The Pants Verdict

D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled today on the $54 million pants lawsuit, in which D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson sued his neighborhood dry cleaners after it misplaced a pair of pants he had brought in for alterations.

Read the Latest: Plaintiff in Pants Suit Gets Nothing ( Post, June 25)

Post Metro columnist Marc Fisher was online Monday, June 25, at 11:30 a.m. ET to discuss the verdict.

Pants Verdict: Judge Stuffs The Pants Man ( Raw Fisher, June 25)

A transcript follows.

____________________

Marc Fisher: Welcome aboard, folks, on a busy morning. Judge Judith Bartnoff dropped her decision on the $67 million pants case this morning and it's a very cautious, highly detailed opinion that finds for the owners of the dry cleaners, the Chung family. What the decision does not do is ream out Roy Pearson in any demonstrative way for his abuse of the court system. But she does totally dismiss Pearson's reasoning and the case he presented in a two-day trial earlier this month.

More on this on the blog, and in Henri Cauvin's news story.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Would you please post a link to the verdict?

washingtonpost.com: Plaintiff in Pants Suit Gets Nothing ( Post, June 25)

Marc Fisher: Here's the news story--I believe we have the full text of the ruling coming soon.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Plaintiff in Pants Suit Gets Nothing ( Post, June 25)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Pants Verdict: Judge Stuffs The Pants Man ( Raw Fisher, June 25)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Today is a sad, sad day for pants lovers everywhere.

Marc Fisher: It's always a bit tragic when a great ride like this comes to an end, but with Roy Pearson at the helm, we can bet on some appeals action coming down the pike.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The judge conceded the pants did not match the suit, but she stated that there was strong evidence that Pearson had simply brought in a mismatching pair of pants. Reading your coverage, I saw only this: "Manning suggested that perhaps Pearson was the one who had switched pants and had put in a different pair than he thought he had." This, in cross examination of Pearson.

Was this line well-developed by the defense, and if so, why did you not mention that in your coverage?

Marc Fisher: No, this was not remotely developed by the defense. It flashed by in less than a minute of testimony. In fact, amazingly, the pants and the jacket were never on display in the courtroom at the same time. That said, it did appear to me that the pants and jacket did not match. Judge Bartnoff must have had the same view, because she then latched on to the idea that perhaps Pearson had simply delivered a different pair of pants for alterations than he thought he had.

But the essential fact here is that it doesn't really matter whether these were indeed his pants--Pearson's lawsuit really focused more on the D.C. consumer protection law than on the exact identity of these pants. And the Chungs had strong evidence that these pants were indeed put in by Pearson: The ticket numbers on the pants and on Pearson's receipt matched.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Marc, the article today mentioned that Judge Pearson's job and finances could be in jeopardy as a result of his court loss. How so? Thanks.

Marc Fisher: Pearson's two-year term as a beginning administrative law judge ended at the end of April, and Mayor Adrian Fenty asked the panel considering Pearson's appointment to a full, 10-year term to hold off on any decision until the mayor had a chance to fill a vacancy on that board. Fenty has not yet done that but is expected to shortly. The delay was intended in good part to let this trial finish and perhaps give the board a better reason to deny Pearson his full term as a judge.

_______________________

Anonymous: How soon until the dry cleaner owners receive some money from Pearson for all the pain and costs that he put them through?

Marc Fisher: Don't hold your breath. The judge today awarded the Chungs only court costs, not attorney's fees. Bartnoff said she will rule on lawyers' fees at a later date--both sides are seeking a ruling that the other side pay their fees. Obviously, the judge won't grant Pearson any money, but it remains to be seen if she will take the unusual step of making Pearson pay for the Chungs' lawyers. And even if the judge does that, I wouldn't expect to see any money change hands for a long time, if ever. Pearson went out of his way during the trial to note that he has not paid the fees that the Virginia court ordered him to pay when they chastised him for excessive litigiousness in the case of his divorce.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Can you provide a web link to the 23 page verdict? We are dying to read it all! Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: Ruling (pdf)

Marc Fisher: Here it is!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm sure this question will come up over and over again ... but how did this case not get thrown out by the court ... and why didn't the dry cleaner countersue (I'm sure they would have grounds to)?

