Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mr. Fancy Pants May Lose His Job
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher reports that Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a misplaced pair of pants, may lose his job as a result of his bizarre legal obsession, which attracted nationwide anger and derision. The commission that is deciding whether to reappoint Pearson for another 10-year term apparently has concluded that "Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial temperment." Fisher says the panel will soon send Pearson a letter to that effect. "As satisfying as it would be to see Pearson lose his post over his obsessive pursuit of the Chungs," he writes, "the downside for the owners of the dry cleaners is that with Pearson out of a job, their chances of ever recovering the court fees that Pearson has already been assessed and the attorney's fees that he may yet be ordered to pay would be severely diminished."
[Thanks to Jim Gannon for the tip.]
SIV|8.3.07 @ 3:04PM|#
sage,
The whole Armada on the horizon?
This guy should be able to land a more lucrative job with the
McDonalds coffee lawsuit firm or with the guy in Alabama whot got
20 million+ for the paint job on his BMW. Hell maybe he could go
into practice with Joihn Edwards!
|8.3.07 @ 3:08PM|#
x,y,
yes, he should lose his job, and every case he decided should be
examined. His legal "reasoning" demonstrated with his suit, shows
that he is crazier than Teddy Roosevelt (who Mark Twain said was
"clearly insane").
If I was ruled against in this guy's administrative court, I would
appeal on the grounds that this guy is obviously a lunatic.
If the guy were anything other than a judge, then he shouldn't lose
his job, but since he job is to decide matters of law, he has got
to go.
|8.3.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Lose his job?
That's odd, I thought our legal system endorsed abusing suits like
this. I thought they were the norm, and judges could be counted on
to back such cases.
I guess I've been misinformed.
|8.3.07 @ 3:10PM|#
He probably would be a good fit for Edward's law firm as long as he's learned that once the screws of legal extortion have been tightend just tight enough, he needs to settle out of court and collect his ransom.
Jennifer|8.3.07 @ 3:10PM|#
As I understand from reading another article, it's not that he's losing his job so much as that his expiring contract isn't being renewed. And a good thing, too. Anyone who would go this bugshit over a pair of pants doesn't have sound enough judgment to be given legal authority over others.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Yes. The commissioners are correct, the episode goes to
temperament. Although impossible, we should be putting people on
the bench that aren't quite so prone to froth at the mouth, bully
people, and use the system to screw people over.
Now, next one to boot is the idiot judge that allowed this suit to
proceed rather then dismissing it out of hand in the first
place.
And on to my mantra.........there is no justice in the justice
system.
|8.3.07 @ 3:14PM|#
John Edwards supported a bill that would have banned attorneys
who filed lawsuits like this from filing lawsuits.
Some people are against frivilous lawsuits. Other people think the
phrase "frivilous lawsuits" is a great way to ram wholly-unrelated
wish-list items from the corporate legal community down the
public's throat.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Yes, Joe, you have been misinformed. And it wasn't Merlot, it was Bordeaux.
|8.3.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Whoa! If he files a $54M suit when they lose his pants, what's the lawsuit for losing his job gonna be? I bet he'll take that commission to the cleaners!!
|8.3.07 @ 3:18PM|#
de stijl,
Administrative law judges decide on cases involving disputes
between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies.
|8.3.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"Other people think the phrase "frivilous lawsuits" is a great
way to ram wholly-unrelated wish-list items from the corporate
legal community down the public's throat."
Like being able to make a living without having some jackass pull
the rug out from under you with this sort of nonsensical
"injury."
Big Bizniss! Oogabooga!
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob In Joe's Head
|8.3.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I went through a whole thing in DC small-claims court
some years ago. I had a pretty good experience with the staff
there. Maybe they just plain don't want to work with the guy.
The case was a good example of a frivolous lawsuit. The staff there
knew that it was, there just wasn't a whole lot that they could do
about it. Once they were given the opportunity to end it, they
did.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 3:36PM|#
I bet he'll take that commission to the cleaners!!
Thread winner!
Joe: there was sposed to be one of these: :-) on that last one of
mine to you.
|8.3.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Like being able to make a living without having some jackass
pull the rug out from under you with this sort of nonsensical
"injury."
You do know he lost the case and was ordered to pay the defendants'
costs, right?
