# $54 million pants lawsuit



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

*Lawyer's Cost for Missing Pants -- $65 Million!*

Maybe dry cleaners will take better care after this:

I kind of feel bad for the dry cleaners though.


----------



## abc123 (Jun 4, 2006)

My emtions regarding this article lie somewhere between amused and shell-shocked. Is he serious?

Amazing.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

This is the sort of thing that gives my profession a black eye. I'm appalled that this guy actually had some sort of judicial appointment. I may just be a small-town, rube of a lawyer (who went to Georgetown) who doesn't understand litigation in that thar big city, but I'd be damned embarrassed to be seen by the bench and bar of my county litigating this.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> This is the sort of thing that gives my profession a black eye. I'm appalled that this guy actually had some sort of judicial appointment. I may just be a small-town, rube of a lawyer (who went to Georgetown) who doesn't understand litigation in that thar big city, but I'd be damned embarrassed to be seen by the bench and bar of my county litigating this.


hoya saxa! SFS '02


----------



## abc123 (Jun 4, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> hoya saxa! SFS '02


x2! College '08.

Sorry to derail the thread gentlemen!


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Just to disclose, Law '96!


----------



## A practical man (Jul 20, 2004)

All we humans have the potential to get things out of perspective, but this attorney is way out there by himself. He should have quit hounding the cleaners long ago and just gone elsewhere. It's hard to generate any sympathy for him now, don't you think? He has made himself appear just plain ridiculous.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

It's a mini reunion. Ahh the memories! Puking at the bottom of the Exorcist stairs. Hurling in some poor woman's back yard on Prospect. Vomiting near cannons in front of Healy. Passing out in the graveyard near Harbin. 

*single tear rolls gently down my face*


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

a4,

I never did any of that as we law types were pretty much exiled from campus and sent to New Jersey Ave. To keep it topical, I never did any of that in front of Korean dry-cleaner!:icon_smile:


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Oooooh....mmmmyyyyyyyy.......gooooooooodneeeeeeessssss.......

Somebody _desperately_ needs some lady companionship.


----------



## Henry (May 4, 2006)

"The District's consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day"

Surely it's his prerogative to go for all the damages he can - and it's the law's fault for being this retarded?

Surely the real shocker here is how badly the state's law is constructed? Unless I'm missing something...


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Henry, not sure that statute was drafted with dry cleaning disputes in mind. Poorly drafted state laws are one of the reasons that there are so many future attorneys in law schools nationwide.


----------



## Henry (May 4, 2006)

Oh, so they drafted the statute but forgot they had any dry cleaners in the entire state?

(a) [as you say] poor draftsmanship,

(b) a beautiful example of why proscriptive damages are an idiotic idea.

Without wanting to start a legal debate, when did basing damages on actual loss go out of fashion?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

a4audi08 said:


> Henry, not sure that statute was drafted with dry cleaning disputes in mind. Poorly drafted state laws are one of the reasons that *there are so many future attorneys in law schools nationwide.*


There are medical students and physicians on this forum, is it really that necessary to remind us?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Have I misread something? The way I read it, "$1500 per violation per day" shouldn't apply to _every_ day since, should it? Particularly when they've tried to settle multiple times in the meantime? Seriously, this guy's brass clackers must announce him a mile away. I'd kind of like to sit next to him on a long flight and let him know what I think (I don't live in DC, so...!).


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*huh?*

and this guy is a judge? no wonder the country is in such trouble when we have leaders like this.


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

a tailor said:


> and this guy is a judge? no wonder the country is in such trouble when we have leaders like this.


+1. What's really sad is that he supposedly used to do advocacy law. You'd think he'd have some sympathy for a small minority-owned business. They offered him more than replacement value; what more does he want? It's going to be a very sad wikipedia entry for Mr. Pearson when all this is done...


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

I'm pre-law, and this sort on thing makes me repeat in my head-"It's a noble profession,It's a noble profession," just to remind myself.


----------



## Don Goldstein (Dec 25, 2005)

I'm embarrased that I live in the same country as this guy.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

a tailor said:


> and this guy is a judge? no wonder the country is in such trouble when we have leaders like this.


Oh come on...this is clearly not representative of the average officer of the court.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Am I the only one who noticed why the pants were allegedly lost? The guy had 5 suits he had ceased wearing. So explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old. What law was this fool practising without wearing suits? Why do I invision a storefront bween a $1 store run by Pakistanis and a sub sandwich shop,;dealing in child support payments, mechanic liens and dogbites? The Attorny General is squirming before Congress for firing attorneys and this is going on?


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

The man is an ass, plain and simple. They should pay him the value of the pants, nothing less, nothing more.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

fullgrain said:


> It's going to be a very sad wikipedia entry for Mr. Pearson when all this is done...


Then he will likely lawyerize wikipedia.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Henry said:


> Without wanting to start a legal debate, when did basing damages on actual loss go out of fashion?


The lawsuit sounds ridiculous, but there's _some_ sound reasoning involved.

I suppose by 'actual loss', you mean what he paid for his pants and the dry-cleaning service, etc. If you only require someone to pay restitution when they breach a contract, you deter contracts where it takes a long time to find out the other guy has failed to perform. If damages were limited to restitution, the dry-cleaner could use its customers as interest-free creditors by taking payment for work that it doesn't do.

It makes sense to me that one should get more than restitution for lost pants from his dry-cleaner. Otherwise, you'd get too many dry-cleaners running off with the goods on the 'pay-for-it-when-they-make-me' plan.


----------



## kabert (Feb 6, 2004)

I wager a sizable bet that this "judge" is an only child. Spoiled, even as an adult....

As an administrative law judge in my fair city (DC), that means he is probably a traffic court judge. 

It's hard to believe he should have been entitled to anything other than the depreciated value of the suit (assuming the coat was not really wearable by itself). It wasn't a new suit, I don't think. Hopefully this guy and his lawyer have now been shamed into dropping the case.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This is why so many of us feel the way we do about the legal profession.

A few of you are wringing your hands a bit, but no lawyer will challenge him for real unless he is paid to represent the dry cleaner.

There should be a means for disbarring this predator. Other lawyers will defend him, though.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> There should be a means for disbarring this predator.


Much as I agree with this sentiment, I'm not sure he has actually violated a Rule of Professional Conduct. I'd have to take my DC rules off the shelf and blow the dust off to know for certain, though. He has certainly violated a Rule of Not Being an Ass.


----------



## gefinzi (Sep 23, 2005)

anglophile23 said:


> I'm pre-law, and this sort on thing makes me repeat in my head-"It's a noble profession,It's a noble profession," just to remind myself.


I'm afraid you were misinformed.


----------



## wgb (Mar 2, 2007)

Let's see -- for the $12K the defendants offered in settlement, he could have bought anywhere from 3 to 5 MTM or bespoke suits and gotten on with his life. To quote that famous phliospher and jurist, Bugs Bunny, "whada maroon!" 

Sadly, a law degree does not automatically confer either common sense or an understanding of the underlying principles of fairness and equity.


----------



## ChicagoTrad (Feb 19, 2007)

Any chance of some sort of counter-suit by the dry cleaners?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If there is no rule allowing disbarment for this kind of behavior, there should be one. This is an example that can be used to illustrate that lawyers are unwilling to police themselves.

