CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Panel postpones decision on judge who brought pants suit
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
)
The fate of Judge Roy Pearson remains unknown after the panel that will decide whether he gets to keep his job did not reach a decision Wednesday night.
“We do not want to rush to any judgment at all,” said D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Rigsby, a member of the panel reviewing the case. “It is important that we get this right for many reasons.”
Administrative law Judge Roy Pearson gained international notoriety for suing Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners Dry Cleaners in Northeast Washington, for $67 million after they allegedly lost a pair of his pants. He rejected their offer of $12,000 but lowered his demand by $13 million before going to trial.
The commission is going over several concerns about Pearson’s behavior in the case. The three-judge panel, joined by two nonvoting members, deliberated for several hours Wednesday evening but ended their session without reaching a final judgment. Pearson could be the first judge of his rank to be fired by the commission.
The case became a rallying point for tort reformers who held it up as an example of frivolous lawsuits and pointed at Pearson as the face of overzealous judges. Administrative law judges are city employees who preside over disputes between a government agency and people bringing complaints against the agency.
Two months ago, Pearson’s boss recommended that the three-judge voting panel reject Pearson for another term, government sources have told The Examiner. Pearson’s boss reversed an earlier letter to keep Pearson after the case gained widespread attention and attracted the mocking jabs of late-night talk show comedians.
The panel was expected to follow the advice of Pearson’s boss. The administrative law judge commission’s decision comes six weeks after Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff sided in favor of the dry cleaners, ruling that Pearson never proved that the Chungs violated the spirit of their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign.
smccabe@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:20 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 17, 2008 re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
9:48 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 3, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:00 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:32 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
2:35 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
1:02 PM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
11:23 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
10:06 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
10:03 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
8:07 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
8:02 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
8:02 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:59 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:45 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:15 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:14 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
6:47 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "Panel postpones decision on judge who brought pants suit"
Report as inappropriate
6:23 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "D.C. pants suit judge sent to the cleaners"
Report as inappropriate
7:22 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
6:14 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
4:23 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
1:28 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
1:25 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
1:08 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
1:03 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
12:25 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
11:53 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge remains onboard before hearing"
Report as inappropriate
11:47 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge still on the job"
Report as inappropriate
8:07 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 10, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge remains onboard before hearing"
Report as inappropriate
1:11 PM MST on Thu., Sep. 20, 2007
re: "Pants suit faces possible appeal"
Report as inappropriate
12:58 PM MST on Thu., Sep. 20, 2007
re: "D.C. to inspect pants suit judge’s agency"
Report as inappropriate
9:43 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 22, 2007
re: "D.C. to inspect pants suit judge’s agency"
Report as inappropriate
5:17 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 17, 2007
re: "Pants suit judge denied fees for acting as his own attorney"
Report as inappropriate
10:33 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 15, 2007
re: "Judge in $54M pants suit will file an appeal"
Report as inappropriate
10:07 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 15, 2007
re: "Judge in $54M pants suit will file an appeal"
Report as inappropriate
7:41 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 15, 2007
re: "Judge in $54M pants suit will file an appeal"
Report as inappropriate
2:58 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Panel postpones decision on judge who brought pants suit"
Report as inappropriate
11:13 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 2, 2007
re: "Panel postpones decision on judge who brought pants suit"
Report as inappropriate
1:31 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 26, 2007
re: "Advocates raise more than $62K to help with pants suit legal fees"
Report as inappropriate
11:21 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 12, 2007
re: "Pants suit faces possible appeal"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
always happen in anywhere U.S. Black has more right then other human.
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
i was actually embarrased to be an american when i read about this guy, even to think that he was allowed to file this suit is a topic for the ethics commitee.
119 agree | 94 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Bullies seek positions of power, and then they abuse them. Some people seek jobs of authority because they truly care--these are the teachers you tell your grandkids about that changed your life, or the judges who really make a big difference in improving things. Then some people seek jobs of authority because they like being in control. This is where you get those mean teachers and middle school vice-principals, vicious cops, vindictive judges and so on who simply revel in their ability to push people around. This judge falls into the latter category and I think he is a disgrace to our justice system. I am glad he is being removed. Being a judge is too important--it requires a quality of character that exceeds the average, not one that dredges the mucky bottom.
