 4:28 PM

"Which makes me wonder whether the Chungs' lawyer is out to try to make more money by forcing Pearson to file appeals that just result in more billable hours to be paid by the Chungs. . "

Now that's a theory I hadn't heard. The Chungs' are forcing Loser to file appeals. How clever.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 5:02 PM

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not exactly sure how the D.C. legal system works, but I actually think RL is right. Pearson should have won the case - but, if this is possible in the D.C. courts, the amount he won should have been reduced by the judge to a tiny "token" amount. That way, the Chungs wouldn't be out very much (more) money than they already are, but Pearson couldn't bring the case back to court. Right now the Chungs may have "won," but their lawyers are still on retainer, and they're looking at an appeal that could double their costs, or more. Even if they end up suing Pearson, they're unlikely to see a dime out of him.

Methinks a rebuke of Pearson from the bench and a public acknowledgement from the judge that it was only to keep the Chungs from having greater damage done to them would have been a better way to go. As it stands, the judge left it open for Pearson to continue with his shenanigans.

Posted by: Washingtonian in California | July 5, 2007 5:22 PM

As a DC resident I don't want statehood if the DC government keeps Roy Pearson on the payroll. He makes 100 grand a year. What is he doing for his $2,000 per week?

Posted by: jw | July 5, 2007 5:39 PM

has this guy been checked by St. Elizabeths?

Posted by: JIM K | July 5, 2007 6:06 PM

since when does being overly litigious call for death?
"overly litigious" talk about understatement. He's guilty of crimes against humanity at this point.
I strongly suspect Pearson suffers from a mental illness. I've seen such behavior before...
yes, yes, I also remember George Costanza on "Seinfeld"
RL, in any sane society, Pearson would be imprisoned for his behavior. While you may be correct in your interpretation of the law and the workings of the system, so was the Dred Scott SCOTUS.

Posted by: dweeb | July 5, 2007 6:13 PM

Lest any of you forget--the Chungs tried to settle this case at least three times, up to about $12,000, and Pantsboy said no all three times. Then he turns around and says, I want $54 million?

Suing for millions of dollars over a pair of lost pants and what he deems poor customer service? Dude...it's called taking a couple hundred dollars (or less) and buying another pair of pants, you nimrod. This was an overblown small claims court case, pure and simple.

Pearson is an embarrassment not only to the District of Columbia, but to the entire legal profession as a whole.

Posted by: vcthree | July 5, 2007 6:13 PM

No, Pearson shouldn't have won. The judge said perhaps Pearson was confused about which article of clothing he had actually dropped off at the cleaners. And the Chungs did try to pay him several times for the cost of the pants, to avoid this lawsuit.


And even if that were not the case and the pants really were lost, in my consumer opinion, mistakes happen.

Do what most of us do - take our business elsewhere. Write a letter of complaint to the BBB. Pearson should have taken one of the first three settlements if he was so upset over it. The judge was right - he was unreasonable.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062602440.html?tid=informbox

Posted by: eye roller | July 5, 2007 6:16 PM

Typical of the unqualified and incapable people that the "old school" DC government hires. The interview panel must have been recruits from the zoo.

Posted by: Scratching Fleas | July 5, 2007 6:49 PM

I'm lost on the suggestion above that "If the Chungs offered $2K, it would be cheaper than the costs of defending Pearson's appeals, it would give Pearson some ability to save face, and it would close this mess once and for all." Why should the Chungs, who appear to have made numerous efforts to resolve the problem, have to help Mr. Pearson save face? He created an unrealistic claim ($54M for missing pants, and for non-provision of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" nor "One Day Service" is not realistic, no matter how "legal" it may be). Mr. Pearson would save more face by simply being "big enough" to agree that the case has gone far enough (he has 60 pair of pants, probably enough to last through several court cases brought before his bench), and that he'll drop the case in the best interest of all Washingtonians. My question, however, concerns his claim of lawyer fees, despite his serving as his own counsel; he claims he should be paid between $375 and $425 an hour for legal services, and that he worked approximately 1,400 hours on this case. Despite my not understanding how any lawyer could justify working that much for a pair of pants, thirty-two 40-hour weeks, when did he find time to perform his judicial services, for which he's being paid approximately $100,000 annually by the city? Should the city be questioning his working on his personal issues during his regular work hours?

Posted by: Dungarees@gmail.com | July 5, 2007 6:58 PM

"Although, if I happened upon the good judge and he was on fire, I might contemplate putting the fire out ... if I had a shovel."

Might I suggest using that shovel to deliver heavy blows to the head?

Posted by: Crack the nut | July 5, 2007 9:33 PM

I used to live in DC so I'll throw in 2 cents here. Up here in the Garden State, we call what Pearson is doing at this point a "Motion for Reconsideration" in the courts. It's not an appeal but is basically asking the trial court judge to change his/her mind based on any legal reasoning the filing party can come up with after trial. In my years as a lawyer in New Jersey, I've never seen one of those granted. The opposing party usually doesn't even bother to file an opposition brief to them because they know the judge will automatically deny the motion and the last thing a judge wants is more reading after their decision is being questioned by a bozo who thinks they know more about the law than the judge.

