Suitable Irony In a Laughable Case
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
As one of the tort reformers who reportedly "vilified" D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson's internationally infamous multimillion-dollar lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaners, I couldn't help smiling when reading of his ironic argument against the court ordering him to pay the defendants' attorney's fees ["Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack," Metro, Aug. 14].
Mr. Pearson reasoned that since the American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had raised enough money to cover most of those fees, forcing him to pay, too, would amount to granting the defendants an undeserved "windfall."
Of course, the notion of a windfall didn't seem to bother him much when he sought $500,000 in attorney's fees from the defendants to compensate him for his service as his own attorney throughout this ludicrous case, which he could have ended at any time.
DARREN McKINNEY
Director of Communications
American Tort Reform Association
Washington