For an officer of the court, in fact a judge, to engage in this action with impunity, is a disgrace to the rule of law and should not be allowed.

I just think that lawyers are pushing the envelope so far that the general public will eventually figure out how to do the policing of lawyers for them.

Lawyers may wish that they had policed themselves if this happens.

I can assure you that the accounting profession would have preferred not to be hit with Sarbanes Oxley, although in the short run, it does cause employment for a lot of accountants.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Much as I agree with this sentiment, I'm not sure he has actually violated a Rule of Professional Conduct. I'd have to take my DC rules off the shelf and blow the dust off to know for certain, though. He has certainly violated a Rule of Not Being an Ass.


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## satorstyle (Jan 2, 2007)

I pray the lawsuit is thrown out, and he is made to pay the cleaners legal costs


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

To quote that famous phliospher and jurist, Bugs Bunny, "whada maroon!" 

"What an ULTRAmaroon!"


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

He sued the pants off him.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

satorstyle said:


> I pray the lawsuit is thrown out, and he is made to pay the cleaners legal costs


For those familiar with DC law: what are the chances of this, based on what we know?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Isn't this the country of tar and feathers?

And then there is John Edwards who probably swindled somebodies money in court, by sueing, and then, uses some of it for an $800 haircut. Democrats for sueing doctors how are the poor suppose to ever see doctor? Oh yeah, raise taxes on everybody, including the poor.


----------



## Panzeraxe (Jan 11, 2004)

WA said:


> Isn't this the country of tar and feathers?
> 
> And then there is John Edwards who probably swindled somebodies money in court, by sueing, and then, uses some of it for an $800 haircut. Democrats for sueing doctors how are the poor suppose to ever see doctor? Oh yeah, raise taxes on everybody, including the poor.


You're as classy as the lawyer in the article - mutating a story about an amusing yet appalling lawyer into a little rant against Democrats.

And its "suing" not "sueing" - its got nothing to do with a girl named Sue. I won't even start on "somebodies"


----------



## sheik (Apr 24, 2005)

HOYA SAXA - '01 grad of the college -- 

-Village C East freshman year
-Village B sophmore year
-Copley junior year
-36th and T senior year

let the reunion continue!


----------



## bkdc (Mar 4, 2007)

WA said:


> And then there is John Edwards who probably swindled somebodies money in court, by sueing, and then, uses some of it for an $800 haircut. Democrats for sueing doctors how are the poor suppose to ever see doctor? Oh yeah, raise taxes on everybody, including the poor.


I know plenty of Democratic voting physicians who would refuse to treat or operate on John Edwards would he ever walk into their offices. There's no question John Edwards is a slimeball, but this isn't about Democrats.

I'm glad the article was published by the Post. Maybe some reasonable friends or colleagues will persuade him to drop the case.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

*The $67 million dollar pair of pants*

Don't you just hate when the cleaner's looses your clothing?

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1

The lawyers in the forum can hang their collective heads.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> Don't you just hate when the cleaner's looses your clothing?
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1
> 
> The lawyers in the forum can hang their collective heads.


Hilarious...

And we lawyers wonder why the public holds us in such contempt.

And this guy is judge...LOL.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I hope Pearson gets disbarred.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Here is "Judge" Pearson's bio, you'd think a guy who worked in Legal Aid type of work would have a more understanding demeanor...LOL

"Judge Pearson was an attorney with the Neighborhood Legal Services Program (“NLSP”) from July 1978 through July 2002; the last 13 years as the Assistant Director for Legal Operations. In the latter capacity Judge Pearson was responsible for training and supervising a legal and support staff of 20-60 persons in neighborhood offices throughout the District of Columbia. NLSP provides civil legal assistance to indigent residents of the District of Columbia."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> Don't you just hate when the cleaner's looses your clothing?
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1
> 
> The lawyers in the forum can hang their collective heads.


Thanks for finding that! I heard it on the radio on the way in this morning but have been too busy to dig up a link.

It seems at one point, the cleaners offered him 12k for the pants to settle. He refused to accept it. Reminds me of a case I was in once over lost hearing aides and an upper dentures (major PITA in my line of work). Wanted my organization to replace both things, gave us purchase receipts totally 1.2k. Our legal rejected, offered $600 (not really responsible for obvious reasons, I mean, dentures usually go missing when EMTs pull them out of people's mouths to intubate them) as a good will gesture. It escalated up to 350k being demanded at one point, due to emotional suffering for not having their uppers, etc. In the end, they got zero.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> Hilarious...
> 
> And we lawyers wonder why the public holds us in such contempt.
> 
> And this guy is judge...LOL.


Well, an ALJ.....I always considered that like the meter maid of judges.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Some great comments here:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> Some great comments here:


You just made my day with that website. Thanks :aportnoy:


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You just made my day with that website. Thanks :aportnoy:


Thought you'd like that one. Another great way to waste time.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Sickening. We should probably all expect our dry cleaning prices to start increasing as dry cleaners buy themselves some form of insurance against yet another excellent example of the litigation tax that our over-lawyered society makes possible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> Sickening. We should probably all expect our dry cleaning prices to start increasing as dry cleaners buy themselves some form of insurance against yet another excellent example of the litigation tax that our over-lawyered society makes possible.


We need to declare dry cleaning a "right" and get a national plan! :devil:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't know about this. Would waiters and waitresses be subject to federal charges for spilling food on "Dry-Clean Only" garments once this is a right?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Laugh now gentlemen, but look what's happened to our health insurance premiums over the last 10 years as malpractice lawsuits continue to skyrocket!

Some interesting reading:

https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/facul...'s Put The Litigation Tax On Trial 9.9.04.pdf

And here:

https://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday411.php

More reasons the legal profession needs to be reigned in with a loser pays system, elimination of contingent fees, and caps on damages.

Oh, and yes, I do have a sense of humor, I am just in a particularly anti-frivolous lawsuit type of mood today... :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't know the guy, but I have known a few legal aid lawyers in my years whom I considered jerks. 

I would also say that a jerky personality is very uncommon among the lawyers that I know, and that I don't know any who would devote the time and energy this guy has to this kind of dispute. 

When you're in our line of work you tend to spend a lot more time convincing people that some small dispute they're faced with isn't worth the time to fight over it than pumping people up to go to battle. Even in the fields that are routinely bashed by Republicans and insurance companies, like personal injury work, many more cases get turned away than litigated, or even filed. It's the minority of cases that will repay the investment of time and money.

JERRY: Well, generally speaking you don't need any extra incentive to murder a dry cleaner. I wouldn't worry about that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This diverges a bit, but here is an outgrowth of this kind of nonsense.

I used to play piano professionally, and now entertain as a volunteer at a nursing home. I stopped by a hospice last December, and was well-received and although I did not know it, I played the last piece of music (a request for Nat King Cole) that an old gentleman heard, just minutes before he died.

Some of you may remember a thread I posted about that.

I contacted the hospice to see if they want me to come once a month or something like that as a volunteer.

After being somewhat short with me, the hospice finally called back five months later and left a message saying that if I was still interested, I need to come for 8 hours of volunteer training because of HIPAA regulations. This is just so that I can sit at a piano and never get near a patient record. Because of how the hospice is laid out, I would probably never get near a patient.