If the "anti-lawsuit abuse" activists displayed any willingness or
ability to actually distinguish between abusive lawsuits vs.
legitimate ones, they might have gotten farther in curbing actual
abusive lawsuits. But that's never been their goal.
|8.3.07 @ 3:40PM|#
BTW, don't you think it's time to man up and stop whining because I called you out on an indefensible statement?
robc|8.3.07 @ 3:56PM|#
joe,
You do know he lost the case and was ordered to pay the
defendants' costs, right?
its nice that the defendant MAY get his costs back, but how about
the taxpayers?
|8.3.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Jeepers, Joe; "man up?" that's a good one. Too bad you're not a
better reader.
If you weren't such a pompous, sanctimonious twat, it might not
amuse me so to taunt you.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's head
|8.3.07 @ 4:02PM|#
robc,
It would be best of all if there was some barrier that would weed
out the frivilous cases, without causing people with legitimate
claims to shrink from filing lawsuits because of fear of suffering
some penalty.
There's a balancing act here, and I haven't seen the anti-lawsuit
side demonstrate any concern at all about the principle that people
deserve their day in court, or the benefit of having a civil court
system that will adequately incentivize companies from engaging in
shoddy business practices.
|8.3.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Oh, were you taunting me?
See, I totally didn't get that. I just thought you were going for a
sort of sympathy-vote from the other regulars, so it wouldn't be so
apparent to them how badly you get beaten down when you argue with
me.
Taunting. Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.
|8.3.07 @ 4:05PM|#
MayorOMalley,
And what do you think the origin of saying someone "sucks" is, you
big homophobe?
|8.3.07 @ 4:14PM|#
"There's a balancing act here,..."
Joe @ 4:03
You are right, but this is the last case in the world that you
should be using as an example of the justice system defending the
common man. This case makes a mockery of any reasonable defense of
the status quo.
The side of the courtroom was reversed, but the people being
victimized here were the business. The judge used his ability as a
lawyer to extort money and seek revenge at little cost to himself
and the justice system did not protect these poor people from him
for far too long and had it not come to national attention probably
would still be torturing this people. The putative phase is suppose
to wait until the judge drops his gavel and not begin the minute
the lawyers clock starts ticking.
I used to live in Scotland where the power is much more in the
hands of a deep pocket defendant and am very sympathetic to your
statements of 4:03. But this judge was way over the limit.
|8.3.07 @ 4:19PM|#
He lost his case, has to pay the other side's costs, and is
about to lose his job (on the orders of another judge). I don't
think the status quo is looking so bad here.
I agree, the judge who filed this lawsuit was way out of line, but
isn't he getting his at this point?
|8.3.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Being a DC resident, I've been somewhat following this, but does anyone have any idea what agency he work(s/ed) for?
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 4:55PM|#
The status quo is looking awful. The suit was frivolous on its
face and should have been immediately dismissed or, as is often
done in divorce property settlements in Ca, the judge should have
said we're done here, you guys go out in the hallway and figure
it out and when you've done so, then come see me. Next
case!
|8.3.07 @ 4:58PM|#
You do know he lost the case and was ordered to pay the
defendants' costs, right?
"Costs," in contexts like these, usually means such relatively
minor expenses as the filing fee, costs of transcripts, and the
process server's fee. It doesn't include attorneys' fees.
|8.3.07 @ 5:42PM|#
My problem with this system of government is similar to my
problem with nearly other function of government. Namely, I don't
want to have to trust judges or lawyers on an individual basis to
do the right thing because they are wise or benevolent. That seems
like a losing propostion to me. I know there are legitimate needs
to be addressed, so at the end of the day I want those guys to wind
up with a set of incentives that encourages them to do the right
thing. The stronger the institutional incentive, the better.
It is scary when plaintiff's attorneys can have a business model of
"sue until you get a windfall settlement" and be happy and
successful. There is insufficient cost to losing. Just bring every
case and see what sticks. The nature of punitive damages makes the
wins easiliy big enough.