Just North: Regarding the pants-mailing campaign, Pearson's home address has been posted numerous times in other comments on past articles. Hunt around on this website or look on another web forum and you'll find it. His phone number has been posted too, but logic suggests he has since unplugged his phone.

Posted by: NJ lawyer | July 5, 2007 9:54 PM

NJ lawyer is right. This is no big deal.

The comments between the DC crowd and Maryland crowd was funny to read about "idiots".

One good thing about our State of Florida is that the age of a large part of our population (Snowbirds who retire here from say D.C. & Maryland for example) are at that age that they forgot they were idiots.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 5, 2007 10:16 PM

I surmise and postulate that Mr. Pearson should consider suicide. I would contribute $5 for flowers!

Posted by: Another DC Joke | July 5, 2007 10:50 PM

Pearson must know Don Quiote...or at least Marion Barry. Along with its high crime rate,its people lie these that will forever keep DC from statehood. thank God.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 12:59 AM

RL probably thinks we should toss Osama bin Laden a bone too and then maybe he would go away. It worked with Hitler at Munich, didn't it? Oh no?

Hitler's reaction was similar to Pearson's. He was furious that the French and British gave him what he asked for; what he really wanted was war. Same with Pearson. He thinks he has found a career path to riches and fame.

RL is totally wrong, assuming (s)he is serious at all. The only way to stop nonsense like this is to fight back. The time for generous settlement offers is long past.

Does anybody know if Pearson has done any real work for the taxpayers of DC in the last year?

Posted by: a real lawyer | July 6, 2007 11:32 AM

I'd like to get ahold of Pearsons jobs description. Does he have to work with the public at his job?

Posted by: Asking | July 6, 2007 11:49 AM

Those of you saying to fight back are totally missing the point. The harm -- the only harm -- Pearson can do to the Chungs is economic. Fighting back harms the Chungs, because fighting back costs them money. You want a Pyhrric victory, fine, but it isn`t your money. If you want the harm to the Chungs to stop, you want their hemorrhaging of cash to stop, and the only way to do THAT is to stop giving Pearson means to cost them money. This judgment gave Pearson the means to file a complete new round of appeals that will be costly to the Chungs.

Monetary sanctions against Pearson are pointless, as he appears judgment proof, i.e., he doesn't have any money. Even threatening them simply encourages Pearson to dig in his heels. Getting him kicked out as an ALJ simply deprives him of a livelihood, which makes him judgment proof in the future (he evidently has few assets now).

$2K is not a generous settlement offer. It is MUCH less than the cost to file an opposing motion to an appeal brief. It is one-sixth of what they offered before trial. It reflects the reality that he lost at trial, he will probably lose after appeals, and after all, he started out saying $1500 for a new suit would be OK.

As for Pearson's riches and fame, puh-leese. The man could not get a job in any law firm -- ANY firm -- in the District. It would be like hiring OJ to be the GM of your football team. If he cannot get a job with DC, his legal career in this area is kaput. And that was a fact pretty much whatever the judgment of the court.

Again, my initial point was that the best outcome for the Chungs would have been a small judgment in favor of Pearson. A trial judge could have easily found, based on the record, that the pants were in fact lost, that the satisfaction guaranteed sign was subject to a reasonableness standard, and that the DC consumer protection measure of damages, upon which Pearson based most of his $54 MM claim, did not apply in this situation. Pearson still could and would have appealed, but his range of appeals would have been severely limited, and could be rebutted easily and cheaply. I'm sorry for those of you unable or unwilling to look past your blind animosity for Pearson and think this matter through. I think more posters hate Pearson than feel for the Chungs [said by someone who thinks they did, in fact, lose his pants and try to switch them out].

Posted by: RL | July 6, 2007 1:17 PM

Pearson - if Pearson is broke then where is he getting money to pay rent/mortgage, get food, and file these stupid suits in court?

Posted by: Alan | July 6, 2007 1:26 PM

RL -

Yes, the pants went MIA for a few days, but Pearson was never able to prove that the pants Chungs found later weren't the pants he originally brought in. They don't match the jacket, but so what?

Also, he dropped all his claims for the 'lost' pants. His current suit is only based on the signs. His claims for fraud, therefore, do not merit any money. Didn't ask for money for the lost pants, so won't get it, either.

Posted by: lunatic land | July 6, 2007 2:09 PM

Pants don't match the jacket Pearson brought to the court. How do you know he didn't just randomly picked a jacket to bring in? How do you know he's forgotten what pants he brought in? He's got 60 pairs of pants, and his son had been borrowing his suits here and there.

Posted by: lunatic land | July 6, 2007 2:12 PM

I don't think anyone getting 100k a year is broke!