Marc Fisher: Well, there was no point in a countersuit--the last thing the Chungs needed or wanted was more litigation. As for why the case got this far, two points: 1) Pearson, while possessed of some very odd and far-fetched notions of the law, is a very smart guy who managed to find some poorly constructed bits of the D.C. consumer protection law and tried to exploit those for enormous profit. He really did find some vagueness and little holes in the D.C. code, but his attempt to drive a huge locomotive through those holes was as silly and empty as the judge found it to be. 2) The lawyering on the Chungs' side wasn't exactly top-shelf at the start of the case, and while the Pearson case was limited by the two judges who handled it, there was never the aggressive attack on the Pearson case by the defense that there would have been if this had been handled by a big fancy law firm. (Not that a $10.50 alteration case should ever have involved lawyers who buy custom-made suits.)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will this help or hurt the Chungs' business?

Marc Fisher: Very good question--I have no idea. I would expect that as with everything else in our celebrity-crazed society, all publicity helps, even notoriety. And in fact, every single one of Pearson's own witnesses said that they had had very good experiences with Custom Cleaners up until the moment of whatever loss of garment they supposedly suffered.

_______________________

Awarded "costs?": There was some mention on what this trial cost the city per day. When "costs" are awarded, is this amount recovered from Pearson?

Marc Fisher: No, the basic costs of running a trial--the judge's salary, her clerks, and so on--are eaten by the taxpayer. There are other costs that are generally paid for by the parties to the suit--the stenographic record of the trial, exhibits and so on. And those are the costs that the judge today awarded to the Chungs.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: We've all had bad experiences getting clothing cleaned by someone else, but I feel badly for the defendants here. I hope they'll be able to keep their business going!

Marc Fisher: Not yet clear--I'm heading over to a news conference with the family at the conclusion of our time here together.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Seriously, Pearson cried at one point? What's the story behind that?

Marc Fisher: Pearson wept twice. He was at the point in his narrative where he came back to the dry cleaners seeking to pick up his pants, only to be presented with pants that he said were not his. At the moment when he told the court about how the Chungs insisted these were indeed his pants when he was certain they were not, he seemed overwhelmed by the surreal nature of the encounter and began to weep. He had to halt the proceedings. When they resumed after a break, he again cried as he told that part of the story.

Oddly enough, Mrs. Chung broke down in tears at almost exactly the same point in her testimony.

These were very potent pants.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Any chance of Judge Pearson being kicked off the bench and never being able to serve as a judge after this? What about being disbarred?

Marc Fisher: No move that we've heard of toward disbarment.

More timely, however, is the question of whether he gets reappointed to his job as a judge, and that is very much in question--the folks on the panel making that decision are torn over whether Pearson's actions outside of his own courtroom are fair game as they consider whether to give him a 10-year term of his own. To me, it seems obvious that this lawsuit blows away any possibility that Pearson could be seen as having the judicial temperament to do his job properly, but some of the folks making the decision say they are concerned that judges maintain their First Amendment right to seek redress through the court system.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Dear Marc,

In light of today's ruling, how do you think this is going to impact your alleged tensions between the African American and Asians that you wrote about in last week's blog. While I agree that there have been tensions in the past, I felt that your blog was a major stretch and was very unbalanced; and was wondering what your basis was in making such an absurd connection between the Pearson case and the nomination of Rhee?

washingtonpost.com: D.C.'s Black-Korean Dynamic: A Simmering Tension ( Raw Fisher, June 20)

Marc Fisher: What's absurd about noting that I was receiving large amounts of mail from readers who were lashing out at both Korean dry cleaners and Michelle Rhee, the new, Korean-American chief of the DC school system? In both cases, there are black-Korean tensions rising to the surface despite fact patterns that appear to have little or nothing to do with ethnic rivalries or animosities. I could have chosen to ignore all the sentiment I was hearing along these lines, but I thought it was more useful to level with readers, put the issue out there to be aired, and see how we all thought this fit in with the merits of the two news situations and the realities of ethnic tensions in a big city.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Hi Marc,

I have followed your articles from the beginning of this case. I am proud that we still have a person like you and the Post to shed lights on this matter.

Thank you and the Post to get the job done well!

Marc Fisher: Thanks very much.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: How much did this cost the Chungs?

This is one of my nightmares -- I know a couple who made an enemy of someone who happened to be a lawyer, and the resulting case cost them $50k even though the result was that the suit was dropped if they apologized.

What's to protect me from being the target of a vengeful lawyer?

