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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: patentman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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.</end quote></div>

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.


yes but disbarrment does nto happen very often. though with the amount of attention this gets it is a possiblity.


 

patentman

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2005
1,035
1
0
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: sdifox

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

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.

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?

Yes, bar disciplinary actions have been appealed to the Supreme Court in more than one instance.

See http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/14ethics/cases.html
 

iamme

Lifer
Jul 21, 2001
21,058
3
0
good.

that money grubbing asshole didn't deserve one red cent.

i hope he's ridiculed for the rest of his life.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,909
16,174
126
Originally posted by: patentman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sdifox
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: DonVito
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: sdifox

May have something to do with the fact that I typed FIND instead of FIGHT...</end quote></div>

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.</end quote></div>

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?</end quote></div>

Yes, bar disciplinary actions have been appealed to the Supreme Court in more than one instance.

See http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/14ethics/cases.html

Ok thanx. I would like to see this idiot disbarred. Maybe lawyers can start a class action under "defaming all lawyers"
 

patentman

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2005
1,035
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: patentman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>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.</end quote></div>

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.</end quote></div>


yes but disbarrment does nto happen very often. though with the amount of attention this gets it is a possiblity.


disbarment may not be necessary. His integrity as a lawyer is already shot, and in the profession your rep and integrity are everything. If he gets removed from judicial office he will have a very difficult time finding a new job. The bar could also discipline him by forcing him to inform his clients of his actions in this case. Not many people will want to hire someone with his obvious lack of scruples, except maybe the mob.
 

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
Looks like they'll turn out to be some very expensive pants after all of the legal fees are paid. It also cost him any respect he once had, his reputation, and perhaps his job and any future jobs. Perhaps he has a future as a Wal-Mart greeter. :D
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Even if the court orders Pearson to pay the Chung's legal bills, he has few, if any assets. His credit cards maxed out and he was ordered to pay his ex wife legal bills in ten of thousands of dollars.

Maybe that's why he tried to get some fast bucks by sued the Chungs? I hope he is ruined for good.

Edit: That's was a pair of awfully ugly pants.

Edit 2: This story began way back in 2002....... "The bad blood between the customer and store dates back to 2002, when another pair of pants was allegedly lost by the dry cleaners.
The Chungs gave Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of pants, and Pearson was banned from the store, defense attorney Manning claimed in court.
Manning said Pearson pleaded with the Chungs to let him back into the store because he didn't have a car, he said, and they were the only dry cleaners in the neighborhood.
Three years later, Pearson said he returned to Custom Cleaners and, like some real-life "Groundhog Day" nightmare, another pair of trousers went missing.."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheL...tory?id=3313923&page=1


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...1896.html?hpid=topnews

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/2...s/funny/lawsuit_pants/

 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Awesome. The judge tried to bankrupt the cleaners out of business - what an @sshole. Hopefully the motion for legal fees will be granted and the moron will have to pay them too.
 

patentman

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2005
1,035
1
0
Not sure this has been posted yet, but if so I apologize. Channel 4 news just reported that the court costs Pearson was ordered to pay came out to a whopping $1000. But as I said earlier, the judge will make a ruling on whether he has to pay the Chungs legal expenses later.

Also, I read the other day that Pearson sued under DC's consumer protection laws, which allow for damages of up to $1500 per violation. Stuff like this is what makes me hate consumer protectionism.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
You won't be surprised to hear that Judge Pearson isn't giving up this easily:

An administrative law judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants is not giving up his fight against the South Korean immigrant owners of the business.

Roy L. Pearson notified their defense attorney of his plans to file a motion this week asking that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff reverse or clarify her verdict. Bartnoff ruled last month that Pearson should be awarded nothing.

Pearson is arguing that Bartnoff failed to address his legal claims when she ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.

* * *

I suspect this is one case where the more he fights, the more it will ultimately cost him, but he is certainly far past the point of no return, so . . .
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
You won't be surprised to hear that Judge Pearson isn't giving up this easily:

An administrative law judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants is not giving up his fight against the South Korean immigrant owners of the business.

Roy L. Pearson notified their defense attorney of his plans to file a motion this week asking that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff reverse or clarify her verdict. Bartnoff ruled last month that Pearson should be awarded nothing.

Pearson is arguing that Bartnoff failed to address his legal claims when she ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson's expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.

* * *

I suspect this is one case where the more he fights, the more it will ultimately cost him, but he is certainly far past the point of no return, so . . .


of course its not suprise. if he had any morals he would never have brought the suit.

in the end its going to cost him far more then he is willing to lose i suspect.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: waggy

of course its not suprise. if he had any morals he would never have brought the suit.

in the end its going to cost him far more then he is willing to lose i suspect.

Frankly it looks to me as though this goes beyond morals into mental-illness territory. He seems really unwell to me.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: waggy

of course its not suprise. if he had any morals he would never have brought the suit.

in the end its going to cost him far more then he is willing to lose i suspect.

Frankly it looks to me as though this goes beyond morals into mental-illness territory. He seems really unwell to me.

that may very well be true. a $54 million doller lawsuit over a $200 (or so) pair of pants is insane.

then to ask for a reversal is more proof.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,476
3,976
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
I suspect this is one case where the more he fights, the more it will ultimately cost him, but he is certainly far past the point of no return, so . . .
Not necessarilly. Since he has dozens of similar lawsuits out there, if just one pans out, he'll be ahead. He'll be ahead even if he has to pay a couple hundred grand here or there for the other party's lawyers.

 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: DonVito
I suspect this is one case where the more he fights, the more it will ultimately cost him, but he is certainly far past the point of no return, so . . .
Not necessarilly. Since he has dozens of similar lawsuits out there, if just one pans out, he'll be ahead.

This is the first I've heard of that. I understand his divorce litigation was very lengthy, but other than that I have never heard of any other allegedly vexatious litigation he's been involved in. What is your source for this information?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: DonVito
I suspect this is one case where the more he fights, the more it will ultimately cost him, but he is certainly far past the point of no return, so . . .
Not necessarilly. Since he has dozens of similar lawsuits out there, if just one pans out, he'll be ahead.

This is the first I've heard of that. I understand his divorce litigation was very lengthy, but other than that I have never heard of any other allegedly vexatious litigation he's been involved in. What is your source for this information?

same i havenot heard of any other suits.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
I remember hearing about this, but I didn't read any details about it until today. Like so many charges brought into court before this one, it is just more indisputable evidence that the checks and balances in many parts of our court system are lacking heavily. This should have ended only days after it started without even hitting the media spotlight.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I remember hearing about this, but I didn't read any details about it until today. Like so many charges brought into court before this one, it is just more indisputable evidence that the checks and balances in many parts of our court system are lacking heavily. This should have ended only days after it started without even hitting the media spotlight.

I don't know about that. While I think his consumer-protection claims were for the most part baseless, the court still had to find facts regarding whether or not the dry cleaner in fact lost his pants. Although I am primarily a defense attorney, I am not offended by the fact that this case went to trial. Were I the judge in this case, I would have put it on a short schedule and only allowed limited discovery, but I imagine the court did what it could to truncate the case, while still giving Judge Pearson his day in court.