Posted by: vmc | July 6, 2007 2:21 PM

Alan, Pearson is on the DC government payroll making $100K per year.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 2:43 PM

maybe the Chung's lawyer should do something unimaginable and work for them PRO BONO.


After all, I am sure after this is all said and done the Chung's lawyer will get quite a lot of fame and publicity from this case.

Pearson is done....toast. He's not ever going to get another job. Pearson is screwing himself and the Chungs. He's a drowning man who is trying to pull everyone into the water with him.


Posted by: Pearson-the-idiot | July 6, 2007 4:19 PM

I think we can all agree that this Pearson character is ridiculous. Let's not rest till his is forever banned from the judiciary. I for one, will devote my free-time, money, and will work relentlessly to make sure he is as destitute as he is making this immigrant family. I swear that he is going down.

Posted by: Cranium | July 6, 2007 4:57 PM

"Pearson-the-idiot" stated:

"maybe the Chung's lawyer should do something unimaginable and work for them PRO BONO"

Well whether or not the Chung's attorney would do this pro bono is totally up to him and he has every right not to do so. The attorney has the right to make a living and receive remuneration for the work he has done. The lawyer is under no moral obligation to satisfy the expectations of other that he should work for free. Slavery ended sometime ago. Besides as a lawyer myself, I don't recall when the plumber, electrician, carpenter, car salesman, or other say "don't worry about it for I'm doing it pro bono".

When you hire someone to do a job, they should get paid for the work done for the laborer is worthy of his wages. If the worker later waives his pay, that is for him to decide. No one else has the right to ask or suggest that he do so, i.e. work for free.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 6, 2007 5:56 PM

If you think Pearson should be disbarred, then contact the D.C. Bar whose web address is:

http://www.dcbar.org/

Monica D. Potter
Email: PotterM@dcobc.org
Case Manager
Office of Bar Counsel
515 5th Street, NW
Building A, Room 117
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 638-1501
(202) 638-0862 -- Fax

Couple of other DC Bar email addresses:

ethics@dcbar.org
kmazzaferri@dcbar.org

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 6, 2007 8:45 PM

Interesting Background

Excerpt below taken from: http://www.shoutpost.com/read/witqueen/9684/suing-your-way-to-the-american-dream

Professional History

Pearson's undergradate degree was earned at Lake Forest College and J.D. at Northwestern University School of Law. Upon graduation, he first taught at, then became assistant director of, the clinical program at the Georgetown University Law Center. Pearson passed the bar for the District of Columbia in 1978 and bar for theU.S. Supreme Court in 1985. (uh oh)

From 1978 to 2002, Pearson was the attourney for the Washington Neighborhood Legal Services Program, serving as the Assistant Director for Legal Operations from 1989 onwards. From 2003 to 2005, he was a contract hearing examiner for the Office of Police Complaints, and on May 2nd, 2005, Pearson was appointed as an administrative law judge for Washington D.C. (kind of stagnated on his way to the Supreme Court now hasn't he?)

Accusations of Corruption

In 2004 Mr. Pearson was accused of corruption for giving his son's girlfriend a city job - after which it was revealed Mr. Pearson was actually sleeping with his son's girlfriend on regular occasion. During his tenure as an administrative judge for Washington DC he was accused of smoking crack cocaine in the courthouse washroom, an accusation supported by camera video that later went "missing" from the evidence room Mr. Pearson had access to himself.

IF the allegations and/or "accusations of Corruption" are true, then I don't know which is worse:

Smoking crack in the courthouse restroom;

Stealing the evidence from the evidence locker; or

Screwing your son's girlfriend on "regular occassion".

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 6, 2007 8:48 PM

Did he have several dozen tons of crack stuffed down those pants?

You do realize that a "token amount in favor of Pearson" robs the Chungs of compensation for legal fees, right? Oh poor Pearson with his measly 100K a year.

Posted by: J | July 6, 2007 9:02 PM

RL stated:

"Again, my initial point was that the best outcome for the Chungs would have been a small judgment in favor of Pearson."

NOT SO...

"J" raises an excellent point when he stated: "You do realize that a "token amount in favor of Pearson" robs the Chungs of compensation for legal fees, right?"

That is CORRECT. If Pearson had prevailed even for a "token amount", then Pearson would have prevailed in his lawsuit. The Chung's would have LOST all right to seek Attorney fees from Pearson for Pearson was the prevailing party.

RL stated:

"A trial judge could have easily found, based on the record, that the pants were in fact lost, that the satisfaction guaranteed sign was subject to a reasonableness standard, and that the DC consumer protection measure of damages, upon which Pearson based most of his $54 MM claim, did not apply in this situation."

Dear RL it is NOT what a judge could have found from the record it is what a judge DOES FIND from the record. A judge is to adjudicate the facts as those facts are presented which becomes the record and apply the law. A judge is NOT supposed to "fashion a remedy" twisting the facts to come up with a desired result.

Had the facts and law supported Pearson which they did not, then the judge should have found for Pearson. That was not the case here. The facts and the law were against Pearson and the Judge had to rule accordingly.

