pageok
pageok
pageok
I Guess We Knew This Was Coming:
From the Associated Press, via Howard:
   A former judge who lost a $54 million law suit against a dry cleaners over a missing pair of pants is suing to get his job back and at least $1 million in damages.
   In the suit filed in federal court, Roy Pearson [alleges] he was wrongfully dismissed for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, the department where he worked. In court documents, Pearson said he was protected as a whistle-blower and that the city used the fact that he was being "vilified in the media" to cut him out of his job.
Skyler (mail) (www):
This is the worst example of judicial manipulation I've ever heard of. This guy needs to be punished.
5.6.2008 7:44pm
NOLA Lawyer:
Who would have thought that lost pants were 50 times more valuable than a lost job and reputation?
5.6.2008 7:45pm
Oren:
Rule 11 anyone?
5.6.2008 7:51pm
Paul Milligan (mail) (www):
Well, if that just don't beat the pants off it !
5.6.2008 7:55pm
EKGlen (mail):
The funny thing is that he may actually be correct about why he was fired.

Given the nuttiness of his lost pants case, it would seem that his employer did not demand competence or even sanity from employees. But one thing you don't want to do with municipal employers is start grousing about corruption.
5.6.2008 8:05pm
Bored Lawyer:
The Judge needs to be taken to the, umm, cleaners?
5.6.2008 8:13pm
ithaqua (mail):
"A former judge who lost a $54 million law suit against a dry cleaners over a missing pair of pants"

To be fair, there was more involved (eventually) than just a missing pair of pants.

... not much more, though.

As for restoring his job, I would argue that anyone who would file suit over a pair of pants ipso facto demonstrates his unworthiness to serve as an arbiter of a Law which does not concern itself with trifles. Of course, if that was one of the criteria, we'd rapidly run out of trial lawyers :)
5.6.2008 8:20pm
Adam K:
He's an ALJ. He's a "judge" like I'm a "referee" because I officiated a kickball game.
5.6.2008 8:25pm
Paul Milligan (mail) (www):
He wasn't fired. His term expired, and they declined to appoint him to a new one. Totally different issue. He had no binding expectation or promise of renewal after the original term of appointment.

Also, he's a f'ing nut job.
5.6.2008 8:28pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
By this suit and his earlier counterclaim, he has made out the defense for his former employer, showing beyond doubt he has no judgment whatever. Judgment is kind of an indispensible quality for a judge. Just sayin'.
5.6.2008 8:54pm
alias:
The judge needs to be thrown in jail and put in a cell with Jonathan Lee Riches.
5.6.2008 9:06pm
Karl Stucky (mail):
I don't get it. He's a liar. He's nuts. He's handsome. He's black. Why engage in such petty and obviously foolish shakedowns, when brothers Jackson and Sharpton have blazed a clear path to easy cashflow?
5.6.2008 9:12pm
bbeeman (mail):
This whole thing stems from closing the mental hospitals and letting the crazies roam the streets (and concentrate in the DC government).
5.6.2008 9:22pm
Meh (mail):

Adam K: "He's an ALJ. He's a 'judge' like I'm a 'referee' because I officiated a kickball game."



He's not a "judge" in the same sense that a district court judge is, to be sure, but does not the "J" in "ALJ" stand for "judge"? I think that sorta qualifies him as a "judge."
5.6.2008 9:38pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
The only judge with his pants off who is worse than this guy is the "penis pump" judge.
5.6.2008 9:55pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
Yeah, Dilan, but that fool kept his pants on while pumping.
5.6.2008 10:15pm
theobromophile (www):
Clearly, he crossed the line from having cajones to just being stupid.
5.6.2008 10:50pm
Gaius Marius:
Roy Pearson should be permanently disbarred.
5.6.2008 11:08pm
Dave N (mail):
Amazingly, it took an insane attorney to bring us all together.

