Judge Pearson sues the pants off Washington D.C.

Speaking of "frivolous" lawsuits, you may remember Judge Roy Pearson, the Washington, D.C. administrative law judge who filed suit when a dry cleaners in his neighborhood lost the pants to his $1,100 suit.

His suit demanded $67 million for the lost pair of pants -- later reduced to $54 million -- and the outrageous nature of these demands, coming as they did from someone in judicial office, sparked national publicity, fanned by 'tort reform' groups. The hostile publicity got truly shrill and impassioned when it was revealed that Judge Pearson turned down a $12,000 settlement offer from the Korean family that ran the dry cleaners.

Less well publicized, of course, was the outcome of such a ridiculous suit. Late last June, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff entered the following order: "Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr."

And Judge Pearson lost twice: Around the time he lost his suit against the cleaners, he also lost his job. He was not reappointed to his District of Columbia post.

And now Judge Pearson is back in the news: He's sued to get his job back. And guess who's calling attention to his latest legal maneuvers?

The linked story on CNN.com quotes Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association -- not Pearson, the alleged subject of the story -- of whom McKinney says, "He lost his job because he proved he did not have the legal requirements to fill the job, namely a judicial temperament."

You'll remember the American Tort Reform Association. That's the group behind the Judicial Hellholes report. (My prior post about ATRF's designation of Cook County as a "Judicial Hellhole" is here.)

The CNN story isn't about a man who may have issues over and above losing his job. It's about scaring the public into believing that we are suffering an epidemic of "frivolous" lawsuits. The public identifies, understandably, with the Korean family working hard to build a business -- and fears that their business or their homes or their savings may be next to be wiped out by a "frivolous" lawsuit.

Except that it didn't happen. And no one, except maybe Mr. Pearson, seriously thought it would. But, oh, is his story useful for pushing an agenda....