Because they were rude to me when I contacted them, I will not respond. I also don't have 8 hours to waste on this ridiculously needless training.

No nursing home has ever even thought about making me do this.

These HIPAA regulations have come about because of overly aggressive lawsuits. Whether attorneys or individuals are responsible for this, I will leave to those who know more.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I know one urologist that always jokes about using the largest probe possible for an ultra-sound of a lawyer's prostate as they're the biggest a-holes he knows....

Most lawyers probably are not bad people (you have no idea how much it hurts to say this) but the thing is, in a nation of so many laws and where the rule of law is so important, they have the tools to hand to make life for a non-lawyer living hell. Look at all the legal bills this poor dry cleaner has had to face and the "judge" is probably representing himself. Outside of some reforms mentioned above, maybe it should be required that when an attorney brings suit, he must hire another attorney to represent him and pay that person's market rate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> This diverges a bit, but here is an outgrowth of this kind of nonsense.
> 
> I used to play piano professionally, and now entertain as a volunteer at a nursing home. I stopped by a hospice last December, and was well-received and although I did not know it, I played the last piece of music (a request for Nat King Cole) that an old gentleman heard, just minutes before he died.
> 
> ...


I do not know what that hospice was thinking, a good piano player for free? However, they were right about the HIPPA, but 8 hours just for that is abit long. Probably had to do with patient rights, the obligatory OSHA stuff like blood borne pathogens, etc. Surprised they also did not mention a TB test and police background check, as that is all part my regulatory package my Volunteer Director has to do for every single volunteer except registered members of the clergy.....


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hope that your volunteer coordinator is not as rude as this one was.

I'm not going to call her back. I've dropped a nursing home because of an aggressive volunteer coordinator, too. 

It's interesting that nursing homes don't seem to be so totally regulated.

I'm giving them a service that I used to easily get $100 for on the rare occasions when I did solo work. I will not spend 8 hours in the training class just to play for free, especially so I can deal with a rude volunteer coordinator. I will admit, and I hope it's not ego, that I was a bit moved by being able to give a dying man one of his last wishes.

Maybe if I had a full time job that was better staffed where I did not put in so many hours, I'd consider it (with a nice, polite volunteer coordinator, of course.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope that your volunteer coordinator is not as rude as this one was.
> 
> I'm not going to call her back. I've dropped a nursing home because of an aggressive volunteer coordinator, too.
> 
> ...


Yes, it has become more difficult for all healthcare facilities to recruit volunteers. In Arizona, any volunteer that will be in patient areas must have a TB test, background check, and do several hours of inservicing (industry term for training) on the above. If you will be alone with any patient, finger prints and national background check. This includes everyone, including me and the CEO, all doctors working with a "vulnerable population", i.e. developmentally disabled. It is pretty burdensome and yet another area of corporate compliance that the least variance from could end up in a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Seriously, the nuclear industry is #1 regulated in the US, healthcare a close #2.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm never alone with a patient, though.

I suppose that given our current legal client, you are better safe than sorry.

I admit that if I had to go through all that, I would probably have to charge for my services.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm never alone with a patient, though.
> 
> I suppose that given our current legal client, you are better safe than sorry.
> 
> I admit that if I had to go through all that, I would probably have to charge for my services.


Fingerprinting and national background is just for those that will be alone. The TB, police background, and inservice are just the volunteer cost of admission to being in the general areas of patients!


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

I`m hoping Judge Judy tries the case, from the little knowledge I have of American Judges it would appear only Judge Judy has and implements common sense.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I've suggested Judge Judy for the Supreme Court before and will NOT be fulfilled until the country comes to its senses and seats her where she belongs!!

The next time someone goes in front of them with a weak case, she'll let them know who's boss.

(Of course, this works best for me when I hope the person Judge Judy is bashing loses the case!)


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Just to disclose, Law '96!


I was also GULC '96, and I also agree that this lawyer's conduct gives us all a bad name. I guess we were just taught better. The fact that this guy is also an administrative judge only makes his behavior that much worse.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Update*


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

JAGMAJ said:


> I was also GULC '96, and I also agree that this lawyer's conduct gives us all a bad name. I guess we were just taught better. The fact that this guy is also an administrative judge only makes his behavior that much worse.


Not by any chance Section 3, were you?


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

bkdc said:


> I know plenty of Democratic voting physicians who would refuse to treat or operate on John Edwards would he ever walk into their offices. There's no question John Edwards is a slimeball, but this isn't about Democrats.
> 
> I'm glad the article was published by the Post. Maybe some reasonable friends or colleagues will persuade him to drop the case.


I truly hope you know no doctors who fit this description. It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that they take to refuse service to someone in need. If you know any doctors who violate their oath for politics I can only hope they lose their right to practice soon as they do a great disservice to their profession.

Perhaps uniquely, doctors are required to take an oath to perform their duties and HELP people. Whether it is a Despicable Democrat, a Repugnant Republican, or whatever, is not relevant and may not be relevant.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

the etruscan said:


> I truly hope you know no doctors who fit this description. *It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that they take to refuse service to someone in need.* If you know any doctors who violate their oath for politics I can only hope they lose their right to practice soon as they do a great disservice to their profession.
> 
> Perhaps uniquely, doctors are required to take an oath to perform their duties and HELP people. Whether it is a Despicable Democrat, a Repugnant Republican, or whatever, is not relevant and may not be relevant.


Damn good thing the Hippocratic Oath is not law then. I know doctors that remove people from their patient roster all the time. Not going to go down the whole path this is headed though, have fun with that one folks.


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Damn good thing the Hippocratic Oath is not law then. I know doctors that remove people from their patient roster all the time. Not going to go down the whole path this is headed though, have fun with that one folks.


I was responding specifically to the statement operate. I should have been more precise. I hope you know no doctors who refuse to perform emergency surgery on any patient. Non-emergency treatment of patients is a different beast entirely, as the patient is free to find another doctor.

I really don't see why you're excited that the hippocratic oath isn't law.

EDIT: Or to be fair, why there is political sniping in a clothing thread.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

the etruscan said:


> I was responding specifically to the statement operate. I should have been more precise. I hope you know no doctors who refuse to perform emergency surgery on any patient. Non-emergency treatment of patients is a different beast entirely, as the patient is free to find another doctor.
> 
> I really don't see why you're excited that the hippocratic oath isn't law.
> 
> EDIT: Or to be fair, why there is political sniping in a clothing thread.


1) Thread was moved, was in Interchange.
2) EMTALA covers it much better and has teeth.
3) No man should be a slave to another. Sorry you do not believe that.

Cheers


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> We need to declare dry cleaning a "right" and get a national plan!


Socialized dry cleaning! :devil:


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> 3) No man should be a slave to another. Sorry you do not believe that.
> 
> Cheers


Seriously, get F*UCKED. I don't know where you get off accusing me of approving of slavery because I think the idea that doctors are not permitted to refuse perform emergency surgery to someone they dislike is a good thing. There is something wrong with you. Sorry about that.

EDIT: Alright. I will edit my post. He stated "No man should be a slave to another. Sorry you do not believe that." The direct implication is that I believe "A man should be a slave to another." The only conclusion I could draw is that it is a statement saying that I am in favor of slavery. I don't see the jump. Feel free to request to have this moderated though.