Roy Pearson for President!
5.7.2008 12:19am
Gaius Marius:
Roy Pearson is a uniter, not a divider.
5.7.2008 1:28am
htom (mail):
There's a new definition of chutzpah there, somewhere, related to the patricide who complained he was an orphan.
5.7.2008 1:46am
Gaius Marius:
If Nifong can get his license back, maybe he and Roy Pearson can open up a law firm together.
5.7.2008 2:02am
Thoughtful (mail):
"Pearson said he was protected as a whistle-blower and that the city used the fact that he was being "vilified in the media" to cut him out of his job."

The fact he's a complete asshole being insufficient?
5.7.2008 2:40am
Mr. Bingley (www):
Well, I guess he's a "whistle blower" in the sense that he bravely alerted us to a certain judge who was mentally unfit for the position he had...
5.7.2008 8:23am
BZ (mail):
Actually, there is a live legal issue here, and one which is playing out in some states even now (disclosure: I am currently appeals counsel in one).

Some states still require an ad damnum clause, and the amount in the clause has legal significance as a limit on awards. Thus, if a jury awards more than the ad damnum, the plaintiff may be limited to the amount asked for. FRCivPro and most states have abolished this rule, some states prohibit ad damnums or specific amounts, and some other states permit amendment after the jury returns a verdict.

But, it's a huge issue in some places. For example, after a state supreme court justice (who has been working on this for 20 years and specially assigned himself to my panel) and I went at this question for about 30 of my 20 minutes of argument, he pointed out that the biggest question here was whether there was malpractice if the lawyer didn't ask for enough (or forgot to move to amend immediately after the verdict came down).

And that is the reason for the "reasonable" outrageous ad damnums: nobody, particularly a contingency fee lawyer, wants to gamble on a verdict and then lose it because she didn't ask for enough. You will ask for a billion before you risk losing your house.

As the New Jersey Supreme Court put it many years ago: whatever the value of the ad damnum in providing certainty for the defendant in calculating trial risk, it exacts a far greater cost to the legitimacy of the judicial system from a public perception of inflated demands.

Having said that, I also used Roy Pearson as an example of why the rule needs to be abolished. "Four words, Your Honor: Dry cleaners. Lost pants."
5.7.2008 11:19am
alias:

[T]he city used the fact that he was being "vilified in the media" to cut him out of his job.

That's generally what the media does when you do bad things.
5.7.2008 11:35am
Uh_Clem (mail):
I don't get it. Why do judges need pants? I thought that's what the robes were for.
5.7.2008 11:41am
mojo (mail):
So the pants were worth $54 mil, but his job is only worth a mil? What's up with that?

Is it because he's not suing a defenseless victim this time?
5.7.2008 1:55pm
anym_avey (mail):
So the pants were worth $54 mil, but his job is only worth a mil? What's up with that?

Maybe he got the pants from Marion Barry, and that was the street value of the pocket liners.
5.7.2008 2:50pm
zippypinhead:
Paul Milligan wrote:
Also, he's a f'ing nut job.

Thoughtful wrote:
The fact he's a complete asshole...
Oh, goody! I can see it now: Roy Pearson v. The Volokh Conspiracy, Milligan, Thoughtful, and 9,347 Johns Doe.

Causes of action: defamation, slander, tortious assault with a deadly internet blog, copyright infringement for uttering plaintiff's given name without payment of royalties, and violation of 37 provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Only question remaining for the jury according to his motion for plaintiff's judgment on the merits is whether the damage to his reputation will exceed the damage to his pants...

Truth? A complete defense? Naw, this suit will be filed in the District of Columbia -- whole 'nother set of rules apply there...
5.7.2008 3:36pm
Kent G. Budge (mail) (www):
"Who would have thought that lost pants were 50 times more valuable than a lost job and reputation?"

Well, it's [i]his[/i] reputation ...
5.7.2008 3:59pm
teqjack (mail):
As noted elsewhere, he was not fired - his contract was not renewed.

And "whistle blower?" I do not think blowing your own horn counts as such.
5.7.2008 11:01pm
fishbane (mail):
Amazingly, it took an insane attorney to bring us all together.

Just goes to show that everyone has a place in the world.

I do not think blowing your own horn counts as such.

It may be my own problem, but that was not a mental picture I needed.
5.9.2008 3:04pm