So the saga of the lost pants continues. For all of you who didn’t hear this story (i.e., non lawyers), an administrative judge sued his cleaners for $54 million for losing his pants. Seriously. As the Washington Post explained: “Pearson waged a legal battle against Custom Cleaners, alleging that the shop on Bladensburg Road NE lost a pair of pants he brought in for $10.50 worth of alterations. Pearson sued the owners, Soo Chungand her family, and lost when a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Chungs.”
To add deserved insult to merited injury, he was shitcanned from his administrative judgeship this week. See the story below. My vote is that his ridiculous lawsuit may have influenced the panels decision, despite their protestations to the contrary. Abovethelaw.com suggested an excellent next career: “A reality television show, in which Judge Pearson files dubious lawsuits and sees if any of them go anywhere”
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page B04
Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.
Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.
Roy L. Pearson Jr. lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner. (Jacquelyn Martin – AP)
The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson’s term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.
A source familiar with the committee’s meetings said Pearson’s lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson’s judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate “appropriate judgment and judicial temperament,” according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a “combative” nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions. (more…)