What’s Left to Say About Pearson v. Chungs?

By August 16, 2007Briefly Legal

Leafed through our copy of the DSM last evening, looking for another angle to Judge Roy Pearson’s legal vendetta against his former drycleaners, Nam Chung and Soo Chung. No go. We’ve run out of commentary after the latest twist — his decision to appeal his case, even after the Chungs offered to drop their claim against him for legal fees.

So we’ll defer to Darren McKinney, director of communications for the American Tort Reform Association, who had a letter published in today’s Post:

Suitable Irony In a Laughable Case
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A14

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.

By the way, Roy Pearson is big news in South Korea.

Leave a Reply