RL stated:

"Pearson still could and would have appealed, but his range of appeals would have been severely limited, and could be rebutted easily and cheaply."

Pearson can appeal regardless. The variance in the costs of the appeal, including attorney fees, in the scenario you imagine and the reality on the ground as the case stands now is negligible.

If Pearson files an appeal & loses (he will), the Chungs will also be entitled to attorney fees and costs that arise from the appeal as well.

Perhaps Pearson is judgment proof at this time of his life, but if Pearson has a home or acquires a home, then the Chungs can file a judgment lien arising from the costs & attorney fees. Pearson will have to satisfy the lien before he can sell his house. The Chungs can also garnish is wages.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 6, 2007 10:06 PM

FL Lawyer, you're just repeating what we already know. Do us a favor and keep your practice in America's wang.

Posted by: MD/DC/VA | July 6, 2007 10:29 PM

"Eye roller" said Pearson should have taken his business elsewhere. The Chungs' lawyer said that before as well. He said Pearson should have used the "free market system" and gone to another dry cleaner. That definitely would have been more rational. We've all had experiences with less-than-perfect customer service. What would happen to the justice system if we all filed multi-million dollar lawsuits whenever this happened?

Posted by: Laurel | July 6, 2007 10:29 PM

Um, has anybody ever considered the problem with having more lawyers than all of western Europe combined? I think this case is a great example. In this country, we TRY to use the law to make change instead of plain old common sense. Only in a society driven by laws, more laws, and even more laws supposedly designed to protect its citizens would this trial be allowed to come to pass. Why don't any of the other developed nations have the same problems we do with excessive and ridiculous litigation?

Posted by: bumblefreak | July 6, 2007 11:05 PM

Dear MD/DC/VA:

You stated: "FL Lawyer, you're just repeating what we already know. Do us a favor and keep your practice in America's wang."

Apparently, I've struck a chord. Are you Pearson's mother?

Actually you have not demonstrated that you know anything. If you did, you would have responded to RL's post and brought up an excellent point raised by "J".

Secondly, MD/DC/VA you need to get over your fixation for the penis...it is not healthy.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 7, 2007 12:02 AM

a real lawyer, comparing Pearson to Hitler and bin Laden is going a bit overboard. The guy is an obsessive-compulsive crazyface, not a genocidal dictator or terrorist. No one's died here. (Besides, one of Pearson's witnesses compared the Chungs to Nazis, so let's try to keep ourselves above that...)

FL lawyer, you're right that Pearson winning even a token amount would waive the Chungs' right to sue for legal fees. But Pearson would never, ever pay those fees anyway. He hasn't paid the $12,000 in legal fees that he was ordered to pay his ex-wife; what makes you think he would pay what will probably amount to several hundred thousand in fees to the Chungs?

Posted by: Washingtonian in California | July 7, 2007 3:18 AM

RE Pearson-the-idiot's comment that "He's [Pearson] not ever going to get another job." Perhaps not true: isn't McDonald's (Burger King, Wendy's, etc) always hiring? Here's PantsBoy's chance to "guarentee satisfaction" to customers when he's hired to run a cash register and sling burgers and fries to the public.

Posted by: Chris | July 7, 2007 6:50 AM

Dear Washingtonian in California:

You stated: "But Pearson would never, ever pay those fees anyway. He hasn't paid the $12,000 in legal fees that he was ordered to pay his ex-wife; what makes you think he would pay what will probably amount to several hundred thousand in fees to the Chungs?"

True Pearson would not voluntarily pay the fees and I operate under no delusion in knowing that getting a judgment for money is not the same as collecting the money. I saw one report were the attorney for the Chung's is asking not for several hundred thousand in fees, but in the amount of $83,000.00. I do not know if the $83,000.00 amount requested by the Chung's attorney is the actual total amount of legal fees incurred by the Chungs, the actual total balance less a voluntary reduction or partial waiver by the Chung's attorney of legal fees incurred, or the balance of legal fees owed by the Chungs with a setoff of monies collected by the fundraiser.

In any case, the Chungs will receive a judgment for attorney fees and if Pearson happens to accumulate some monies and/or assets as an attorney, then the Chungs at least have the option to try to get some of their money back via the filing of liens with the execution thereof and/or garnishment.

Based on Pearson's reported actions to date, it would not surprise me if Pearson filed bankruptcy.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 7, 2007 7:46 AM

Does anyone else besides me wonder whether "RL" is Pearson in disguise?

I have no pity on Pearson if he is unable to get another job. Fueled by megalomania, this misanthrope brought all of this upon himself. If he gets disbarred, it's his own fault.

I wonder if he has some kind of personality disorder. He needs to seek medical attention. Or move in with Marion Barry.

Posted by: Frankie | July 7, 2007 1:10 PM

At this point I think someone should criminally charge this guy with... something. Anything. Just make him stop.