EDIT2: Yes, that made me angry. It's not relevant to clothing, but it's not something I'm excited to see left alone either.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Wayfarer is more than capable of defending himself, but it takes quite an angry jump to assume he was accusing you of defending slavery.

I hope that either you or a moderator will edit your post.

EDIT: I still think it's quite a jump. You are free to overreact as far as I'm concerned, I guess. While there are dozens of more acceptable words you could have chosen, it's up to Andy and the moderators to decide if your post is acceptable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

the etruscan said:


> I truly hope you know no doctors who fit this description. It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that they take to refuse service to someone in need. If you know any doctors who violate their oath for politics* I can only hope they lose their right to practice* soon as they do a great disservice to their profession.
> 
> Perhaps uniquely, doctors are required to take an oath to perform their duties and HELP people. Whether it is a Despicable Democrat, a Repugnant Republican, or whatever, is not relevant and may not be relevant.


Mr. Excitable:

You have pretty much explicitly stated here you hope a physician will lose his means of livlihood unless he practices as you desire, namely to be forced to render services to people no matter the desire of the physician. If that is not a form of slavery, I do not know what is. You have stated your belief in this. QED.


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Mr. Excitable:
> 
> You have pretty much explicitly stated here you hope a physician will lose his means of livlihood unless he practices as you desire, namely to be forced to render services to people no matter the desire of the physician. If that is not a form of slavery, I do not know what is. You have stated your belief in this. QED.


Taking the initial statement, incomplete as it was, without regard for further clarification, is a misrepresentation of my point, though I caused my own problem by being imprecise.

As I clarified, and clarified, and clarified, I think it is a good thing that doctors are not permitted to refuse emergency service to a patient. If you consider that slavery, then we have different definitions of slavery and I think yours is ridiculous. If you're making your accusations without regarding my clarifications, then your argument is nonsense. Regardless, this is not a discussion about clothing, which is why I read this forum. Further, being viciously insulted by a stranger is not really improving my day.

As you put it,

Cheers


----------



## drrobert (Sep 24, 2006)

*Blight on legal community*

Although law is my secondary profession, this case is illustrative of the fact why the public intensely dislikes lawyers. A hard-working Korean couple who own a dry cleaning establishment temporarily lost the judge's pants for a while and eventually offered him $12,000 to settle for what was initially valued as a $150 pair of pants. The administrative law judge refused this generous offer and now the case is headed for trial next month. This judge needs to be and will be removed from the bench for what is clearly the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. Clearly, this is abuse of process and if I were representing the Korean couple there would be a countersuit for significant damages. Lawyers tend to be very bright people, but this judge demonstrates that there may not be a direct correlation between intellect and good judgement. Thank God that most of my brethern at the bar view this judge as a fool for asking for $65,000,000. If the public starts chanting Shakespeare's famous line from Henry V: "First Dick , let's kill all the lawyers" I think I will understand why. drrobert


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

*A loss of common sense*

I have no love for dry cleaners who lose things and/or when things are done wrong sometimes lose thier ability to communicate in english VERY VERY quickly. Kind of like the old seinfield routine:

...hey you shrunk the shirt , your tag and recipt are still atached..i dont want anything from you... just admit you did it thats all."

ITHO - i have a wonderful relationship with one of my cleaners and i dont think either of us can undersatnd each other.

With that said, and without trying to repeat what others lawyers have stated above, this judge/lawyer or whatever he is is the kind of guy that gives people ammunition to pass legislation to limit people's abliity to ues the court system for the right thing, (e.g., stop nusicances, correct wrongs, compensate when really injured etc.) this certainly damages the profession immensely. Stated simply, this tool appears to be a poster boy for "anti-lawyerism"

Isnt there a local lawyer out there on this forum who could help the dry cleaners pro bono. That could help balance the bad karma by this lawyer and again help restore the profression's reputation with lay people. Heck im a tort lawyer (couldnt you guess) and i think this lawsuit is an abuse of process and friviolous. If I was on the local disciplinary commitee I would be actively watching this case.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If there is one certainity, it is that this jerk will suffer no real consequences. The people who appoint him to his job in D.C. appear to have his back. 

I look for the day that people get tired of lawyers refusing to police themselves and that the public imposes a version of Sarbanes-Oxley on them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If there is one certainity, it is that this jerk will suffer no real consequences. The people who appoint him to his job in D.C. appear to have his back.
> 
> I look for the day that people get tired of lawyers refusing to police themselves and that the public imposes a version of Sarbanes-Oxley on them.


Do not look for that to happen under the next POTUS, her and Bill are tightly in bed with the Trial association. Edwards too for that matter. And Barry is a lawyer....basically don't look for it to happen.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Unfortunately, you are correct. This is just another reason to reject President Hillary. (I just can't STAND this woman. GAAAAADDDDD!)

I wonder how much farther we go before this gets hooked into the Interchange!

LOL


----------



## smr (Apr 24, 2005)

kbuzz said:


> With that said, and without trying to repeat what others lawyers have stated above, this judge/lawyer or whatever he is is the kind of guy that gives people ammunition to pass legislation to limit people's abliity to ues the court system for the right thing, (e.g., stop nusicances, correct wrongs, compensate when really injured etc.) this certainly damages the profession immensely. Stated simply, this tool appears to be a poster boy for "anti-lawyerism"
> 
> Isnt there a local lawyer out there on this forum who could help the dry cleaners pro bono. That could help balance the bad karma by this lawyer and again help restore the profression's reputation with lay people. Heck im a tort lawyer (couldnt you guess) and i think this lawsuit is an abuse of process and friviolous. If I was on the local disciplinary commitee I would be actively watching this case.


I agree. Hope they make an example of this arrogant SOB, and that a local attorney helps this dry cleaner. I haven't worked with a single lawyer who would argue in favor of this judge.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe you have misjudged this gentleman. He has apparently now reconsidered his claim for $67 million and has afjusted it down to a more reasonable figure....$54 million. :icon_smile_big:

https://news.aol.com/topnews/articl...4/20070605232409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Interesting. This goes to trial in 5 days. I hope he gets spanked, but DC juries are awfully plaintiff friendly.


----------



## arnach (Feb 3, 2007)

You can donate to the family:

https://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

Google-ing for his name turns up this:

https://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/05/roy_pearson_is_an_id.html

Which I find hilarious if a little humorusly offensive. In any case, his address, phone number, and voice mail are all on there.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Do not look for that to happen under the next POTUS, her and Bill are tightly in bed with the Trial association. Edwards too for that matter. And Barry is a lawyer....basically don't look for it to happen.


Gosh, I wish you guys would learn grammar. There should be either a full stop "." or a semicolon after "POTUS"; It's "she" and Bill (nominative case); Edwards "," too "," for that matter. Also, an ellipsis is three dots unless at the end of a sentence. It's hard to take bad grammar (and the users thereof) seriously.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

*Distributor offers Kiton in exchange for lawsuit*

I don't think the judge would go for it (and he's a fool if he passes on it), but it's quite an offer:


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

You know what I want to do?

I want to torture this laywer, I want to make him cry.


----------



## emk (Jul 19, 2005)

GULC '99.

Section 3, God help me.

I am certainly not aware of the ins and outs of this case, and I think the judge's prosecution of it is in the worst bad taste and poor judgment.

