Awesome. So how much do people estimate that this little publicity stunt cost the good Judge Roy?

Pearson needs to be dis-barred (or however you spell the losing of your right to practice law)

good, now lets get this shithead dis-barred and get the Chungs some undue stress money from a nice lawsuit.

54 million I think has a nice ring.

This Judge has mental problems. They need to review all his court cases and file for mistrials .

I wholeheartedly agree that the judge should be disbarred as well, whether he had won the case or not. I'm not sure about reviewing his own court cases though. The focus should be on the present and the future, not the facts. I do hope that the dry cleaners can now move on with their lives in a better manner (being clear on their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign), and that the judge has learned a hard lesson from this.

Definitely the Chungs should file a countersuit for emotional damages. Maybe they can now compare Judge Crybaby's harassment of them to the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, or to Al Qaeda flying planes into buildings.

What kind of world is this when one cannot collect a measly $54 million for a lost pair of pants!?

@emax4: well it depends, while there would be little point of reviewing cases if they where judged by a jury, if he was the deciding factor in the case (which for many small cases is the norm) then there is a very valid reason to review his cases as his judgment is seriously flawed.

You missed the HA HA line...

Judge CrappyPants has to pay the Chung's legal fees!

Once this case gained attention outside of DC's incestuous circles, the Administrative Courts put his contract renewal on hold. Scuttlebutt has it that they were waiting on the court's decision. Now that Pearson has lost, let's hope that common sense prevails with his bosses as well. This man is mentally unstable.

Even his peers think he's a tool
[preview.tinyurl.com]

Sorry Nweaver, I wish your statement was true! Unfortunately, they were still taken to the cleaners because "costs" only includes court costs, depositions, etc., not attorney fees. He should be sued for civil damages and abuse of process, if such is available in DC

Here's a reprint of the judgement -- for those that need some bathroom reading.

[online.wsj.com]

I can't believe this peckerhead cried on the stand.

@nweaver: Not exactly. He was awarded "costs," which are different than attorney's fees. In fact, the decision says: "The issue of the defendants’ claim for
attorney’s fees against the plaintiff will be addressed after the defendant’s motions for sanctions and for attorney’s fees have been filed and briefed by the parties."

@zero_o: Like that but w/o the hyphen. :)

If you read the testimony, the man seems very unstable. And whether or not his older cases SHOULD be opened for rehearing on grounds of incompetence, they're certianly GOING to be appealed by the losers! His lunacy is going to keep on costing taxpayers for years.

@emax4: "The focus should be on the present and the future, not the facts."

Yeah.. the facts are totally irrelevant. Spoken like a true american legal analyst.

He sure used every tactic possible to win this one. He must have taken notes during his hearings and tried to use them during his trial. i wonder if he cries and has a funeral at home when he wears a pair of pants out and need to be tossed?

One pair of executive dress pants, $100.
Drycleaning charge for one pair of pants, $4.25.
Paying legal fees for a frivilous lawsuit, $250,000.
Looking like a douchebag in front of the world, PRICELESS.

@nequam: I meant "they were awarded"

@Falconfire:

He is an administrative law judge, which means that none of his cases were before a jury. As an ALJ, he makes both the findings of fact and rulings of law. Incidentally, even if his cases were before a jury, he still retains the power to make rulings of law, e.g. JNOV, as well as determining which facts the jury sees.

@nweaver:

Costs are not the same as attorney's fees.

Does Mr. FancyPants have to pay the dry cleaners' legal bills now? He better.

@guymandude: Duh, my bad. I meant "past" and not "facts". Hey, it's Monday. :)

A court case where common sense wins out? Are we still in America??? Now if only the kid that had the "Bong Hits for Jesus" had won...it would be a good day. 1 point against frivolous lawsuits...1 point for lawsuits against freedom of speech.

Their legal fees won't necessarily be covered, only court costs so far.

From the Washington Post:

"...awarding the Chung family the costs of the case--an unusual move in a civil case in which each side would ordinarily be expected to pay their own costs. (But awarding costs is not the same as awarding attorney's fees--the big financial blow in any legal matter--and Judge Bartnoff said she would make that decision at a later date.)"