Posted by: J | July 8, 2007 1:47 AM

Frankie, some of the other bloggers, myself included, were wondering the same thing. RL posts are typical of Pearson's never-ending rants. Unfortunately, there are one or two other bloggers that have fallen for his quest to continually seek attention.

Last I heard, he is still employed but he is only tasked with non-judicial administrative duties (and still getting paid $100k/year for doing so). Tsk-tsk.

Posted by: Unbeliveable | July 8, 2007 9:17 AM

Someone needs to lay the smackdown on his candy ass.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 4:13 PM

Posted by: | July 8, 2007 04:13 PM stated:

"Someone needs to lay the smackdown on his candy ass."

Well then NO WONDER people get addicted to crack...it's made of CANDY!

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 8, 2007 5:44 PM

I'm not really a lawyer. You people are so stupid that you thought I was a lawyer and you played right along.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 8, 2007 8:48 PM

I agree with previous posters regarding Christopher Manning's 'fundraiser' for the Chungs. With all the publicity this case has garnered, his firm could stand to do this work pro bono for Christ's sake. I guess that's lawyers for you.

Posted by: Ashamed of DC | July 8, 2007 9:02 PM

Well I've got an "enemy". Someone posted the following:

"I'm not really a lawyer. You people are so stupid that you thought I was a lawyer and you played right along.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 8, 2007 08:48 PM"

I did NOT post that. It is a shame that anybody can use your signature on this site.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ip address for the above fraudulent post is the same as MD/DC/VA. But then again this is pure conjecture on my part.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 8, 2007 9:08 PM

This Pearson person is a special kind of stupid

Posted by: Bullseye | July 8, 2007 9:46 PM

The only court Pearson belongs in is a tennis court!!

Posted by: sodumbitsfunny | July 9, 2007 1:28 AM

Ashamed of DC, I agree. Chungs lawyer is just along for the ride and to stuff his pockets as much as he can. Just like all other lawyers.

Posted by: No Charity There | July 9, 2007 8:16 AM

I agree with previous posters regarding Christopher Manning's 'fundraiser' for the Chungs. With all the publicity this case has garnered, his firm could stand to do this work pro bono for Christ's sake. I guess that's lawyers for you.

Posted by: Ashamed of DC | July 8, 2007 09:02 PM

"Ashamed of DC, I agree. Chungs lawyer is just along for the ride and to stuff his pockets as much as he can. Just like all other lawyers."

Posted by: No Charity There | July 9, 2007 08:16 AM

I wonder if these two posters ever returned their paychecks to their employer? Or if self-employed, perhaps in the building industry, installed a bathroom or kitchen, and then said "no problem" we're doing it for free; particularly doing so when the homeowner has an expectation that they were "entitled" to the labor of others without remuneration.

The Chungs got a lawyer who worked hard for them and the Chungs got the results they would not have been able to get on their own. I'm sure the Chungs don't think of their attorney as "Ashamed of DC" & "No Charity There" think of attorneys generally. Sure attorney's do some pro bono work. Some do no pro bono work at all which is their right. Others do no pro bono, but instead contribute some of their income to churches and charities of their choice.

"Ashamed of DC" & "No Charity There" both have the mentality that people should get a free ride. A mentality of "entitlement" which is probably very common in Washington, D.C.

Hey if you don't like attorneys and/or don't want to pay for one, then great. Do the work for yourself. Defend yourself and/or prosecute your own claim. The law gives you the RIGHT to represent yourself. No one forces you to hire an attorney. But if you hire one, then remember the "hiring of an attorney" is not a welfare program.

So let me repost here what I wrote earlier about the topic. Perhaps reading it for the second time, they might better comprehend it:

Well whether or not the Chung's attorney would do this pro bono is totally up to him and he has every right not to do so. The attorney has the right to make a living and receive remuneration for the work he has done. The lawyer is under no moral obligation to satisfy the expectations of other that he should work for free. Slavery ended sometime ago. Besides as a lawyer myself, I don't recall when the plumber, electrician, carpenter, car salesman, or other say "don't worry about it for I'm doing it pro bono".

When you hire someone to do a job, they should get paid for the work done for the laborer is worthy of his wages. If the worker later waives his pay, that is for him to decide. No one else has the right to ask or suggest that he do so, i.e. work for free.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 8:37 AM

Roy L. Pearson Jr.
3012 Pineview Ct NE, Washington, DC 20018
202) 269-1191

Posted by: Send him pants. | July 9, 2007 8:54 AM

I did post the prior post[Posted by: | July 9, 2007 08:37 AM]and just forgot to put my name in.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 9, 2007 8:57 AM

Doesn't Rule 11 exist in this jurisdiction? And how does this not invoke it?

