$67 Million Suit Over Lost Pants Gets Former Judge Suspended

A former administrative judge who made headlines for suing his dry cleaner for $67 million for allegedly losing his pants was suspended for 90 days by Washington’s highest court.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals said on Thursday that it agreed with its professional responsibility board that Roy L. Pearson Jr.'s litigation tactics “went beyond aggressiveness and crossed the boundary into abusiveness.”

Pearson sued the dry cleaner in 2005, alleging it didn’t provide him with “satisfaction guaranteed,” as a sign on the storefront advertised. But his demands for compensation, which started at $30,000, escalated dramatically, the court said.

The court called the damages figure “shocking.” The $67.2 million included $90,000 to rent a car to drive to another dry cleaner and $3 million for emotional distress, the court said.

The D.C. appeals court noted that the trial court said it was concerned that Pearson was acting in “bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings.” It ruled in favor of the dry cleaner in 2007.

The appeals court agreed with the board’s finding that Pearson violated an ethics rule prohibiting frivolous lawsuits. The suit should have been filed in Small Claims court, it said. The damages theories were “utterly frivolous,” and implausible, the court said.

For example, Pearson had argued that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign represented “an unconditional and unlimited guarantee of satisfaction.” Thus, any customer who claimed dissatisfaction, could demand any compensation whatsoever, he said.

His litigation strategy and “exorbitant demands had a direct impact on the amount of resources expended by both the judicial system and by defendants,” the appeals court said.

Pearson rejected three settlement offers by the dry cleaner, the largest of which was $12,000, it said.

And he also violated an ethics rule is prohibiting conduct that “seriously interferes with the administration of justice,” the court said. The stress, excessive and invasive discovery, and thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees weren’t warranted in this case, it said.

It noted that Pearson’s lack of disciplinary history is a mitigating factor. However, the overall seriousness of Pearson’s actions and lack of remorse are aggravating factors, the court said.

“Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions—or even contemplating any possibility that he may have engaged in professional misconduct—Pearson has chosen at every step of the disciplinary process, including as recently as his oral argument in this appeal, to levy accusations against Disciplinary Counsel, the Board, the Hearing Committee, and this court,” it said, and imposed the sanction.

Pearson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

The case is In re Pearson, 2020 BL 207211, D.C., No. 18-BG-586, 6/4/20.