BUT if the case is indeed going to trial, it has undoubtedly survived a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. That is, the court has held that there are issues of fact remaining for trial, and that the case does not fail as a matter of law.

On that basis, I think it is highly unlikely that any court would find the case to be frivolous. And I would question the judge losing his law license over this. As I understand it, the DC consumer protection law is drafted in an overly broad manner, which makes it ripe for abuse.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

emk said:


> Section 3, God help me.


Yup. I was a victim of that scam, too. When you were there, did Tushnett teach is all but incomprehensible Government Processes class?


----------



## emk (Jul 19, 2005)

You hit the nail on the head. I had interviewers asking me "What was your grade in Contracts [Con Law, Civ Pro] I don't see it on your transcript?" Way to make an uphill battle easier! I also remember being taught no criminal procedure. At all.

Government Processes. Geez, thanks for reminding me. No, we had Gregg Bloche, who made absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## Lawman (May 31, 2006)

I am a trial (plaintiff) lawyer, and I agree that this guy should be boiled in oil. It amazes me that the judge does not have the cajones to throw this mess out of court. It is equally disturbing to me that the District bar has not taken action against him. He has done more for tort reform than the hapless woman who spilled Micky D's coffee in her lap.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Gosh, I wish you guys would learn grammar. There should be either a full stop "." or a semicolon after "POTUS"; It's "she" and Bill (nominative case); Edwards "," too "," for that matter. Also, an ellipsis is three dots unless at the end of a sentence. It's hard to take bad grammar (and the users thereof) seriously.


U R write. Look wear it got people like cummings. And god forbid I should be typing a stream of consciousness while talking on the phone....please do feel free to ignore me from now on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

medwards said:


> I believe you have misjudged this gentleman. He has apparently now reconsidered his claim for $67 million and has afjusted it down to a more reasonable figure....$54 million. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> https://news.aol.com/topnews/articl...4/20070605232409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


A part of interest:



> Because Pearson is representing himself, the litigation has cost him nothing. "But what he's tried to do, it appears as a trial strategy, is to keep up his aggressive stance so he keeps costing the Chungs money," Manning says.


Exactly why I think anyone with a JD should not be allowed to represent themselves in civil proceedings and should be required to pay market rates.


----------



## VC2000 (Feb 10, 2006)

At this point if I were council for the cleaners I would stop attempting to settle the case. Let it go to court. The public opinion is in their favor. Not that this means anything legally but they are raising money for their legal fees. Allow the process to work.

The Plaintiff Roy Pearson apparently can't control himself from the decision in his divorce. He attempted to have his ex wife (also an attorney) and her council disbarred as well as his attempts to get the judge in his divorce case removed from the bench. He asked for support from his wife because he had been laid off from his former job. (He appears to have stayed unemployed to get money from her. She complained about his financial management.) He was ordered to pay his wife $12k in legal fees because the divorce court found that his action and filings ran up the legal costs despite his unemployment. The number of requests he demanded were dismissed as excessive.

My greater concern in all of this is how Pearson passed the review to become an administrative judge? I say this man has problems with anger and probably mental illness. How and why was he allowed to sit on the bench? His ability to find facts seem to be questionable at best.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Has he lost his job? I hope he loses the case, too.

I wish this blog hadn't used the n word to criticize him. I hope he gets a torrent of abusive mail and phone calls.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*An Emotional Day in Court*

A report on yesterday's court hearing:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Has he lost his job? I hope he loses the case, too.
> 
> I wish this blog hadn't used the n word to criticize him. I hope he gets a torrent of abusive mail and phone calls.


well,he got very emotional from what I had read.

How can anyone be so stupid as to sue a dry cleaner for 65 million that pants cost 11 dollars to repair?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh well, the judge does not seem to like the guy's drama.

You don't suppose you could say that the lawyer is being caught unprepared, or "with his pants down." ????


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

*lawyers can be A-holes*



emk said:


> You hit the nail on the head. I had interviewers asking me "What was your grade in Contracts [Con Law, Civ Pro] I don't see it on your transcript?"


Another reason about all that may be long with my profession. I have heard this for over a decade and it still makes me sick. Plus in my opinion, it has no correlation to legal skill whatsoever, other then make the interviewer feel better about his/herself in some perverse way.

On a related note i recall getting into a bit of hot water with a junior partner when as an associate i interviewed another associate and asked what where the last couple of movies they saw. this was a friendly get to know you question and to see a bit about their personality. Perfectly legit. Of course had i asked about what grade they got in 4th grade with Mrs. Peabody i would have had no problem.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

kbuzz said:


> On a related note i recall getting into a bit of hot water with a junior partner when as an associate i interviewed another associate and asked what where the last couple of movies they saw. this was a friendly get to know you question and to see a bit about their personality. Perfectly legit. Of course had i asked about what grade they got in 4th grade with Mrs. Peabody i would have had no problem.


I really like to ask job applicants what book they're reading. We also sometimes ask them who their hero is. Both questions are good ways of getting people to talk about who they are, what's important to them, and stuff like that. It's pretty hard to come into an interview with a canned answer to either of those questions.

We also make sure we get them to talk about the law. You'd be surprised how hard it can be to get lawyers to do that sometimes.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> He has done more for tort reform than the hapless woman who spilled Micky D's coffee in her lap.


McDonalds served its coffee at 190 degrees, knowing full well that liquids at this temperature cause full-thickness, third-degree burns of skin within seconds. She spent a week in the hospital and had to have debridements, skin grafts and reconstructive surgery of her vulva.

Pearson lost a pair of pants.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Phinn said:


> McDonalds served its coffee at 190 degrees, knowing full well that liquids at this temperature cause full-thickness, third-degree burns of skin within seconds. She spent a week in the hospital and had to have debridements, skin grafts and reconstructive surgery of her vulva.
> 
> Pearson lost a pair of pants.


My local Shell station sells me gasoline that is highly flammable. I do not smoke cigars when filling my car. My hardware store sells some pretty toxic paint stripper. I do not use it in a closed room with no breathing protection. My local Starbucks sells coffee that may be less than 190 degrees. I am *very* careful with it nonetheless.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> My local Shell station sells me gasoline that is highly flammable. I do not smoke cigars when filling my car. My hardware store sells some pretty toxic paint stripper. I do not use it in a closed room with no breathing protection. My local Starbucks sells coffee that may be less than 190 degrees. I am *very* careful with it nonetheless.


Yes, but MacD's was negligent in not having a warning sticker on the cup which read, "Do not use crotch as holder while in an automobile". The lady is to be pitied for her horrible injury but if you pick up a snake and get bit, do not blame the snake. If you stick hot coffee in your crotch, do not be surprised if your vulva gets burned :aportnoy:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Trial over; ruling next week. This case actually has some important implications for the scope and application of Washington DC's consumer protection laws...so I expect the judge will take some care in the language of her opinion.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Sometimes, I wonder, if we had the English system where losers pay attorney fees, if the good Plaintiff might not have settled early on. IN our jurisdiction, we have a rule on offers of judgment and if rejected and you fare worse, you can be made to pay discretionary costs. In most cases, that is a couple of deposition expenses. Tack on fees earned by adversary counsel after the offer was rejected, it might make more people think.