Posted by: Gary | July 9, 2007 9:26 AM

For those wondering what pearson has been doing with his time, since his appointment to be an administrative judge in DC (which was the "new job" for which he was getting his pants done in the first place), the court has put him on administrative leave with pay. so basically, he's been sitting on his @$$ doing nothing, and collecting 100k/yr.

also, as much suffering as they have gone through, i don't know if the chungs will ever file suit against pearson for defamation, etc. korean culture has an element of "let bygones be bygones" in it, and while this is a huge bygone, it's much better in their mind to just let this be over.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 9:33 AM

When doctors, plumbers, dentists, electricians, dry-cleaners, etc..., start doing things for free for me, then I'll consider doing pro bono work for them. Till, then, pay the piper and quit your whining.

Posted by: X | July 9, 2007 10:03 AM

Not only should he have to pay for their lawyers.. he should -have- to pay for emotional pain and suffering to the Chungs.

He is -such- an ass.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 11:33 AM

Doctors Without Borders, plumbers and carpenters that volunteer for Habitat For Humanity, dentists that volunteers at clinics. Need I say more? But, of course, the ever so insightful FL Lawyer will have his two cents to counter.

Posted by: I volunteer | July 9, 2007 11:51 AM

Two words:
Mentally Retarded.

Posted by: Beckto | July 9, 2007 12:11 PM

I think Chungs' attorneys are getting more than money in this case... I'm sure he can give at least a some percentage off on the legal fees in exchange for all the media attention he's getting.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 12:13 PM

"Posted by: I volunteer | July 9, 2007 11:51 AM" stated:

"Doctors Without Borders, plumbers and carpenters that volunteer for Habitat For Humanity, dentists that volunteers at clinics. Need I say more? But, of course, the ever so insightful FL Lawyer will have his two cents to counter."

FREE Advice: Take a reading comprehension course for it is obvious you don't understand the point I was making; you might just find such a course offered for FREE!

Charity, i.e. pro bono by lawyers, medical care by doctors, dental care by dentists, and shelter by carpenters and plumbers, is a provision of help or relief to the poor which is freely given. Charity is a gift and not a right of others to demand either for themselves or others.

If reading comprehension is not your issue, then I would further advise that you find a psychiatrist, who is charitably offering his/her services, to help you work out your "welfare" and/or "entitlement mentality" issues.

You may just find out sister/brother (whichever the case may be) that the world does not owe you or another a living nor does a lawyer OWE YOU or another his/her services as a "freebie" regardless how special you think yourself or others to be.

Again charity is a gift. You and/or others have no right to demand a gift.

As to the two cents...don't worry about it...I'll "write it off"...consider this a "gift".

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 9, 2007 12:51 PM

Take some brief action to get this bloodsucker off our payroll at over 100K per year. You know this fat, lazy cat does very little every day except for milking everything he can out of the system. Unethical and immoral people (not to mention crack smokers) have a way of staying in DC govt jobs somehow. Pearson fits this DC profile to a tee but we must let them know the taxpayers don't agree.

Send a note to DC Mayor Fenty of your opinion: Adrian.fenty@dc.gov

More govt. contacts and more follies of the bloodsucker:

http://victimsoflaw.net/JudgeRoyPearson.htm

Posted by: Trevor | July 9, 2007 1:17 PM

My God, do lawyers in Florida have nothing to do with their time? FL Lawyer, lighten up - take a Prozac. The Chungs have not asked for pro bono service. It is merely a suggestion from others. You are a sour and confused individual.

Posted by: I volunteer | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM

Posted by: I volunteer | July 9, 2007 01:18 PM stated:

"My God, do lawyers in Florida have nothing to do with their time? FL Lawyer, lighten up - take a Prozac. The Chungs have not asked for pro bono service. It is merely a suggestion from others. You are a sour and confused individual."

First of all I'm semi-retired, are you?

Of course the Chungs haven't asked for pro bono services. Nobody has said or suggested that they did.

I was right...you don't have the ability to fully comprehend the discussion taking place on this thread. Again I'm sure you can find a FREE reading comprehension course.

If I appear soured to you, then perhaps you have a problem with perception.

Confused? I don't think so...

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 9, 2007 2:22 PM

idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 2:49 PM

chill out... Roy Pearson might sue you guys for taking attention away from him... (Chung's attorney would probably contact you for his service to secure a long term job)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 3:21 PM

Lawyer threatens FLA little league over ejection: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/07/Hillsborough/Makings_of_a_major_le.shtml

Posted by: RL | July 9, 2007 6:46 PM

"I'm semi-retired, are you?"

Which means this guy doesn't have enough of a clientele to keep him busy. Any lawyer with a good reputation wouldn't have time on their hands to continously blog throughout the day. He would either have clients ringing his phone or colleagues knocking on his door seeking advice.

Posted by: Not Quite Cochran | July 9, 2007 7:11 PM

Maybe FL residents aren't busy filing frivolous law suits like in DC... Ha!

Posted by: grow up | July 9, 2007 7:44 PM

grow up, you get your rocks off with those twelve and a half words? Why don't you mosey on over to the neighborhood retirement community and find an elderly woman who you can scam.

