• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lawyer Sues Dry Cleaner for $67 million! over $10 cleaning bill

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DonVito
Interestingly, even the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, a group of plaintiff's attorneys) is calling for Judge Pearson to be disciplined by the bar. He really is an embarrassment. I hope the DC bar has the balls to take action against him in spite of the fact that he will almost certainly fight any disciplinary action in court for years.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't think you can fight disciplinary actions when it comes from the bar? Isn't that part of the agreement for joining the bar association in the first place?
 
I heard about this before, but only recently saw a TV news story on this. What a effing a-hole. My gosh, look at the drycleaners, I don't know what kinds of people they are, but it looks like they are just trying to make a living. Now they have to be screwed over by some dips*it who has too much time, money and power on his hands.
 
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/
Driving Mr. Pearson

Among Pearson's many demands for big money was his calculation that he deserved $15,000 to pay for renting a car every weekend so that he can drive his clothes to a dry cleaner other than Custom Cleaners, which is the only cleaners within walking distance of his home in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington. Judge Bartnoff could barely hold in her laughter as Pearson spelled out his potential car rental costs over the next decade.

"Obviously, I think it's ludicrous," defense lawyer Christopher Manning said.

And even Pearson noted that his attempts to use a different cleaners a mile from his house "proved to be so demanding that after a year of that, I finally succeeded in getting a wardrobe closet at my work so I could use a cleaners near my job." But Pearson said he won't be able to use that solution for much longer because his office is moving and he will no longer have a proper closet in his office.

The Down Years

After working for a quarter century for Neighborhood Legal Services, Pearson was unemployed for more than two years prior to becoming an administrative law judge. During those jobless years, Pearson testified, he had no car, no bank account, and cash holdings of only around $1,000 to $2,000. He said he left his longtime position with the federally funded legal services program because his boss "ceased communicating with me. I thought he was being unreasonable, so I quit." During the time after that, Pearson said he collected unemployment benefits and was enrolled in a utility assistance program that allowed him to avoid paying for heat.

Manning started to question how Pearson could have received unemployment benefits when he had quit his job, but withdrew the question.
Click to expand...

Seriously, this guy should be disbarred. How can such an immoral person be a Judge?!
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: DonVito
Interestingly, even the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, a group of plaintiff's attorneys) is calling for Judge Pearson to be disciplined by the bar. He really is an embarrassment. I hope the DC bar has the balls to take action against him in spite of the fact that he will almost certainly fight any disciplinary action in court for years.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't think you can find disciplinary actions when it comes from the bar? Isn't that part of the agreement for joining the bar association in the first place?
Click to expand...

I don't really understand your question. He hasn't been disciplined yet as far as I know, but if and when he is, it will be a matter of public record. As far as I know every state, and DC, make this information public, and most states have it searchable online, to protect the public. There is no "agreement" for privacy regarding bar discipline, and it isn't as though attorneys have a choice about joining the bar wherever they want to practice - it is a crime to practice law without a license.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: DonVito
Interestingly, even the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, a group of plaintiff's attorneys) is calling for Judge Pearson to be disciplined by the bar. He really is an embarrassment. I hope the DC bar has the balls to take action against him in spite of the fact that he will almost certainly fight any disciplinary action in court for years.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't think you can find disciplinary actions when it comes from the bar? Isn't that part of the agreement for joining the bar association in the first place?
Click to expand...

I don't really understand your question. He hasn't been disciplined yet as far as I know, but if and when he is, it will be a matter of public record. As far as I know every state, and DC, make this information public, and most states have it searchable online, to protect the public. There is no "agreement" for privacy regarding bar discipline, and it isn't as though attorneys have a choice about joining the bar wherever they want to practice - it is a crime to practice law without a license.
Click to expand...

May have something to do with the fact that I typed FIND instead of FIGHT...
 
Originally posted by: sdifox

May have something to do with the fact that I typed FIND instead of FIGHT...
Click to expand...

Ah - I see.

To answer your question, an attorney absolutely can fight bar discipline. Ordinarily their case is considered by the supreme court of the relevant state, and it is tantamount to a criminal prosecution, in that the bar has a "prosecutor" and the lawyer will ordinarily have a defense attorney arguing for his side. The court decides the punishment, and like all other cases decided by state supreme courts, it is published, public information.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: sdifox

May have something to do with the fact that I typed FIND instead of FIGHT...
Click to expand...

Ah - I see.

To answer your question, an attorney absolutely can fight bar discipline. Ordinarily their case is considered by the supreme court of the relevant state, and it is tantamount to a criminal prosecution, in that the bar has a "prosecutor" and the lawyer will ordinarily have a defense attorney arguing for his side. The court decides the punishment, and like all other cases decided by state supreme courts, it is published, public information.
Click to expand...

I understand it is just like any other case they have a chance to defend themselves, I meant if the bar association has already decided on it, they can keep appealing?
 
Pants case decided

WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Pants case decided

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.</end quote></div>
Click to expand...

ohh good.

i was getting worried they would lose. since it was takeing so long.

hopefully they can now sue him for cost of lawyer fees
 
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Queasy
Pants case decided

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.</end quote></div></end quote></div>

ohh good.

i was getting worried they would lose. since it was takeing so long.

hopefully they can now sue him for cost of lawyer fees
Click to expand...

The Chungs get their fees back. I'm assuming that Pearson is paying.
"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.
Click to expand...
 
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Queasy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Queasy
Pants case decided

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.</end quote></div></end quote></div>

ohh good.

i was getting worried they would lose. since it was takeing so long.

hopefully they can now sue him for cost of lawyer fees</end quote></div>

The Chungs get their fees back. I'm assuming that Pearson is paying.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read. </end quote></div></end quote></div>

err everything i have seen is just court cost NOT lawyer fees.
 
this is VERY good news. The only thing that will make me happier is if Pearson gets disbarred AND ordered to pay Chungs' attorney fees
 
Originally posted by: Aharami
this is VERY good news. The only thing that will make me happier is if Pearson gets disbarred AND ordered to pay Chungs' attorney fees
Click to expand...

doubt he gets disbarred. but i do think he lost his job as a judge though.

and yes attorney fee's are a must.
 
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Aharami
this is VERY good news. The only thing that will make me happier is if Pearson gets disbarred AND ordered to pay Chungs' attorney fees</end quote></div>

doubt he gets disbarred. but i do think he lost his job as a judge though.

and yes attorney fee's are a must.
Click to expand...

last i heard he was still an administrative judge. The council that decides just had 1 of 3 members leave. So the mayor asked them to hold off on the decision until he can reappoint a replacement for the member that left
 
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy

The Chungs get their fees back. I'm assuming that Pearson is paying....

err everything i have seen is just court cost NOT lawyer fees.</end quote></div>

You are correct in surmising that costs = court costs and not attorney's fees. The court may decide to sanction Mr. Pearson by awarding the Chungs attorneys fees. That is a seperate determination to be made by the judge under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Aharami
this is VERY good news. The only thing that will make me happier is if Pearson gets disbarred AND ordered to pay Chungs' attorney fees</end quote></div>

doubt he gets disbarred. but i do think he lost his job as a judge though.

and yes attorney fee's are a must.
Click to expand...

Under the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer can be disbarred for engaging in conduct that damages the integrity of the profession. This would qualify in my opinion. It is clearly an abuse of process in pursuit of a frivolous damage claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top