Quietly, I believe Bush ended the abilty to venure shop your class
actions, which was all in all a pretty good step. You can't find
the yes man judge to decide the fates of millions of dollars and
thousands of shareholders and employees. That would be an example
of an incentive correction that I like.
edna|8.3.07 @ 5:53PM|#
joe, what's the objection to loser-pays? or at the very least,
waaaaay lower the bar before loser can recover? right now, the
standard for awarding of fees and costs to defendants is extremely
high.
it's nice that, maybe, possibly, no promises, one could collect
attorney's fees at the very end for the 0.01% of the most egregious
cases (or those that get publicity, like this one), but what do
defendents do who can't pony up the money to begin with? is a
defense attorney going to take the case on a contingency basis
given what has to be demonstrated for awarding of fees? not in this
universe. so unless, like these people, you have the wherewithal to
pay hundreds of thousands attorney's fees in the hope of recovery
some years down the road, your only choice is to settle and reward
the abusers of the system.
edna|8.3.07 @ 5:54PM|#
the second reference should be "defendant." sorry, my lack of pinky fingers really screws with my typing karma.
|8.3.07 @ 6:08PM|#
I'm with joe on this one, in fact I generally defend our tort system here on H&R. We have a great tort system, one which (to cue Hayek and Burke) has evolved from countless little incremental precedents over centuries to give us general justice, one that fosters commerce and promotes personal responsibility. Is it perfect? Of course not. But two points: of course corporate america would love to re-fashion tort law to make it much harder to sue entities like themselves for bign paydays, and of course they see libertarians as gullible folks with whom they can sneak this tort reform into their ideology by making sure a few think tink writers write inflamming articles about the subject (as joe has pointed out, we hear countelss articles about the filing of frivilous suits, and then when the legel system clobbers them we don't hear peep). I'm a big believer that the more someone knows about the law and the entire history of any given case the less people will badmouth our tort system...
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Edna, I'm a two fingered typer myself. And I'm fast, too. [blows the smoke away from the barrel of an imaginary Colt 45 and holsters it]
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 6:30PM|#
We have a great tort system, one which (to cue Hayek and
Burke) has evolved from countless little incremental precedents
over centuries to give us general justice, one that fosters
commerce and promotes personal responsibility. Is it perfect? Of
course not.
One could make exactly the same statement about the federal
government. Many of my friends often do. Just substitute "federal
government" for "tort system" and we're on the road.
wsdave|8.3.07 @ 8:52PM|#
joe,
"That's odd, I thought our legal system endorsed abusing suits like
this."
They didn't abuse the suit, just the pants...
Chavez is a thug|8.3.07 @ 9:01PM|#
"As ridiculous as his suit was, should he really lose his job
over it"
Is this meant to be rhetorical?
Chavez is a thug|8.3.07 @ 9:06PM|#
"John Edwards supported a bill that would have banned attorneys
who filed lawsuits like this from filing lawsuits."
Yeah, and he entitled the bill "Chutzpah".
|8.3.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Jeepers, Joe; "man up?" that's a good one. Too bad you're
not a better reader.
If you weren't such a pompous, sanctimonious twat, it might not
amuse me so to taunt you.
Careful, Bigoted Disgusting Snob, joe might throw you in the outer
darkness with me as one of those mean-spirited, despicable people
who disagree with his statism, or object to what you described as
his "pompous, sanctimonious twat" attitude.
Boo effing hoo, yeah?
|8.3.07 @ 9:34PM|#
It would be best of all if there was some barrier that would
weed out the frivilous cases, without causing people with
legitimate claims to shrink from filing lawsuits because of fear of
suffering some penalty.
That barrier is called tort reform, joe. The statist Democratic
politicians you so fervently defend oppose tort reform because
their biggest campaign contributors are litigators.
Did it ever occur to you that the U.S. having by far the highest
ratio of lawyers to population in the world might be a problem?
|8.3.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Did it ever occur to you that the U.S. having by far the
highest ratio of lawyers to population in the world might be a
problem?
Problem? I prefer to think of it as a "target-rich
environment."
|8.4.07 @ 2:31AM|#
"Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against
the Chungs was so frivolous and embarrassing to the judicial system
that it should be taken as evidence of his lack of judicial
temperment."
Yes, his extraordinary zeal is what did him in. I initially
defended his lawsuit, 'cause I suspect the Chungs are pieces of
garbage who probably deserve to be brought to the, er, cleaners.
When I heard he declined a $12,000 settlement offer, which is way
high, I thought, this guy is a freaking judge? I mean, do we want
our judges to be outright idiot jerkoffs?
David Nieporent|8.5.07 @ 4:01AM|#
John Edwards supported a bill that would have banned
attorneys who filed lawsuits like this from filing
lawsuits.