Glad the muther fucker lost the case - no wonder our legal system is so fucked up that he can even file such a suit!!!!!!

He needs to burn in hell too!

@nequam: I think that says that there will be a judgement specifying the exact costs and fees when they are determined. No?

I know this is a bit off topic but the last bit in that article mentioned the DUI trial of Marion Barry. I live in Baltimore and WTF is wrong with DC? They have @ssholes like Pearson on the bench and crackhead f*ck ups like Barry in office. Sigh...

@philbert:

That was stated so eloquently! You, my friend, are a true wordsmith.

I cant believe I get to say this first.

The Chungs should sue the pants off him...

@Saboth: Bong Hits for Jesus DID win.

@mmcnary: I was just going to say that!

He won the greatest award of all however, being the butt of everyones jokes for life.

I can't believe it. Actual justice! Next thing you know they'll actually impeach a president for violating the law, the constitution, and the rights of Americans instead of just a scandalous affair with an intern... Nah, that's just too unbelievable.

i'm reading through the actual judgement (not sure if i can finish the whole thing), but the ironic part in all of this:

the judge had become a "consumer law specialist in the law reform unit" in a prior position. if this is his idea of consumer law reform, he's clearly failed.

oh yeah, then there was the matter of his unemployment from 03-05, while he was conveniently representing himself during his own divorce proceedings, where he was found to have unnecessarily delayed and strewen out a relatively simple case with "unnecessary litigation." (btw, he was ordered to pay his wife's attorney's fees)

hmm...he doesn't own a car either. is he an bike-riding environmentalist, or did he lose the car in his divorce settlement? =)

he's also a poor lawyer. he chose 26 "witnesses" to bad customer service from the cleaners, however none of those witnesses (only 4 were selected to testify) shared his belief that satisfaction guaranteed means that the cleaners have to move mountains in order to please their customer (unconditional and unlimited warranty). all of them testified that they shared the common sense definition of the sign and term: that the cleaners would do their best to rectify the situation (re-do, etc), or repay them an agreed upon amount for the clothing in question.

and to top it off, here's probably the best sentence that sums up the entire finding: "Nothing in the law supports that position."

It is not likely that he will be disbarred over this. Losing your law license hardly seems reasonable.
However, he will likely lose his administrative law judge appointment. He will then need to find a creative and clever way to convince clients that he isn't a total doofus.
Would YOU want to accept counsel from a man who sued a dry cleaner for $50+ million over a pair of pants?
I understand the anger, but do we need to hang the man? He's done plenty of damage to his own reputation. Everyone has heard of this case. Everyone knows his name. He's pretty well f-ed enough, don't you think?

My favorite line from the judgement:

"The Court also will accept that Mr. Pearson does not like cuffs on his pants."

*snicker*

@Hossofcourse: Like bpark said above, costs and attorney's fees are different things. In American courts (it is different elsewhere), attorney's fees are available in only limited situations and the judge has to make an affirmative finding that they are warranted in a particular case. The way I read the decision, there is a motion for sanctions and attorney's fees filed by the Chungs. The court will hold a hearing on this motion and may award the Chungs their attorney's fees and may additionally levy sanctions against Pearson for bringing a frivolous suit.

On the other hand, costs are routinely awarded but typically do not amount to much. They generally consist of filing fees and other expenses paid to the court. (In many cases the prevailing party doesn't even bother calculating or collecting their costs because they are minimal)

That said, I don't think anybody should be surprised if the judge awards attorney's fees.

How did this just not get thrown out? That's almost more offensive.

@eli_b: From watching the local DC news, they made it seem as if this wouldn't go away if it had just been thrown out, so the judge took the case knowing full well it would go the distance to put a "case closed" stamp on this guy.

Yeah, I guess better to publicly humiliate him for doing the same to the cleaners.

