And for his next lawsuit: wrongful dismissal!

I don't know how many of you have been following the whole "pants" lawsuit down here, but just to give you a quick recap, in 2005, local administrative law judge Roy Pearson filed a lawsuit against a family-owned dry cleaner for "losing" a pair of his pants. The dry cleaners, owned by the Chung family, either gave him back the wrong pair or said they lost them (I don't remember which), but either way, Pearson sued for somewhere in the neighborhood of $54 million (and if I'm not mistaken, this was reduced from $65 million originally).

The grounds for Pearson's lawsuit were based on merely the principle of customer service—i.e., satisfaction guaranteed, which the Chungs advertised. Pearson wasn't satisfied, so his rationale was that he should be amply compensated. In principle, it sort of makes sense, but the way he went about this was all wrong. He tried to make the impression that he was "standing up for the little guy," taking a stand on the principle of good customer service and fighting for those who have had bad customer service experiences. But when you break into tears in the courtroom over the "trauma" caused by the loss of a pair of pants, I don't think that adds to your credibility. Rather, I think that makes you a laughingstock!

Plus . . . $54 million for a lost pair of pants??? That's just ludicrous.

In the final analysis, the judge hearing the case pretty much laughed the lawsuit right out the window, and hopefully struck a serious blow to the litigiousness of our culture. Pearson is of course appealing the decision, but given all the legal fees incurred, both he and the Chungs are pretty much broke right now (though I believe the Chungs have received quite a lot of contributions to help cover their fees).

As for Pearson himself . . . well, right now his future as a judge is in some serious doubt. I almost have to wonder if he'll file a wrongful dismissal lawsuit if he isn't reappointed.