154 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Honorable Al Sharpton !!!!!LOL. What a disgrace to all those that marched and those that lost their lives trying to achieve equality for Blacks. Shame on you for calling him Honorable. That’s probably enough to make James Brown (JB)roll over in his grave...GOOD GOD !!!! I guess he did an okay job as manager for JB.
156 agree | 153 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Amen. Mr. Pearson should apply for Dry Cleaner job to see how hard it is to clean other people clothes, then he will appreciate other people hard work trying to earn a few dozen pennies on each cloth they wash, dry and iron.
155 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Because of that human waste, Roy Pearson, Mr. and Mrs. Jin Nam Chung no longer are able to operate their dry cleaning business due to the horrible stress he has caused them. Mr. Pearson is apparently a violent and dangerous man and he is an insult to his profession as a lawyer and as an administrative judge. I applaud the D.C. Commission for not reappointing him. Frankly, he should be disbarred. Hopefully the D.C. Bar Association will proceed now to take that action.
164 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
You don't even know what you are talking aobut and if you can't get the Honorable Al Sharpton's name correct you have no busy even commenting!
162 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
BostonRay said:
How many like him on DC payroll!? Like other 'experts' on due process he will drag this on for years with additional lawsuits against those who dared fire him and appeals citing racial bias and persecution. Jesse Jackson, Ralph Sharpton and the usual frowning group of ten in the background will, no doubt, be there to lend 'support' and demanding an investigation. Nothing will be said in support of his innocent victims.
147 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This clown has proven himself unworthy of being a judge, or for that matter, holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or that is paid for with public (tax) dollars. He is nothing more than an oxygen thief, and his mere existence devalues the human race as a whole. He should be remove from his position, disbarred, and in a truly just society, subjected to a public flogging.
133 agree | 133 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Anne Allen said:
After following this case and reviewing his background, I have a few questions: who appointed this person to begin with? What kind of process got him to the bench? What took the bureaucrats so long to fire him? Are there others like him on the DC payroll? How long is he going to be allowed to drag this on, claiming a frivolous and malicious lawsuit is his "constitutional right".
165 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These lawyers must be stopped.
160 agree | 124 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
why would a judge wear a pant suit? Are you referring to the lawsuit?
164 agree | 158 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
shoot him.
144 agree | 156 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Solaratov, In Mo. said:
The man obviously has a problem, stability-wise, and needs to get some treatment. He is also vindictive and out of control. DC has enough problems without someone like him making judicial decisions.
131 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maybe he could pick up a job working at some dry cleaner store.
167 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
He should be removed period.
171 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think he deserves to loose his job, if he knew of illegal activities he should've esposed them before his back was up against the wall, that really says a lot about his morality, and hopefully all his cases will be reviewed by someone with good integrity
191 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"He has remained on the city payroll, with a salary of $100,000" And the DC taxpayers pay this gladly. No wonder they can't get home rule when they rule their home like this!!!
158 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
BostonRay said:
Pearson Picture: Poster for DC welfare system.
194 agree | 162 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tell the Truth Already said:
Face it. The reason Pearson got a job in the first place, and the reason that he's still getting a paycheck is because DC is a pork barrel wasteland. Any idiot can get a high paying job on the taxpayers tab. Losers like pearson who would never survive in the private sector are handed-out high paying jobs like free ice cream cones. This includes the do-nothings on the "panel" who haven't done a damn thing for the past six months while "Roy the Idiot" continues to collect big fat paychecks - now - for doing absolutely nothing. There is little doubt that they are just as useless as "Roy the Idiot" himself. Face it. If he were working for a major corporation, or a private law firm, would he still be getting pay checks? The answer to that question speaks volumes.
191 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How can DC still employ this guy....He should be sued himself for pain and suffering by the dry cleaner owners. This is rediculous.....
184 agree | 154 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Out of curiosity......if you were unfortunate enough to actually get this guy as a judge, could you request a new one? Scarey thought.
206 agree | 150 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Richard H. Clark - middleclass2008.com said:
FIRE this looney already!!! Geez....
180 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maybe we should do it like the Europeans and stage a protest to fire this guy!
177 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is an outrage that this man should be allowed to practice law at all. It is these types of frivolous suits that are a major contributor to the overall economic problems of our Country.