Marc Fisher: Not a whole lot. The system relies to a far greater extent than might make any of us comfortable on goodwill and the self-correcting mechanisms of the courts. Judges do have more leeway to toss frivolous or vindictive court actions than they generally take advantage of. Lots of folks have argued that this case should have been tossed early on, but when you have a smart guy like Pearson, and perhaps more important, someone for whom cost is no issue, then there really aren't a lot of brakes that can be slammed to stop the thing. Money is the crucial factor here: Ordinarily, the ability of a really ticked-off plaintiff to make life a living hell for a given merchant or other defendant is limited by the ability of the plaintiff to pay for his court action. But when the plaintiff is a lawyer who is happy to put 1,400 hours of work into a case, as Pearson says he did here, then that natural braking action becomes irrelevant.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: The Pants verdict is the most popular story on BBC's main news page.

US man loses $54m trousers' claim ( BBC News, June 25)

Why do you think this story has international appeal..and will a TV movie follow?

Marc Fisher: Everybody--and especially foreigners--loves a good outrage story about the excesses of the American legal system. I've gotten more calls from foreign reporters on this story than anything I've covered since the O.J. Simpson trial or the fall of the Berlin Wall. There's a big piece of schadenfreude here--that great German term for taking pleasure in the pain of others. Foreigners who think we are a litigation-mad society look at this case as ultimate proof of their beliefs. They must be somewhat disappointed today.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: From reading all about the pants lawsuit (and the info about his previous lawsuits), it sounds to me like Mr. Pearson could have a real mental problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps OCD or something? Paranoia? People who are mentally balanced don't devote thousands of hours over several years to a beef with a dry cleaners over a pair of pants. Any shrinks out there want to make a quick diagnosis?

Marc Fisher: A lot of folks who sat through the trial concluded that there was something a bit off about Pearson, but those who have worked with him over the years say that he was an enormously dedicated and hard-working lawyer, and apparently his record as an administrative law judge was good enough that he was well on his way to a 10-year appointment before the pants suit came along.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Was Pearson fired from his legal aid job or did he quit? Do you know why?

Marc Fisher: There was some discussion of this at the trial, and Judge Bartnoff, if I recall correctly, was the one who tried to cut through Pearson's vague wording on this and asked him directly whether he had been fired. Pearson responded that he and his boss were no longer on speaking terms and that Pearson quit.

_______________________

Kingstowne, Va.: Can the courts force payments by garnishing wages?

Marc Fisher: I believe so, but we're a long way from that.

_______________________

Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: Since Pearson already has a track record of not paying up in his divorce case, can he just declare bankruptcy and walk away from any financial obligation to the Chungs?

Marc Fisher: Quite conceivable, especially if he loses his job as a judge. Pearson was unemployed and receiving public benefits for about three years before he got his job as a judge.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Is there any concern among journalists covering the case that they could end up in Pearson's sights for "slander" or some such?

Marc Fisher: I don't believe there was a soul in the courtroom who didn't have some theory as to how Pearson might come to sue him.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: There's really a whole chat on this?

Marc Fisher: And you're posting to it!

_______________________

Dulles, Va.: You say Pearson put 1,400 hour into the case -- that is 35 weeks of 40 hours a week. Was he getting paid for his judge job while he was working on his case or did he do this in the evening, after hours?

Marc Fisher: Pearson laid out a detailed accounting of his hours, and even called a witness--a fellow judge--to testify that Pearson was unable to come out to play (to accompany the friend on weekend trips or to dinner) because he was always spending evenings and weekends working on the pants case. I've read the entire case file and I can easily buy the 1,400 hours figure.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I've seen some commentary on left-wing blogs that the publicity on this case is all generated by the right-wing tort-reform crowd. I've posted comments in various places that this is nonsense -- but maybe a direct comment from you would help.

Marc Fisher: Here's why it's nonsense: For the first time that I have ever seen in 27 years of reporting, this case brought the American Trial Lawyers Association and the tort reform group together to issue a joint statement decrying Pearson's excesses. This is the equivalent of the pro and anti sides of the abortion debate coming together to take a common stand on some aspect of their eternal debate.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You said this fiasco was a "great ride." While we all agree this was a laughable episode, I think it's a bit insensitive to bemoan the ending of this story. I'm sure the Chungs don't see it as a "great ride."

Marc Fisher: The Chungs have been done a terrible wrong here, and it's not at all clear that they will be made whole. That said, the popular interest in this case is as much an entertainment as it is a serious examination of the issues of tort reform or abuse of the court system. We're all here because this was an outrageous case with a highly entertaining fact pattern.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Well assuredly Roy Pearson is not going to take this gross miscarriage of justice lying down, so my question is, in light of the grounds sighted in today's opinion and the "limited discovery" that restricted his case, what seems to be the most prominent legal grounds for his inevitable appeal? The Private Attorney General will not and cannot rest whilst these 14,400 time offenders are permitted to openly and notoriously flout the Consumer Protection Laws of our nation's capital.

