The Appeal of the Pantload

Roy Pearson should be awarded a straitjacket rather than a new pair of pants. Despite the fact that the Chungs withdrew their attorney fee request, Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack, Pearson nevertheless filed his appeal of the decision against him, Pearson to Appeal Pants Verdict, in the legal travesty known (by me anyway) as the Case of the Purloined Pants. See my earlier post, No Pants, No Job for more background on the case.

As the Post noted:

The dry cleaners aren't pressing their case against the Pants Judge.

In a surprise turn yesterday, the small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.

The cleaners want Pearson, who could soon be out of a job, to do the same.

In the motion filed in D.C. Superior Court, the owners of Custom Cleaners ask Pearson, who lost his famous $54 million lawsuit two months ago, to call a halt to the legal proceedings.

See also, Roy Pearson v. Custom Cleaners The Final Chapter?. Not surprisingly, the pantless Pearson responded with a proverbial "mooning" by filing his appeal today. As of the Washington Post riffed, in Pearson v. Custom Cleaners The Saga Continues:

I have just received word that Roy 'Pants-less' Pearson has appealed Judge Bartnoff's ruling that he does not deserve $54 million for his suit pants. The move is a flat rejection to the Chungs dropping their motion to recoup legal fees which their lawyer described as an 'olive branch.' Lead counsel for the Chungs, Christopher Manning, tells me he has to discuss the filing with his clients before commenting directly, but promised a statement soon. Looks like this pants lawsuit still has legs -- more to come.

Sad to say, in cases like this -- there is no justice. As I always tell clients involved in litigation with aggressive or vindictive opponents, our legal system was intended to deal with people who respect the system and act rationally. If someone manipulates or abuses the system, the courts are ill equipped to respond.

Luckily, the Chungs are not without recourse. As Emil Steiner explained:

Their "olive branch," however, as defense attorney Christopher Manning called it, is contingent on Pearson dropping his appeal -- which may not be very likely: the Chungs offered him $12,000 to settle this matter a couple years ago and he turned them down. During the trial an "expert" pants witness testified that the Hickey Freeman slacks had a value of about $395, though Pearson said he was suing on behalf of all consumers who've ever been wronged by their dry cleaners.

The Blog of the Legal Times also added:

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, released a statement today: "The Chungs have done everything possible to put this nightmare behind them and return to their normal lives. They have won resoundingly at trial, raised donations from gracious private donors to pay for their litigation costs, let Mr. Pearson off the hook for personally paying their expenses and extended an olive branch to Mr. Pearson in hopes that he would end this matter and not appeal." Manning added that Pearson has chosen "desperate irrationality over common sense and decided to appeal, unnecessarily costing the parties more wasted time and the D.C. taxpayers more wasted money."

See Pants Judge Rips a New One.

What a pantload! Not only is such conduct embarrassing for the reputation of Pearson and lawyers in general, but it diminishes the view of the legal process as well. I may be a lawyer, but I don't like to see abusive litigation -- it ends up hurting the integrity of the legal system over time.

And as much as I enjoy mocking people like Pearson, cases like this also bring back bad memories for me personally. A few years ago, a former law partner -- with a Pearson personality -- sued me over the dissolution of our partnership. Despite the fact that there were no issues in dispute, she manufactured (in her mind anyway) a host of claims against the firm. She just couldn't let go (a la Pearson). In fact, at one point in the process, the local police were called and the responding officer (who referred to her as a loony tune) threatened to lock her up for the week-end. Thankfully, the Judge in our case had the same opinion of my former partner as did Judge Judith Bartnoff of Pearson. We eventually settled, but not before I ended up spending an amount close to what the Chungs did in legal fees.

Tags: Law, News, Humor, Pearson