154 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The laundry shop has closed and the shop owners have given up their business. The community has lost a business store trying to serve it . Mr. Pearson has not paid for the damage he caused to other hardworking family . THis is all about America , the land of big dog eat small dog ....
206 agree | 163 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
In other words because D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is a bully as in the likes of Idi Amin and Adolph Hitler, the government is scared to fire him? This is America! Fire the bully! Even Affirmative Action, which I support, doesn't condone bullyism. Fire him and replace him with an African American who is honest and has scruples. Mr. Pearson is an insult to all upstanding African Americans.
237 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Shoe said:
I cannot help but think that the man Pearson is diagnosable for some manner of mental illness. If I were his boss, I would offer him the option of submitting himself to a full battery of psychiatric testing before even considering allowing him back on the payroll. And the immigrant family should counter sue Pearson for unnecessary cruelty or something. (Sorry...I'm no lawyer, just seems like they would have some grounds there somewhere.)
188 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Get rid of him and bring this to the Mayors attention. What are they afraid of-he'll sue the corrupt City?
188 agree | 187 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I agree with DarkMan. The notion that anyone would put up a non-white in a respected position such as this - simply because they are non-white - is absolutely ridiculous. One must be qualified. Sounds like Pearson has some mental issues that he would not prefer to deal with and is taking it out on the drycleaners. He should no longer be a judge, however, using this case as a point to be made about Affirmative Action (AA) is, quite frankly ignorant. This simplistic view could only be made by someone that is in their own right...unsucessful. And as such, they are blaming someone else (or group of people) for their lack of assertiveness in their own life. People at issue with AA, need to look no further than the mirror.
201 agree | 185 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Whay are they (we) paying this guy again? He has no rational judgement. He should not be a judge.
220 agree | 229 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
DarkMan said:
You who made the comment about affirmitave action. You are worse than he is. Is this a convenient way to account for your failures. That's LOSER talk, put away your bop and broom and go to night school or something. ...if you are qualified.
224 agree | 216 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike Licht said:
Re: Pants suit judge denied fees for acting as his own attorney -- If a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, what about a lawyer who represents himself, loses the case, and duns the winner for his fee?
236 agree | 217 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Are you kidding me? How is this even possible? The Appeals court needs to look at this motion and laugh at it and toss it out without bothering the cleaners and their attorneys. This is classic case of mis use of our court system and Pearson needs to not only lose his job, lose his bar license, and frankly should either go to jail or a mental hospital. Then again, I don't want our tax dollars paying for his hospital stay. The Chungs drop the lawsuit to claim the cost for the first lawsuit when the fundraiser raised enough money to cover the cost. They wanted to just move on putting this behind them. Pearson needs to move on. Does he really think he's doing something for the common man and Justice? He is making a fool of himself and the mockery of the court system. Someone, hopefully someone in his family, needs to slap this man upside the head and tell him to shut the hell up!
230 agree | 189 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think that this man is really insane. He doesnt get the clue that he lost and he has to pay up. Right on my brother from another mother just make a fool of yourself for us.
232 agree | 222 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Enough wasting time and money over a pair of PANTS! Think of all the children who could've been fed and educated, job training for the unemployed, neighborhoods cleaned up, and a JUDGE is wasting our time over a pair of pants? Take away his seat and disbar him for a breach of ethics and then have him pay the tax dollars back he is wasting. From this point on, he should be 100% *completely* financially liable. It's time to put limits and criteria for lawsuits. We, as a country, are wasting too many dollars on frivolous lawsuits and jamming up the courts.
232 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Glad he's such a jerk! It spells out for the nonlitigating (not-yet victimized) public the arrogance of black-robed power!
219 agree | 218 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maybe the pants suit Judge should be transferred to the D.C. Public Schools with a double salary and plenty of litigation.
230 agree | 222 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Judge Pearson has the predator instinct of a shark who smells blood. He thought these Koreans business people brought a lot of money from Korea and he believed that he could put his law knowledge to extort the money from them . He did underestimate the boomerang case by SCREWING these people FIRST. Now he has to pay for the consequence of his offense . Instead of getting $1200 for his $20 pant, he has to pay $63000
225 agree | 230 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This suit is outoome of affirmative action. Thanks to the act, he could get into law school over many qualified applicants...and could have this judgeship over many qualifed applicants again...and doing this funny things
223 agree | 238 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree