Pants Lawsuit

Emil Steiner, keeper of washingtonpost.com's OFF/Beat blog, has been blogging from the D.C. trial of the century, as Roy Pearson, "a lawyer, judge and dissatisfied customer," sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of pants.

Steiner was be online Friday, June 15 at noon ET to take your questions and comments about the case.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Emil Steiner: Hey everyone, thanks for coming. It's been pretty incredible how much interest this story has generated. I'll be happy to answer your questions about the $54 million pants suit.

_______________________

Philly: Just a Thank You! for blogging about the daily deliberations of this trial. I was hoping that Court TV would show it, but alas, they only have time for real crimes. Your descriptions of the witnesses have been hilarious and Must Read Newsprint everyday they've been posted.

Emil Steiner: Thanks Philly! Glad I could keep you posted. While I can't speak to the exact reason why Court TV didn't show it, I can tell you video cameras were not allowed in the courtroom.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: who is paying for the dry cleaners' legal costs? I can't imagine that the family has much in the way of financial resources.

Emil Steiner: Unfortunately for the Chungs they have had to bear the burden of their legal expenses. As a result they are now on the verge of financial ruin. There is a legal defense fund that has been started for them, and if they win this case there is a chance that Pearson will be ordered to pay for their legal fees. Whether they can actually collect from him is another questions.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: I lost a sock in a commercial washing machine. Would Mr. Pearson agree with me that the sock should be worth at least $100,000?

Emil Steiner: I'm not sure of the consumer protection laws in Pennsylvania, but perhaps after this trial he'd be willing to represent you.

_______________________

Troy, Mich.: When will there be a ruling in this case.

Emil Steiner: The ruling is expected sometime next week in writing.

_______________________

Brooklyn, NY: Why wasn't this case thrown out of court before trial? On the face of it the whole premise seems ridiculous. Was the court deferring to a colleague?

Emil Steiner: My understanding is that a court cannot throw out a claim based on the amount being sought in damages. As ridiculous as that may be, they can only toss it based on its merits.

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you think Roy Pearson in Washington D.C. and Thurbert Baker in Georgia will have any effect of how African American attorneys are viewed in the legal system? Both are national cases, where the law was used to abuse minority victims. And when able to and they could have mitigated the issue and choose not to.

Emil Steiner: I certainly hope not. It is disturbing to read comments on my blog that blame Mr. Pearson's actions on the color of his skin. Race has nothing to do with this. Whether your skin is black, white or green, you look equally ridiculous demanding $54 million for a pair of lost pants.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Apparently this case has some legal merit to go this far? Granted the millions are bizarre, but how has this been allowed to go so far when they found the pants? Cuff or no cuff, can I now sue when I asked for my steak medium-well and I get medium-rare?

Emil Steiner: Always worth a try... if you can take a restaurant to court over a $54 million steak, I promise I'll be there to blog about it!

_______________________

Freeport, Ill.: I would like to know one thing. Why, with our courts as overworked as they are, do judges & lawyers allow this ignorant type of unjustice to go any further then a mere hearing to tell these idiots NO. Just go away and get a life.

Emil Steiner: Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a case can only be thrown out on its merits, not because the claim in question is unreasonable. Since the Chungs did in fact lose his pants, and in fact had a sign up that read "Satisfaction Guaranteed" Mr. Pearson has a case. I think almost everyone in the courtroom and across the world that has read about this case shares your frustration though.

_______________________

Pears, ON: Was anything made by the defense of Pearson's son's statement that he "went shopping in dad's closet"?

Emil Steiner: Actually Judge Bartnoff was the person who introduced that phrase into the courtroom, during the clarification of an objection. She also came up with the phrase "closet shrinkage" when Pearson was describing why his clothes no longer fit him. He said "I gained weight" and she corrected by saying, "it's called closet shrinkage."

_______________________

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico: Should the legal maxim "De minimus non curat lex" come into play in this case?

Emil Steiner:"The law does not cure trifles." I suppose that depends on what you consider a trifle.

_______________________

Riverdale Park, Md.: Emil, your coverage of the trial has been fabulous!

What is your sense of this Pearson guy?

He sounds a little bit off.

Emil Steiner: Glad you've enjoyed the trial coverage... to say the least it's been memorable. My sense of Pearson is that his understanding of the law is a lot stronger than his grasp on reality.

_______________________

Front Royal, Va.: One who represents himself has a fool for a client! The plaintiff in the "pants" case has disgraced his profession and gives proof to the old adage above.

Emil Steiner: Indeed. Though it's hard to imagine that any lawyer representing him in this case for that amount wouldn't look equally foolish.

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: If we send all the lawyers with no exceptions to Gitmo and secret CIA prisons we wont have problems like this. The United States of America will be much better off and it would cut down the field on both Rep and Dem sides for potential presidential candidates. Lawyers only generate more billable hours for their brethren. Execute them all without due process!

Emil Steiner: Well, I'm not a lawyer myself, but that sounds like it might be illegal. You might want to check with a lawyer first.

_______________________

D.C.: Dry cleaners lose clothing. These cleaners offered Pearson $12,000 for the lost pants.

So I still do not understand why he can go forward with his suit.

Emil Steiner: I've been told Mr. Pearson owed around $12,000 in legal fees to his ex-wife's lawyers for being overly litigious during their divorce. The Chungs offered him that amount because they wanted the matter to be over and done with. Mr. Pearson turned it down because, IMHO he isn't interested in the money. After all, if by some miracle he won this case, do you think you he would end up getting any of the $54 million from the Chungs?