He did not. He supported a bill that would punish attorneys who
file frivolous lawsuits. But frivolous is a legal term of art, and
Edwards' bill didn't change the definition. Under the existing
definition, even an absurd suit like Pearson's isn't
frivolous.
You do know he lost the case and was ordered to pay the
defendants' costs, right?
You do know that "costs" doesn't include attorneys' fees, right?
(There's a pending motion by the Chungs to have the court order
Pearson to pay their attorneys' fees, also. That's an extraordinary
remedy rarely granted; it likely will be in this case, but that
doesn't mean they'll ever be able to collect from him. And even if
they could, the order will be stayed pending appeals; that means
that even if they do collect, it will be years after they've
expended the money.)
David Nieporent|8.5.07 @ 4:15AM|#
I'm with joe on this one, in fact I generally defend our
tort system here on H&R. We have a great tort system, one which
(to cue Hayek and Burke) has evolved from countless little
incremental precedents over centuries to give us general justice,
one that fosters commerce and promotes personal responsibility. Is
it perfect? Of course not.
The problem is, our modern tort system has gone far beyond the
common law system which developed over the centuries. Changes were
made over the last few decades, not as a result of Hayekian
evolution, but as a result of interest group lobbying.
For instance, fraud is a clear tort that libertarians want to
deter/punish. And at common law, one could sue for fraud. Someone
lies to you to trick you into giving him money, you're harmed, and
you sue. But Consumer Fraud laws are quite different from
traditional common law fraud. They were written by legislatures, to
allow people to sue without even having to demonstrate harm, let
alone a causal relationship between the alleged lie and the
harm.
(as joe has pointed out, we hear countelss articles about the
filing of frivilous suits, and then when the legel system clobbers
them we don't hear peep).
Joe's wrong. The defendants sometimes win, but
what we "don't hear" is that even when a defendant "wins" a suit,
it loses, because it has to pay its lawyers. And of course,
sometimes plaintiffs win huge windfalls.
|8.5.07 @ 12:01PM|#
edna,
joe, what's the objection to loser-pays? If implemented
too broadly, it would serve to discourage legitimate cases well as
frivilous ones. Not meeting the standard to win in the eyes of a
judge or jury is not coterminus with frivolity.
or at the very least, waaaaay lower the bar before loser can
recover? right now, the standard for awarding of fees and costs to
defendants is extremely high.
I could see some modulated response being appropriate. It's a bit
of fine-tuning, and it's too bad the reformers - at least, the
politicians who talk about reforms - only seem interested in
sledge-hammer solutions.
|8.5.07 @ 12:08PM|#
See, edna, look at jh's comment. (It appears that he actually
manned up enough to post with his own handle, thus eliminating the
problem of leaving his email address in the field whilt trying to
compliment himself via sock puppet.)
"The" solution is "tort reform" - the "tort reform" being put
forward by the Republican Party. All we need to know is that 1) it
is called "tort reform" and 2) it is opposed by Democrats. So
obviously, it must be right. Nevermind that these "tort reform"
bills were crafted for the purpose of making it harder for people
to file and win, regardless of the merits.
Hey, lawyers! Democrats! Corporations lose money! Sledge hammer,
sledge hammer, sledge hammer.
edna|8.5.07 @ 1:39PM|#
fine tune? right now, the standard for the award of costs is
unbelievably high. the standard for the award of attorney's fees is
so high that you might as well buy lottery tickets. and as soon as
anyone with lawyers on retainer and/or moderately deep pockets
and/or an attorney him or herself files even the most frivolous
action against you, kiss all your assets bye-bye to even get to the
point where costs can be discussed. assuming you have assets; if
you don't, hello chapter 7. it's a nice way of intimidating the
less well-to-do and shaking down small businesses.
the system doesn't need to be fine-tuned, it needs to be taken out
to a lonely wooded area in southern new jersey, shot twice in the
back of the head, then put into a trash bag and deposited in the
trunk of a large, dark, late-model sedan.
David Nieporent|8.5.07 @ 5:04PM|#
joe, what's the objection to loser-pays? If implemented too
broadly, it would serve to discourage legitimate cases well as
frivilous ones. Not meeting the standard to win in the eyes of a
judge or jury is not coterminus with frivolity.
The last sentence is true, but so what? It would shift the system
from a fault-based standard ("frivolousness") to a non-fault based
one. "Loser pays" is not a penalty for doing something bad; it just
says that if you impose costs on someone else, you pay.
