I can't believe this man is a judge.
Panel Takes Initial Step to Remove Pearson From BenchBy Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; 3:56 PM
If he hasn't already started, the D.C. judge who sued his dry cleaners for $54 million -- and lost -- may want to begin looking for a new job.
The city commission that has been weighing the professional fate of Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. has voted to formally notify Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source.
In a letter sent to Pearson today -- the first step in a multi-step process -- the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges cites not only Pearson's highly publicized lawsuit but also his record as an administrative law judge.
The next step in the process will be for the commission to consider Pearson's response. He will have 15 days to file a rebuttal to the letter and then may elect to appear before the commission at its next meeting in September. The commission will make no official decision on Pearson's fate until after that meeting.
The commission has been reviewing applications from several administrative law judges seeking reappointment and in a statement, the chairman, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert R. Rigsby, said the commission has considered all of the applications "thoroughly and thoughtfully." It would appear likely that Pearson, who sued his cleaners over a pair of pants that went missing and who may yet appeal the verdict against him, will fight for his job, too.
If and when Pearson appears before the commission's three voting members, he will likely face questions about far more than the lawsuit that made him the butt of jokes around the world and the target of the tort reform movement here at home. Concerns about his work as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity this spring about his lawsuit and the letter from the commission focuses on those concerns, only addressing the lawsuit briefly.
Appointed in 2005 to an initial two-year term, Pearson has been seeking appointment to a full 10-year term as a District administrative law judge. But his lawsuit has turned a typically simple review process into a spectacle of sorts.
Filed in 2005, the suit charged that Pearson was defrauded by Soo Chung and Jin Nam Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, and by the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that once hung in their store on Bladensburg Road in Northeast Washington. A regular customer, Pearson had brought in a pair of suit pants for alterations shortly before he was to start his new job as an administrative law judge in the spring of 2005. But the trousers turned up missing, and Pearson disputed that the garment eventually the Chungs presented to him as his was the same item he had brought in. After returning to the store on May 14 and again being offered the pants, Pearson wrote the Chungs, demanding $1,150 to buy a new suit.
When the Chungs did not respond, Pearson filed the lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court that eventually made him the talk of the town and fodder for late-night TV comics.
After winning at trial, the Chungs asked the court to order Pearson to pay their attorneys fees, arguing that Pearson had acted in bad faith in suing the family. The judge has yet to rule on the Chungs' request, and Pearson has been given an extension to file his response to the Chungs' motion. Ordering a losing plaintiff to pay attorneys fees is unusual and would require the judge to find that the case was frivolous.
Pearson has not responded to recent efforts to reach him by e-mail messages sent late Monday and to a telephone message left earlier today at his home
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701156.html?hpid=topnews
