Add RSS RSS

Nationwide Layoff Watch: Roy Pearson

Roy Pearson Judge Roy L Pearson Abovethelaw Above the Law legal blog.jpgOkay, it’s not a “layoff,” since it’s not due to economic pressures. Rather, it’s due to his being a total asshat judicial record and temperament — and maybe a certain infamous lawsuit he filed.

From the Washington Post:

Roy L. Pearson Jr., whose $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry-cleaning shop was rejected in court, is about to lose his job as an administrative law judge, sources said last night.

A city commission voted yesterday against reappointing Pearson to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings, which hears cases involving various D.C. boards and agencies. Pearson, who was up for a 10-year term, had tried to hold on to the job.

Expect the litigious Pearson to fight any refusal to reappoint him:

If the panel carries out its decision against reappointing him, Pearson, 57, could take the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals. In a separate filing, he is asking the appellate court to overturn the decision in the dry-cleaning case.

The sources said that had Pearson’s term not ended this May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners, he might have kept the job. His term has expired, but Pearson has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say [Washington Post]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:19 PM

Nice

avatar
2 Posted by first | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:20 PM

first

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:21 PM

i love it.

and, great use of "asshat," one of the greatest words in the english language.

avatar
4 Posted by Typical comments #17, #21, #44, & #76 | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:25 PM

Yawn. Lat, give us something interesting.

WGWAG

NY to $190K!

AA only harms minorities.

avatar
5 Posted by P2L | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:28 PM

dbags to 100k!!

avatar
6 Posted by assbird | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:31 PM

Pearson finally got what he deserved for selling rusty hydageneas to that poor Anthony Keidis person.

avatar
7 Posted by Not enough | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:38 PM

Lossing a job is not enough for this jerkoff- He should be violently assaulted as well.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:40 PM

Yeah, 2:31, and for wrecking that summer's dress at that bar (before she clocked him).

avatar
9 Posted by Anonymous | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:40 PM

What a git. I'm glad the city commission is getting rid of him. People like Pearson give the legal profession a bad name.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:40 PM

Sweet headline, Lat. High style.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:04 PM

I wonder if he actaully does anything, or if he's just "on the payroll"...

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:29 PM

Alcoholics Anonymous harms minorities? I never knew.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:06 PM

He gets six figures a year; L2L makes half that; the Chungs lost their drycleaning business; and the Chungs' lawyer made out like a bandit (judging from the reported proceeds from the benefit events they held to pay their legal bills). Sometimes life really ain't fair.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:41 PM

What a clowndick.

avatar
15 Posted by Used to live in DC | Permalink Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:07 PM

He's been "about to lose his job" for like three months now...can't the panel just hurry it up and can him? He wasted taxpayers money with his stupid trial and continues to waste money being on the city's payroll doing nothing.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:16 PM

Yet another shining endorsement for affirmative action.

avatar
17 Posted by The Supreme Court Jester | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:33 PM

Appealing? Not to me! First he lost his pants, then his suit, but he still has his briefs.

avatar
18 Posted by Supreme Court Jester | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:29 PM

He's appealing?!!?! First he lost his pants, then his suit, but he still has his briefs.

Post Your Comment