I heard he rejected $12,000 in an offer. Typically the judge can not consider that, but my word, Id be telling my client he was crazy. Ive not followed it that closely - my clients could not afford for me to litigate it and that is one case Id not take on a contingency.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

memphislawyer said:


> Sometimes, I wonder, if we had the English system where losers pay attorney fees, if the good Plaintiff might not have settled early on. IN our jurisdiction, we have a rule on offers of judgment and if rejected and you fare worse, you can be made to pay discretionary costs. In most cases, that is a couple of deposition expenses. Tack on fees earned by adversary counsel after the offer was rejected, it might make more people think.
> 
> I heard he rejected $12,000 in an offer. Typically the judge can not consider that, but my word,* Id be telling my client he was crazy. Ive not followed it that closely - my clients could not afford for me to litigate it and that is one case Id not take on a contingency.*


You see, there is the rub. He is representing himself. Clear case of a JD badgering near helpless opponents with his license to practice law.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, but MacD's was negligent in not having a warning sticker on the cup which read, "Do not use crotch as holder while in an automobile". The lady is to be pitied for her horrible injury but if you pick up a snake and get bit, do not blame the snake. If you stick hot coffee in your crotch, do not be surprised if your vulva gets burned :aportnoy:


But It's your own fault if hot coffee spills down there.It's no reason to sue,just get the pants dry cleaned and you don't have to worry about the stain.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Or wear coffee coloured pants.....

I


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Infrasonic said:


> Or wear coffee coloured pants.....
> 
> I


Good Idea.That way the stain could match your colored pants.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> But It's your own fault if hot coffee spills down there.It's no reason to sue,just get the pants dry cleaned and you don't have to worry about the stain.


LOL Howard, I'm sure that's headed for Inane fame.


----------



## GGDee (Apr 16, 2007)

I hope that he gets aggravated damages, although what he has asked for is the upper limit.

If a dry cleaner can't even find your pants and catalogue customers pants properly, they shouldn't be in business. 

Apparently they had a sign above their shop saying that if the customer wasn't satisfied, then he/she could get whatever he/she wished for. Well, obviously they put that sign up for a reason. And all of the customers who weren't lawyers and whose pants, buttons, or what not were lost, maimed or otherwise damaged probably didn't even get a sorry. That's been my almost universal experience with dry cleaners all over the world.

It's a victory for us all.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL Howard, I'm sure that's headed for Inane fame.


If I bought a cup of coffee from Dunkin Donuts or Au Bon Pain and it spilt on my pants,I'm not going to sue them.I'm sure coffee spills happen almost all the time so it's not a big deal.I'd just let the situation go and take it home and wash them.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

memphislawyer said:


> Sometimes, I wonder, if we had the English system where losers pay attorney fees, if the good Plaintiff might not have settled early on.


Grass is always greener....:icon_smile_big: 
The problem here in England is that the the people with deep pockets know they can use the this to easily frighten off any potential litigation. 
Especially as the legal aid route has been increasingly restricted.
There also seems to be a trend now of checking potential Plaintifs credit ratings etc. and then just stalling them untill they run out of money to pay their legal bills.

I agree that the US system is too far the other way though, and the ramifications it has for insurance premiums et al are scary!

I


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> My local Shell station sells me gasoline that is highly flammable. I do not smoke cigars when filling my car. My hardware store sells some pretty toxic paint stripper. I do not use it in a closed room with no breathing protection. My local Starbucks sells coffee that may be less than 190 degrees.


Yes, I am sure they do sell coffee at less than 190 degrees. By selling it at 155 degrees, the risk of being permanently disfigured by your beverage is lowered exponentially, and at 140 degrees is almost eliminated altogether. It is a small accomodation that greatly reduces risk, while not significantly impairing the product's function, inasmuch as 190-degree coffee is undrinkable anyway.

Similarly, when your automobile manufacturer sells you a car, if they include little switch that cuts off the fuel line when you get in an accident, the functionality of the car is not impaired, but the risk of you and your family having your ears, lips, fingers and 90% of your skin burned off goes down significantly.

I do not know how to make gasoline _inherently_ less flammable (while still performing its intended function), but it is delivered to you at your Shell station in a way that minimizes risk. You will notice that your Shell station does not sell gasoline to you in an open bucket, while an employee with a lit cigarette hands you a funnel. It is sold by dispensing it with a device that matches the configuration of your car's receptacle. The product still gets sold, but the risk of injury is reduced.

The issue with the lost pants is not whether the cleaners are liable, but whether the damages for lost pants amounts to millions of dollars' worth of mental anguish. In comparison, the woman whose vulva was disfigured by 190-degree coffee was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitives (which had been reduced by the court from the jury's award of $2.7 million).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Has any decision been reached in the "lost pants" case?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> If I bought a cup of coffee from Dunkin Donuts or Au Bon Pain and it spilt on my pants,I'm not going to sue them.I'm sure coffee spills happen almost all the time so it's not a big deal.I'd just let the situation go and take it home and wash them.


But did you burn your vulva?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Was the coffee in question that burned a Volvo 180 or 190? I thought 180. Meaningless point but then again, it seems 50% of law is just that.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Has any decision been reached in the "lost pants" case?


No. The judge is going to take about a week to write her decision, to narrow the possibilities for an appeal.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Phinn said:


> the woman whose vulva was disfigured by 190-degree coffee was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitives (which had been reduced by the court from the jury's award of $2.7 million).


This is pure hogwash. 1) It is a way for lawyers to steal, because they will walk off with 2/3's of the money. 2) It is removeing human responciblity. A fool has no right to demand money from other people or companies or anything else. If their foolishness hurts them they can ask for charity.

I suppose you are going to defend loaners for loansharking, too. Some of these loanser, credit cards, ect. are clearly being loansharks.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

If I spill hot steaming coffee on myself, I curse my clumsiness, I do not look for a shyster to try to get me some free money for my troubles. There is no excuse for these social parasites or the lawyers who enable them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> Good God, I am so happy I was smart enough to master the mathematics in finance and economics that I do not have to stoop to arguing in favor of a moron who spills steaming hot coffee on themself.


Ah, but do you have the F(x) worked out for a vulva?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Phinn said:


> I do not know how to make gasoline _inherently_ less flammable


Diesel is less flammable. You can extinguish a lit cigarette in a drum of diesel. So, should they outlaw gasoline and force everyone to use diesel? I'm guessing you're one of those people who is in favor of California putting warnings on cars that they contain materials known to the state of California t ocause cancer (e.g. oil and fuel).


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Pearson was unemployed and down to $1000 to $2000 when his problems started.

"_Manning went into the details of Pearson's divorce on Wednesday. Under questioning, Pearson confirmed he had only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name when his problems with the dry cleaners started. Pearson said he did not have a job at the time and was collecting unemployment benefits_."

Story here:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

As reluctant as I am to interject fashion into this discussion, here's Robin Givhan on this case...and why pants don't make the man:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Good God, I am so happy I was smart enough to master the mathematics in finance and economics that I do not have to stoop to arguing in favor of a moron who spills steaming hot coffee on *themself*.


Good choice. Stick to math.



> Diesel is less flammable. You can extinguish a lit cigarette in a drum of diesel. So, should they outlaw gasoline and force everyone to use diesel?