Note that although the trial lawyer crowd portrays this as
anti-plaintiff, that's not true. Loser pays benefits plaintiffs
with good claims, by strongly disincentivizing a defendant with
deep pockets from running up the plaintiff's costs. (i.e., under
the current system (the "American rule"), if I sue IBM, their
attorneys can stall and drive up my costs until I can't afford to
pay my attorney anymore, even though I have a good case. But under
loser pays, every stalling tactic costs them double and doesn't
cost me anything.)
What loser pays does is discourage WEAK cases which might win.
Which seems like a reasonable cost to pay. If you don't have a good
shot at winning (either a good legal theory or good evidence) then
the social costs of bringing the suit outweigh the value of
bringing it.
Nevermind that these "tort reform" bills were crafted for the
purpose of making it harder for people to file and win, regardless
of the merits.
Really? Which 'tort reform' bills are you discussing?
|8.6.07 @ 12:06PM|#
edna,
I understand the argument you're making. Once again, as I wrote,
you failed utterly to recognize, or even acknowledge, the problem
of an overly-broad reform, much less discuss how the goals you seek
can be implemented without running roughshod over those other
concerns.
What you've done here is the equivalent of the
civil-liberties-snatching terror warriors on the right. They say,
"terrorism is bad, we need more security measures." Someone else
says, "OK, but there's another side to the story, the protection of
civil liberties." And you respond by repeating your original point,
and never deigning to address the concern I raised.
You know what I conclude about people who do that? They they don't
really give a crap about civil liberties.
Dave N,
The problem with your argument is that there are other reasons
besides a weak theory or weak evidence that prevent a plaintiff
from winning.
edna|8.6.07 @ 1:29PM|#
You know what I conclude about people who do
that?
ahh, the old ad hom. that's beneath you, joe.
i've proposed a specific major reform (loser pays presumption). you
have made one specific objection, it got knocked down, and i still
haven't seen either a valid objection or any sort of specific
counter-proposal from you.
meerdahl|8.6.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Joe, he was ordered to pay court costs, not legal fees. Court
costs are relatively trivial (filing fees, etc.). The huge expenses
are in legal fees, which he has not yet been ordered to pay, and
probably will not be ordered to pay. Plus, he may yet appeal the
case, so that is another round of expenses. This case received a
lot of publicity, so people are chipping in to help out the Chungs,
but this is extremely rare.
The legal fees are what wipes out small business owners, and a
determined, probably mentally ill plaintiff with a lot of time on
his hands can be extremely expensive to the defendants.
edna|8.6.07 @ 3:28PM|#
the deranged plaintiff is a problem, but not nearly of the magnitude of the problem of shakedown specialists. in most chung-like cases, the defendants just end up paying the ransom (they offered $12k in this case, with a sane plaintiff, it probably would have ended up with the chungs forking out $20k plus their own attorney costs to even get to a settlement, probably another $10k) because getting your day in court will run ten times that with close-to-zero chance of recovery. and, if you don't have the $100k+ on hand, you can't defend yourself anyway, regardless of the frivolity of the suit suit.
David Nieporent|8.7.07 @ 1:23AM|#
Joe, the three main reasons why a non-frivolous case isn't a
winner:
1) Weak theory
2) Weak evidence
3) Costs too much (relative to the recovery) to bring the
case.
Loser pays actually helps solve the third one.
Edna has it exactly right: the only reason the Pearson case has any
chance of leading to justice for the Chungs is because Pearson was
(is) insane. If he had merely been an unreasonable jerk, he'd have
made out like a bandit; they offered him $12K (for a pair of
pants!) to go away. Had he accepted, they couldn't recover fees or
costs from him; in addition to the $12K, they'd be out five figures
to their own attorney.
If the fact that such an objectively unreasonable case can lead
someone to offer $12,000 doesn't illustrate a problem to you,
nothing will. Why were they willing to offer that much? Because the
current legal system makes it possible for Pearson to impose
$90,000 in legal costs on the Chungs; it was cheaper to pay him
than to fight him. And there was always the chance that he wins,
which would either mean that they're wiped out or that they have to
pay another $50K for an appeal. The chance that he would win is
small, and if you're litigating over a $1,000 suit, you can gamble.
But when you're betting your entire business, you can't risk
it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245