Posted by: Not Quite Cochran | July 9, 2007 9:34 PM

grow up, go suck a dick. It'll make you feel better.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 10:05 PM

Maybe FL residents aren't busy filing frivolous law suits like in DC... Ha!

Posted by: grow up | July 9, 2007 07:44 PM

Growup - Now that was funny...

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 9, 2007 11:45 PM

Well this is my last post on this thread for it appears the degenerates (friends of Pearson probably) have taken over the asylum. Any subsequent post purportedly from "FL Lawyer" will not be from this FL Lawyer.

But I'll be back to a new thread if and when Marc Fisher publishes a new article on this topic if just for the purpose of celebrating an award of attorney fees to the Chungs or the loss by Pearson of an appointment to an administrative Judge position.

To "Not Quite Cochran" if you had a job and collecting a monthly check from the government or selling dope on the street corner is not considered a job, then you would have the right to enjoy the fruits of retirement and/or semi-retirement.

However, I understand the mayoral offices of the Honorable Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr., considers collecting a monthly check from the government or selling dope on the street corner as worthy employment.

Posted by: FL Lawyer | July 10, 2007 12:09 AM

FL Lawyer,
sorry to see you go, I actually enjoyed reading your posts.

Posted by: upnorth | July 10, 2007 2:11 AM

A.M.F.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 9:35 AM

FL lawyer - I am also sorry to see you go. I also enjoyed your insight and analysis on the topic.

I agree this thread has degraded.... It's exactly like these over sensitive reactions (taken too far personally) that drove Pearson to file the law suit.

I hope the Chungs do get legal fees awarded and this craziness ends. I hope Pearson gets disbarred, so that he won't be able to represent himself anymore. He won't have money to hire a lawyer!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 10:37 AM

To the individual who claims it is unfair to sue this Pearson idiot for legal fees, I say too bad. This guy almost bankrupted the Chung's and as the article made clear, the defense drained their savings, all in the cause of any obviously frivolous lawsuit. Forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to this moron. If I had my way, not only would this idiot have to pay the legal fees, he would also be slapped with some sort of punitive judgment.
And to FalconFlight, please quit using Pearson's skin color as an excuse for his outrageous behavior; it's an insult to all law-abiding and sensible individuals, minority or not.

Posted by: Jim | July 10, 2007 3:25 PM

THis case shows why our cival court system needs to be a looser pays system, the looser pays all court costs and in the case of a frivolus suit, all legal fees of the defendant. Too many people file pawsuits they know they can not win hoping for a settlement since settling is often cheeper than winning to the defendant.

Also, stop the practice lawyers use of, "I only get paid if you win".

Posted by: wayne | July 11, 2007 8:39 AM

July 11, 2007

Taken From: http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/07/judges_jodhpurs.php

Judge's Jodhpurs, Pearson's Pants, Suer's Slacks

Just happened across the motion for attorney's fees from the Chungs, the D.C. drycleaners who were sued by an administrative law judge, Roy Pearson, for $54 million because they supposedly lost his pants. Pretty good writing...for a lawyer.

Since the filing of his frivolous Original Complaint, Plaintiff has consistently sought to harass and intimidate Defendants and unnecessarily drive up Defendants' litigation costs in what should have been a very simple small claims court matter. From his outrageous demands for compensation (initially over $50,000 to then over $100,000 to then over $67,000,000 to finally over $54,000,000) to his amazingly voluminous discovery and motions practice to his unconscionable continual disregard for the Court's Orders, Plaintiff's motives have been clear - quite simply, to harass Defendants and to attempt to utterly destroy their lives.

Plaintiff, an administrative law judge and attorney, should have known better.

Simply put, Defendants ask the Court to compensate the parties who have truly suffered throughout this bizarre odyssey - the Chungs. Although the Court's complete defense verdict vindicates the Chungs legally, it certainly does not erase the emotional and financial toll this litigation has taken on them.

The Chungs are asking for $83,000. You can see the full motion (in .pdf form), courtesy the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog at:


http://wsj.com/public/resources/documents/manningmotion.pdf

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 2:44 PM

FL Lawyer,

I have enjoyed reading your posts and found them very informative.

I appreciate your insights. As someone who has little experience with the courts, I hadn't considered that a token judgment on behalf of Pearson to make "everything go away" would have deprived the Chungs of their right to get their legal fees from Pearson. Very good point, and I truly appreciate your insights.

Frankly, some of these posts sound suspiciously like Pearson, or one of his 17 personalities...

Posted by: MourningElektra | July 11, 2007 8:45 PM

Pearson is a textbook example of good judgement gone bad. It was my belief that judges were appointed because they possessed and used good "judgement" as well as the interpretation and application of the rule of law. Who appointed this nut case?? There lies the problem.

Pearson.....if you are reading this, PLEASE. there is no boogyman (sic)
Go home, read a book, watch TV, walk your dog!

Posted by: JMC | July 12, 2007 5:45 PM

Did anyone mention this DC Embarrassment is ON LEAVE WITH PAY????????????