As I said earlier, the risk associated with the sale of ordinary gasoline is greatly reduced by the use of a special nozzle fitted to the receptacle of your car, as opposed to having a clerk hand you a bucket of unleaded over the counter. Would a bucket be cheaper than using a special, patented flow-regulated nozzle? Yes, assuming the seller didn't have to pay for all of the damage that open buckets of gasoline would cause.

I don't believe in "outlawing" things. I believe in making people pay for the true _*costs*_ of their actions, which includes the costs imposed on others. It's a matter of internalizing the externalities, as it were.

McDonald's would rather not pay the cost of having its coffee at 140 degrees instead of 190 degrees. Why? Hotter coffee = fewer free refills.

But when the cost of injuries caused by serving 190 degree coffee is part of McDonald's decision-making process, it can make up its own mind about what it calculates to be the most cost-effective way to behave.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Of all the sartorial reasons for a man to get riled up ... suit pants are among the most inconsequential of them all.
> 
> Weep over a missing blazer? Sure. But shrug off a pair of lost pants.
> 
> [T]he loss of even the best-made pair of pants, the ones that accentuate a trim waist and give the illusion of a sprinter's bottom, isn't worth crying over.


Blasphemy!


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Phinn said:


> But when the cost of injuries caused by serving 190 degree coffee is part of McDonald's decision-making process, it can make up its own mind about what it calculates to be the most cost-effective way to behave.


I will indeed stick to finance. I have far too much shame and common decency to excel in personal injury law I am afraid. I see the look on people's faces when people answer the "what do you do" question with "I am a lawyer"; I don't want that reaction!

Do people not have the right to simply not purchase the 190 degree coffee if they are concerned with injury?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I see the look on people's faces when people answer the "what do you do" question with "I am a lawyer"; I don't want that reaction!


I doubt that fellow AAAC member "abc123" would agree with you right about now. Many people say they hate lawyers, until they need one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I doubt that fellow AAAC member "abc123" would agree with you right about now. Many people say they hate lawyers, until they need one.


Well Phinn, there are many professions one is happy to utilize when needed, i.e. proctologists, exterminator, etc., but might not always elicit the most dignified responses when one states them as their profession.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> there are many professions one is happy to utilize when needed, i.e. proctologists, exterminator, etc., but might not always elicit the most dignified responses when one states them as their profession


Undignified _responses_? Yes, there's been a spate of those lately.

But more to the point, are these other occupations you mentioned "shameful" and "indecent" as well?


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

*Typical and stupid response*



gnatty8 said:


> I will indeed stick to finance. I have far too much shame and common decency to excel in personal injury law I am afraid. I see the look on people's faces when people answer the "what do you do" question with "I am a lawyer"; I don't want that reaction!


Since this "gentleman" implies he is well versed in "finance" im sure his "financial acumen" will mandate he's the first person to visit a lawyer after he has been hurt by a product or person. But one must take my comment with a grain of salt because those of us in nyc could make gross generalizations about folks in finance as well. Particuarly when hearing that what "they do" is finance.

By the way, regardless of what your occupation is, if its important to you to inquire or know what " people do" then, quite frankly you have no substance and in my expereince you are most likely a tool anyway.

I suggest you read or reread the above thread. From your post it is clear that you do not understand this thread. The general point of the posts is that this gentleman is out of control. And many a lawyer have chimed in with this exact opinion as well. But i guess your reading and comprehension skills are not as sharp as your financial skills.

Interestingly, since you got me on a rant, at least here in nyc, only the people in finance seem to be pre-occupied with learning what people do. Let me state that in simple english for those who are in finance in Atlanta: People who are overly interested in what other people do, are really just asking "how much money do you make." Let me put this in even plainer english: "does this person make more money then me"

My apologies in advance to the general members of AAAC. But this post really was uncalled for and i feel needed "redress". But i have to go, i hear noise, i think its the sound of another 3000 US workers losing thier jobs because a few folks in "finance" decided it they could make more money outsourcing....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Undignified _responses_? Yes, there's been a spate of those lately.
> 
> But more to the point, are these other occupations you mentioned "shameful" and "indecent" as well?


Phinn:

I love your posts. While I do not agree with everything you say, you always make me smile and often make me think. I respect your obvious intelligence and learning. So given that, I will not play games with the current topic.

To be straightforward, I well recognize and acknowledge that lawyers are often useful tools. I will also say I find the pursuit of justice and the law to be a good thing and it is probably what most lawyers do, most of the time. However, I will also tell you, just like the person this thread is about, a significant share of attorneys use their legal knowledge for anything other than the pursuit of justice and good law. They bludgeon people with it. Or they so twist and pervert the facts, and get rich doing it, that it sickens people. John Edwards rises to mind or any host of med-mal people I have had to deal with in my career.

So as unfair as it is, the public will remember this dry-cleaner attorney, or a Johnnie Cochran getting OJ off, or a Mike Nifong, far more than they will the hard working and well meaning person that helped them draw up a will or the like. Just like the medical profession needs to step up and police itself of its few bad apples vs. having the AMA lobby to keep these people hidden, the legal profession needs to change how the ABA works, is viewed, and how it polices it own.

Cheers


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> just like the person this thread is about, a significant share of attorneys use their legal knowledge for anything other than the pursuit of justice and good law.


I could not agree more. I do not have to be convinced. I have written a book about bad lawyers and counterproductive legal systems. The existence of products and premises liability lawsuits, however, is not something I believe to be, in itself, a problem.

As you may have gathered from my previous comments in other threads, I believe that the scum in the legal profession is enabled (and their scumminess exacerbated) by the centralized, monopolistic state-based legal system. Any time you have a state-sponsored monopoly, you get waste and abuse. Lawyers and courts are no different.


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I could not agree more. I do not have to be convinced. I have written a book about bad lawyers and counterproductive legal systems. The existence of products and premises liability lawsuits, however, is not something I believe to be, in itself, a problem.
> 
> As you may have gathered from my previous comments in other threads, I believe that the scum in the legal profession is enabled (and their scumminess exacerbated) by the centralized, monopolistic state-based legal system. Any time you have a state-sponsored monopoly, you get waste and abuse. Lawyers and courts are no different.


Now-- in contrast to the post i slammed -- this is a well reasoned, intelligent and gentlemanly way of voicing and opinion or disagreeing with something. This is the kind of discourse that should be welcomed by all. Unless your wearing an ultra expensive suit that does not fit, adorned with a hermes tie and gucci loafers. There is no room for this anywhere


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Unless your wearing an ultra expensive suit that does not fit, adorned with a hermes tie and gucci loafers. There is no room for this anywhere


Heaven forfend! I mean, where _are_ we? Style Forum?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> But did you burn your vulva?


No I don't have a vulva.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

kbuzz said:


> Since this "gentleman" implies he is well versed in "finance" im sure his "financial acumen" will mandate he's the first person to visit a lawyer after he has been hurt by a product or person. But one must take my comment with a grain of salt because those of us in nyc could make gross generalizations about folks in finance as well. Particuarly when hearing that what "they do" is finance.
> 
> By the way, regardless of what your occupation is, if its important to you to inquire or know what " people do" then, quite frankly you have no substance and in my expereince you are most likely a tool anyway.
> 
> ...


This post is so inane, it doesn't warrant the 3 minutes it would take to respond. Happy lawyering!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> If I spill hot steaming coffee on myself, I curse my clumsiness, I do not look for a shyster to try to get me some free money for my troubles. There is no excuse for these social parasites or the lawyers who enable them.


