Soo and Jin Nam Chung

A Washington, D.C., administrative law judge who sued his dry cleaner for $65 million over a missing pair of suit pants has now succeeded in uniting both sides of the tort reform debate against him.

In April, the American Tort Reform Association wrote D.C. officials urging them not to reappoint Roy C. Pearson to the bench. And last week, ATRA's polar opposite on the trial lawyers' side -– the American Association for Justice (AAJ) -– called for disciplinary action.

“The widely reported actions of Mr. Roy Pearson, Jr. in pursuing a $65 million lawsuit against a local dry cleaning business appear to constitute a serious abuse of the civil justice system,” AAJ chief executive Jon Haber said in an ethics complaint to the D.C. bar association.

Pearson's infamous case against Custom Cleaners is currently set for a non-jury trial in D.C. Superior Court starting June 11. In a complaint filed in 2005, he alleged the owners of the dry cleaner, Soo and Jin Nam Chung, lost a pair of suit pants he had taken in for alterations and then tried to pass off another pair for the missing garment.

Most of the damages sought in the (legal) suit would come from the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which fines violators a minimum of $1,500 per violation, per day. According to a court document, Pearson, who is representing himself, added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by the three defendants.

“This case spotlights defendants ... whose rapacious business practices continued unabated for more than one year after this lawsuit was filed,” he said in his pretrial statement.

Those practices allegedly include the posting of signs in the store promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service,” which “lure[d] plaintiff and over 26,000 customers into placing their clothing in the custody of the defendants.”

But a Superior Court judge has said the case is only about one plaintiff and one pair of pants. The garment, the defendants say, has been hanging in their attorney's office for more than a year.

“If Plaintiff was damaged, his damages are, at most, $1150-$1600, the alleged price of the suit from which the purportedly lost pants came,” the Chungs, who have launched a defense fund, argue in their pretrial brief.

Whatever Pearson may win at trial, it surely cannot be worth the infamy he has generated for himself. “That Mr. Pearson occupies a position of public trust as an administrative law judge, in addition to his membership in the Bar, further intensifies the dishonor that his apparent actions have cast on both the system and the profession,” the AAJ complains.

By Matthew Heller
5/16/07