I'm very happy to hear about the ruling. I'm just pessimistic enough that Mr. FancyPants will appeal (which the defendants' attorney knows). At the very least, it's not likely the Chungs will ever be awarded attorney's fees.

@eli_b: It really was the amount he was seeking, not his claims themselves that were off the wall. For instance, his claim would have seemed legit if he brought it in small claims court.

Typically the amount sought is not a material aspect of the case (though it may be relevant for questions of jurisdiction) and the court is never held to awarding a particular amount.

The court could have short-circuited the case based on unfounded claims but would have no basis for saying "$54 million is outrageous, get out of my court." I'm not saying $54 mill. is reasonable, just that it has no bearing on the merits of the case.

Of course, the way he conducted the case appears to have been absurd and wasteful. It looks like the court will be dealing with that.

@nequam: Really? It's about the amount? If it was 5 dollars would we be talking about this?

@nachas101: "Losing your law license hardly seems reasonable.... I understand the anger, but do we need to hang the man?"

I think it's entirely reasonable. I swore a friggin' oath to the citizens of this state to support my state and federal Constitutions and to faithfully execute my duties as an attorney and officer of the court. I don't take that lightly.

Roy Pearson swore a similar oath when he was admitted to practice. There is hardly a canon of legal ethics he has left unbroken, and beyond the absolute abuse of legal process, total disregard for professional ethics, and complete lack of legal reasoning skills, the man QUITE OBVIOUSLY has no respect for justice and is entirely willing to abuse his power.

It's unacceptable. A man like that has no business in the bar. He's an embarassment to the profession, and that's in a profession that spawns embarassments like it's going out of style.

@eli_b:
Legally speaking, this case has some merit.
Basically, the customer felt wronged by the customer and based on the 'satisfaction guaranteed', he felt he had a right to satisfaction. Clearly though, they had attempted to satisfy him.
Had this case been thrown out of court, Pearson could have easily just fine tuned the argument and re-filed the suit.
In essence, this HAD to go to the system so he couldn't level the same charges. He sued and lost- now all he can do is appeal, not refile, or file a suit using new accusations. The judge in this case was very smart in being meticulous in her ruling to avoid any factual errors or questionable legal interpretations specifically to make it difficult for Pearson to appeal.
And yes, if this had been a case for a reasonable amount of money, not only would we not be discussing it, but it likely wouldn't have made a ripple in the media.
And the judge awarded attorneys fees to them, releiving the Chungs of pretty much all costs incurred.

Our legal system may be fucked up, but at least its not THAT fucked up that he won this disaster.

Not only should be be disbarred, he should be deported. We don't need Americans like that. They make the rest of us look bad.

@Thrust:

I'm afraid not--unless you're siding with Starr. Apparently, drug laws trump our Constitution.

[www.cnn.com]

@Eyebrows McGee:
Try to stay calm here.
You swore a 'friggin oath'?
Come on. Seriously.
There is no question that he behaved improperly, but I don't think this had the same effect on the way people look at the law as, say, the way Nifong handled the Duke case. And if you are a practicing attorney, you should know that what he did happens all the time, all over the country with frightening regularity.
Certainly you don't think that an attorney should be persecuted for bringing a suit that he felt had merit, do you?
He's going to continue to be punished, both professionally and personally, based on his own frivolous lawsuit. He will likely lose his judgeship and will have an extremely difficult time getting clients if he chooses to practice law to begin with.
I just don't believe that Pearson deserves to be completely destroyed because he brought a suit that he should have more carefully considered.
Pearson made quite a few mistakes, most notably hiring himself as an attorney. As you likely know, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. A competent attorney would have more carefully constructed a case or advised against one to begin with.
Considering his history, I doubt he will have his law license pulled.
Doing so would be adding insult to injury and would amount to cruel and unusual punsihment.

$56 million for a pair of pants? Holy crap... The smart thing to do would have been to sue for the cost of the pants, the cost of the dry-clean process, the cost for legal fees, the cost for gas money to drive to the court house, and the then just a bit extra for "emotional damages." The sheer idiocy of suing someone millions and millions of dollars over pants is just incredible.