_______________________

On the question of race: I didn't realize until this morning that Mr. Pearson was African-American.

My opinion of him didn't change one iota. He's still an idiot. They come in all colors.

Emil Steiner: They certainly do...

_______________________

Athens, Ohio: Can you give specifics on where to send money for the Chung's legal defense?

Emil Steiner: http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why aren't the lawyers defending the dry cleaners working pro bono? The profile of this case has gotten high enough to allow the firm to gain publicity to offset most costs. Additionally, the firm could get paid if the case is ruled frivolous and the judge is order to pay the defendant's legal fees.

Emil Steiner: Given that the Chungs don't have enough money to pay Mr. Manning and his firm for all the hours they have put in, the lawyers are in some ways working pro bono. And even though they can attempt to recoup those fees from Pearson if they win, I've been told it is a long and taxing process.

_______________________

Bethesda: Emil, do you think Pearson will appeal if he loses?

Emil Steiner: In a word yes. Judge Bartnow seems to have to great lengths to dot all her I's and cross all her T's just in case of appeal. That being said, Mr. Pearson certainly has the legal know how and the persistence to drag it out for a long long time.

_______________________

Anonymous: Pretty much everyone I know thinks this whole thing is a crock. I know that judgeships generally can't be taken away, but (assuming the lawsuit fails) is there a chance he'll face any consequences for it?

Emil Steiner: Again I'm not lawyer, but I certainly feel that in order for a judge to be credible his judgment must not be question. What would you say about the judgment of someone who sues for $54 million over a pair of pants and turns down a $12,000 settlement?

_______________________

Potomac Falls, Va.: Given the jabs aimed at the plaintiff, I suspect I'm hanging out here all alone, but I hope this guy wins (maybe not $54 mil, but something substantial). It would be striking a blow on behalf of all consumers who get the runaround/brush-off and poor service from businesses. And, yes, the mom-and-pop businesses are often as unconcerned with providing good service to the customer as are the corporate giants.

Emil Steiner: I think almost everyone has had a bad experience at the dry cleaners and there certainly should be legal recourse for consumers who get the "runaround/brush-off." But when you're talking about millions of dollars for a pair of lost trousers, it seems more like a frivolous lawsuit than consumer protection.

_______________________

K Street Corridor: Emil: Your readers might want to know that settlement offers are inadmissible as evidence in a trial. The judge hearing the case is not supposed to know about any offers. The theory behind it is that settlement offers are often made to resolve meritless cases. If you make an offer, and that information is presented to a judge or a jury, they may very well think that the party making the offer has admitted liability.

Emil Steiner: I think it is matter of public record that that settlement offer was made. Also, and I could be mistaken, but the Chungs' lawyer has discussed it fairly openly. You may be correct though that it cannot be used as evidence.

_______________________

Front Royal must be a Lawyer: Anyone who attempts to defend himself in a court of law "has a fool for a client" is a favorite slogan of the legal profession....which has a vested interest in maintaining that falsehood, as it encourages people to hire lawyers.

Just sayin'.

Emil Steiner: That's an interesting point. Still I think Pearson would have done well to have hired a lawyer, if not to talk him out of this then at least to deflect all the negative publicity.

_______________________

La Jolla, Calif.: Thanks so much for the live blogging. It was GREAT. I hope we get more of it. Any future court appearances coming up?

Emil Steiner: Given the response we certainly hope to do lots more. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Boston: Would you be surprised if the court came back with a win for Pearson, but clearly reduce the damages to the cost of the pants? Say $200?

Emil Steiner: A lawyer in court the first day mentioned just that to me during lunch. Pearson would awarded some nominal amount and then ordered to pay the Chungs thousands of dollars in legal fees. Not being a lawyer though I can't speak to the logistics of how that would work.

_______________________

Alexandria: It seems to me that this lawsuit is about Pearson getting kicked out of the drycleaners after the first incident. He was unwanted....and I wouldn't be surprised if we learn that he deliberately set up the drycleaners (that seems to be what the defense was saying when testifying that he didn't even look at the pants and declared them the wrong ones).

Emil Steiner: The first incident definitely had some impact. On day 1 of the trial Pearson testified, in painstaking detail, how he was refunded for an initial pair of pants and then asked never to come back. He then petitioned the Chungs to allow him back in and they relented. I think now they may be regretting that decision.

_______________________

What about the ex-wife?: Any chance the ex-Mrs. Pearson could testify as to the excessively litigious nature of Mr. Pearson?

Emil Steiner: That was brought up in the defenses opening statements, I believe. But no she did not make an appearance.

_______________________

Merion Station, Pa.: What role do you think race is playing in all of this? And do you think this will prompt any tort reform?

Emil Steiner: Again I do not think race played a role here. In terms of tort reform, on of the more colorful characters in the courtroom on day 1 was a press agent from The American Tort Reform Association who showed up in a very wrinkled seersucker suit with a green lapel button reading: "$65 Million "Pantsuit' Perverts DC's Consumer Protection Law."

_______________________

Soo..: Off topic but is it Ay-mil or Eh-mil?

Emil Steiner: It's pronounced em-ull, as in Emily but without the "y"

_______________________

Emil Steiner: Wow, that went really fast. I think I may have done more typing here than blogging live from the trial! Thanks for all your great questions. Sorry I couldn't get to all of them, but feel free to post on OFF/beat and I'll do my best to answer them there.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.