Posted by: Whatever | July 13, 2007 1:46 PM

You should report that the country's largest organization of plaintiffs' lawyers long ago denounced this "judge" and his ridiculous law suit. I have:

http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2007/06/lawyers_speak_out_loudly_again_1.html

This case should have been decided in small claims court without attorneys.

The judge deserves sanctions. For sanctions the question is whether the case was groundless and filed in bad faith or to harass. The bad faith and/or harass elements are certainly there and, while the case was not necessarily groundless, the damages sought were. Damages must be related to a pllaintiff's harm. Punitive damages are intended to get defendants' attention. (The coffee-in-the-lap damages - later reduced - were one day's profit for McDonalds on their coffee only.)

The judge should also lose his law license as did Mike Nifong and Bill Clinton. While this is the latest poster case against attorneys, attorneys do police their own.

As an aside: What would we hear if a bunch of attorneys got together on a suicide bombing of an airport?

Posted by: Bill Shepherd | July 15, 2007 12:54 PM

I whole heartedly agree that the amount Judge Pearson is seeking for damages is astronomical and absurd. But, on the other hand, I feel his frustration. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've had a custom made garment, including pants lost and even damaged by an unprofessional dry cleaner. In most cases I was either not compensated or undercompensated. In my opinion, Judge Pearson should have been compensated for the missing pants and for reasonable legal fees! One leaves garments in the care of a dry cleaner with the expectaion of paying to have them cleaned and returned NOT lost or stolen! It seems that we have reached the point in America when people who provide services can get away with anything! NO ACCOUNTABILITY! Pay the man for his pants! And pay your own legal fees! And get a good PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISNURANCE policy! or take the loss for your mistakes!

Posted by: Brad, TN | August 15, 2007 1:53 AM

Dear Brad, or Roy Pearson, or whoever you are, they offered up to $12,000 to settle this case, are you dim-witted? They wanted to "Pay the man for his pants!" but he didn't want payment he wanted their business ruined.

Try reading more on this case before leaving silly comments, read http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/08/is_there_no_end_to_the_roy_pearson_affair.html

Posted by: Planck's Constant | August 15, 2007 2:52 PM

Dear Planck's Constant

Thank you for your comments to dear old Brad or is it Roy? I was ready to reply but you "hit the nail on the head".

More Pearson types out there? Certainly!
It is my greatest hope Pearson gets his in the end..........pardon the pun.

Posted by: JMC | August 20, 2007 3:15 PM

Dear Placnk's Constant,
I am aware of the settlement offer! Furthermore, I am aware that Judge Pearson choose NOT to accept the offer. THAT IS HIS RIGHT! Your comments exhude your level of intelligence and your ability to both read and comprend the English language. Moreover, I prefaced my comments with the statement; " I whole heartedly agree that the amount Judge Pearson is seeking for damages is astronomical and absurd." However, I firmly believe that Judge Pearon wanted justice as rendered by our judicial system, the courts, NOT a settlement! A settlement is NOT jsutice nor does a settlement acknowledge guilt or any wrong doing! Could it be that Judge Pearson is a man of principle? Furthermore, I am compelled to have empathy for Judge Pearson because of past experiences with unprofessional dry cleaners. I'm sure those who are connoisseurs of fine clothing can understand the frustrations of having an expensive custom made garment lost or stolen by an unprofessional dry cleaner. Is the judege NOT protected by the same consitiution that he is sworn to uphold and abide by? In the word's of the great Don King; "ONLY IN AMERICA!" I Thank God everyday that I live in America and that we ALL have the FREEDOMS that we enjoy daily. God Bless America! And more power to our great Democracy and Judicial System. Whether I agree or disagree with with the outcome relative to a particular case within our Judicial System, it's just that; "our Judicial System" like it or not. ONLY IN AMERICA!

Posted by: Brad, Nashville, TN | August 24, 2007 12:38 AM

Hey Brad,
Get a grip! "The great Don King?" Ever look at his rap sheet? You are right..."Only in America"
Planck's Constant has your number.

Posted by: JMC | August 27, 2007 1:01 PM

Yes, JMC I am very familiar with Don King! That's precisely why I mentioned him because he rose from the depths of our society with a less than desirable background to become a sucessful businessman, a multi-millionaire. Therefore, one can understand why Don King frequently proclaims; "only in America." Again, you like Planck's Constant did not take the time to read and fully comprehend my words thereby allowing yourself to grasp my position. In America we may not always agree with what one says or does but, we must respect their freedom to do so! Please before you comment try capture the entire essence of the message then, put it in proper prospective! Sometimes words can be very tanacious and elusive little creatures, I like to refer to them as; "little vehicle of thought." Use the wrong word, convey the wrong thought! READ, READ, READ with understanding and calrity! Not with a prejudice or biased mindset. When I see comments like yours and Planck's Constant then it is truly a reafirmation of those precious words uttered by the great Don King; "only in America!"

Posted by: Brad, Nashville, TN | September 7, 2007 4:13 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company