Marc Fisher: Pearson will almost certainly appeal and my sense is that he will indeed challenge Judge Bartnoff's ruling on the grounds that he was prevented from presenting his entire case (he initially presented a list of dozens and dozens of witnesses, but the judge only let him put nine on the stand, and Pearson offered more than 100 exhibits, but Bartnoff admitted only 66 of them) and that Bartnoff failed to enforce the D.C. Consumer Protection law as written and as interpreted by Pearson.

_______________________

New Orleans, La.: I think we need to take up a collection for the dry cleaners. This was terrible!

Marc Fisher: There is a defense fund for the Chungs. Information is at http://customcleanersdefensefund.com

_______________________

Bethesda, Md,: Despite the fact that the defendant prevailed in this case, do you think the D.C. consumer protection law needs to be changed/modified to prevent other small businesses from having to go through the ordeal and expense of a ridiculous lawsuit?

Marc Fisher: I'm no lawyer, but there did seem to be some real holes in the law that Pearson identified, and Judge Bartnoff agreed that the D.C. law does not specify the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the consumer protection law. But Bartnoff says precedent and common law make it clear how courts are to handle such situations, and Pearson was being way too literal and small-minded here (my words, not hers.)

_______________________

Anonymous: Did the judge make any off the cuff remarks after the verdict?

Marc Fisher: Ha!

No, the decision was filed electronically--no courtroom action today.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Having sat through the trial, I find the judges's "just the facts" written opinion disappointing. I want a little Judge Judy ranting.

Marc Fisher: Are you the person who told me that Bartnoff simply didn't compare to Judge Judy? I tried to explain to one spectator who chose the Pearson trial to be her first visit to a real courtroom that real court bears little resemblance to TV shows, but she was having none of it, and insisted that Bartnoff was "ridiculous" because she was being so fair to Pearson. Such people end up on juries, you know.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Custom Cleaners Defense Fund

_______________________

The Pants Movie: Who do you think will play the leading roles when Hollywood casts the movie? I think Forrest Whittaker for Pearson and perhaps Meryl Strep for the judge. Not sure for the dry cleaners yet.

Marc Fisher: Very generous casting. I'd lean more toward an actor with a more venal streak to portray Pearson. But I don't see a movie here--the characters are too starkly opposed. They would need a lot more gray to sustain a movie.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Are you serious? Some of the people who are responsible for assessing Mr. Pearson's fitness for reappointment are concerned about possible impact on other judges' right to seek redress in the courts. No one is suggesting that judges should be barred from filing suit or should be censured if they file suit and lose. This is about Mr. Pearson's thought processes and his fitness to judge others in a fair and impartial manner consistent with the law. Anyone who takes a position that "satisfaction guaranteed" means absolute satisfaction without any limits of reasonableness is unfit. The District's court system should not be ridiculed for allowing Mr. Pearson's case to proceed to trial, but the District government rightly should be pilloried if it allows Mr. Pearson to continue to sit in judgment of others.

Marc Fisher: I agree with you--I'm just telling you what's being said in the offices of the various people who will be making that decision.

_______________________

Judge Drops Pants, Suit: I aspire to serve as a copy editor at the Post so that I can write headlines.

Marc Fisher: We are always looking for great head writers, and we have quite a few on hand already. I think our copy desk is proud that we have not yet used the word "Trou" in any of our Pearson case headlines.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Did the evidence indicate whether the pants the defendants claimed were the suit pants in question or not?

If not, why didn't the judge at least award damages for the value of the loss to Pearson?

Marc Fisher: The judge concluded that there's no way to know for certain whether the pants the Chungs are holding for Pearson are really his. The judge said that it makes sense that these could be pants that he submitted to the cleaners while thinking that he'd actually put in a different pair. But there was no definitive finding either way.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md,: Marc, an error in your blog -- costs are routinely awarded to the prevailing party under Superior Court rules (Rule 54(d) to be precise). As you indicated, that does not include attorney fees however, just stuff like filing fees, duplication costs, etc.

Marc Fisher: Thanks.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: OK, so the crazy pants guy lost, thank goodness.

Any updates on the insane story that downtown Silver Spring is a no-photo zone because it's private property?

Marc Fisher: Haven't heard--let's check back in on that in the Thursday chat.

_______________________

Marc Fisher: Gotta run, folks--thanks for coming along. More on the blog now and more in the column tomorrow.

_______________________

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.