Right indeed Gnatty,I don't need a lawyer to defend my case.If i spill something,It's my own fault,not theirs for brewing steaming hot coffee.Next time people should watch what they're doing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

kbuzz said:


> But i have to go, i hear noise, i think its the sound of another 3000 US workers losing thier jobs because a few folks in "finance" decided it they could make more money outsourcing....


Oh sure, and if they didn't outsource, some enterprising attorney would come along with a shareholder's lawsuit that the Board is not meeting their fiduciary responsibilities to the share holders!


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

*nice sat words*



gnatty8 said:


> This post is so inane, it doesn't warrant the 3 minutes it would take to respond. Happy lawyering!


Inane -thats a pretty sophisticated word. Did you call a lawyer to come up with that? Why dont you ask him about some other words while you are at it, like "monetize" "value added" "globalize" or other really socially redeeming practices

More likely you did not understand the response or more likely you waived the white flag and went back to your calculater to do "finance"


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I am done with this thread, I am going to talk to my lawyer about the guy accusing me of not understanding high-fallutin' words like inane, I may have a slander case.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> I am done with this thread, I am going to talk to my lawyer about the guy accusing me of not understanding high-fallutin' words like inane, I may have a slander case.


You could say it was all Greek, but that's your option. (Okay, who's going to get that?)


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You could say it was all Greek, but that's your option. (Okay, who's going to get that?)


Ok, I'll *call* it as I see it. Maybe you should *put *it out for more comment, if that's not a *leap* of faith.

-not in finance... I just sell stuff.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Ok, I'll *call* it as I see it. Maybe you should *put *it out for more comment, if that's not a *leap* of faith.
> 
> -not in finance... I just sell stuff.


:aportnoy:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So If I accidently spilt hot coffee on me in Pathmark would I sue because I'm a co-worker?


----------



## kbuzz (Apr 2, 2005)

*yeahhh*



gnatty8 said:


> I am done with this thread, I am going to talk to my lawyer about the guy accusing me of not understanding high-fallutin' words like inane, I may have a slander case.


great, take you bashing to another place. and if you cant take the heat, dont make baseless accusations


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Double post.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

On second thought, I don't want to take the bait, as this is getting a little silly. You win.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Would someone sue if they spilt Iced Coffee instead of hot on them in a coffee shop?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> Would someone sue if they spilt Iced Coffee instead of hot on them in a coffee shop?


Depends if their vulva was frost bit or not.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Depends if their vulva was frost bit or not.


Well,If It was then they'd have a reason to sue.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Howard said:


> Well,If It was then they'd have a reason to sue.


You missed your true calling, you should have been a personal injury lawyer. Does Pathmark sponsor night school for employees?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> You missed your true calling, you should have been a personal injury lawyer. Does Pathmark sponsor night school for employees?


I don't know Gnatty,I could ask if you want me too.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

gnatty8 said:


> You missed your true calling, you should have been a personal injury lawyer. Does Pathmark sponsor night school for employees?


Wouldn't that interfere with their ability to work evening shifts? :icon_smile_big:

I


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Infrasonic said:


> Wouldn't that interfere with their ability to work evening shifts? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> I


Well Infra,They would have to bring this situation up with the supervisor Mr.Clark.The shifts would have to be changed around so the co-workers would be able to attend night school and giving their shifts to someone else.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

The verdict's in:



Let's roll...


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

*Lawyer's Cost for Missing Pants -- $65 Million!*

Not entirely unexpected, but one could never be certain:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I am sorry to say it but this Pearson fellow has had his way all along. He knew the case was unwinnable. All he wanted to do was to torture his victims psychologically by having the case drag on endlessly with them losing sleep over the theoretical prospect of being 67 million in dept hanging over their heads. In that he succeeded fully.

Next, he will probably drag them through an appeal process just to prolong the agony.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hope Mr. Pearson gets "Nifonged." 

I don't know the details of how someone can be disbarred. I know of no dishonesty by Mr. Pearson, just a lot of greed, social maladjustment and bad judgement. 

I certainly hope he is not reappointed to be a judge once this is done.

Obviously, he will appeal. I hope the next judge is just as logical and reasonable as the first one was.

I hope also Mr. Pearson is forced to pay the dry cleaner's legal bills.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Sator said:


> I am sorry to say it but this Pearson fellow has had his way all along. He knew the case was unwinnable. All he wanted to do was to torture his victims psychologically by having the case drag on endlessly with them losing sleep over the theoretical prospect of being 67 million in dept hanging over their heads. In that he succeeded fully.
> 
> Next, he will probably drag them through an appeal process just to prolong the agony.


One more example of why a Canadian or British style "loser pays" system would be a big improvement in the US.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

The verdict:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Here is the full text of Judge Bartnoff's decision:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

How can you possibly think this is good news? If a pair of pants is worth $57 million, just think what that does to your net worth.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Excellent outcome.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> One more example of why a Canadian or British style "loser pays" system would be a big improvement in the US.


I couldn't agree more


----------



## ColeFieldHouse (Aug 26, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> One more example of why a Canadian or British style "loser pays" system would be a big improvement in the US.


The dry cleaners were awarded costs in this case because the claim was so absurd.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

ColeFieldHouse said:


> The dry cleaners were awarded costs in this case because the claim was so absurd.


Where do you see that the dry cleaners was awarded costs?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I only have one suit. Are odd trousers at the same going rate?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

rkipperman said:


> Where do you see that the dry cleaners was awarded costs?


_Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung._

(It's also the second item listed in medward's pdf above.)


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*From the Judgment...*

" ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

"1. That judgment be and it hereby is entered in favor of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung and against plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. on Counts One, Two and Four of the Amended Complaint.

"2. That 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.

"Judge Judith Bartnoff"


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Does that refer to the court filing fees or the dry cleaner's fees for legal representation?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

_"The issue of the defendants' claim for attorney's fees against the plaintiff will be addressed after the defendant's motions for sanctions and for attorney's fees have been filed and briefed by the parties."_


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The issue of attorneys' fees is based on the motion for sanctions under Rule 11 filed by the defendant. This is presumably based on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule requires that whenever an attorney files a document the attorney's signature constitutes a certification that the factual claims have evidentiary support, the legal claims are warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for extension of existing law, and that the filing is not being made for an improper purpose, such as merely to delay or harass the other party. The rule allows for sanctions, including attorneys' fees, to be ordered against an attorney who violates this requirement. A quick review of the trial court's decision suggests that the court thinks the plaintiff's conduct probably violated this requirement, although that will be addressed in a future proceeding.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Thank you for the info!!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ColeFieldHouse said:


> The dry cleaners were awarded costs in this case because the claim was so absurd.


I think the case was ridiculous.Whoever thought of suing a person for something that wasn't their fault.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

It was such a stupid case,I'm glad the judge ignored it.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

This story made the front page of the BBC,
from the one could only hope dept:


'American nightmare'

The National Labor Relations Board has called for Mr Pearson to be disbarred so that he can no longer serve as a judge.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

The pants, tort reform & legal bills...

https://news.aol.com/story/_a/54-million-pants-star-in-fundraiser/20070725064609990001


----------

