Former Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, who infamously sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of pants, is a plaintiff once again. From the Washington Examiner:

The former D.C. judge who was fired after becoming a symbol of runaway litigation for suing over lost pants has claimed he suffered "humiliation" and "physical illness" in a new lawsuit seeking reinstatement and at least $1 million in damages.

In a 52-page lawsuit filed in the D.C. federal court, Roy Pearson claimed that the District and a city judicial commission wrongfully dismissed him for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, the department where he worked.

Exposing corruption? When it comes to abuse of power, ex-judge Pearson would seem to be Exhibit A. As for the claimed "humiliation," Pearson brought that upon himself:

During the dry-cleaner trial, Pearson broke down on the stand when he tried to describe how he learned that he'd never see his pants again. The judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaners.

We agree with our friends at DCist: "Does Roy Pearson not have anyone in his life, say a family member or a friend, to smack him upside the head and tell him to stop being so crazy?"

Former judge from 'pants suit' sues for $1 million, old job back [Washington Examiner]
Roy Pearson Sues for $1 Million and His Job Back [DCist]

What was looking likely has come to pass. From today's Washington Post:

Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.

Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.

The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.

So what's next for ex-judge Roy Pearson? A book deal for a memoir, tentatively entitled Diary of a Mad Black ALJ? A reality television show, in which Judge Pearson files dubious lawsuits and sees if any of them go anywhere?

Judge Who Lost Pant Suit Loses Job [Washington Post]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Roy Pearson

Okay, 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]

We noted this development in passing yesterday. Now here's an AP article with a great title:

And then she headed off to a clerkship interview?

P.S. Results of our recent fashion poll after the jump.

Dry Cleaner in Pants Suit Closes [AP]

The story of ALJ Roy Pearson and his $54 million pants isn't over just yet. From the Washington Post:

[T]he small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.

The cleaners want Pearson, who could soon be out of a job, to do the same....

It would make for an ironic conclusion to the case: Pearson effectively benefiting from the generosity of some of the very people who vilified his suit and came to the aid of the Chungs.

No comment from Pearson on the latest news:

Pearson has not responded to requests for comment on developments in the case. Early last night, he could not reached by telephone, and he did not respond to a message sent to his personal e-mail address.

Any guesses on that "personal e-mail address"? Crazypants at hotmail dot com? Or is Judge Pearson cool enough to use Gmail?

Update: Thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, but no thanks. Roy Pearson has filed his notice of appeal.

Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack [Washington Post via How Appealing]
Pearson to Appeal Pants Verdict [Washington Post]

After we put up our post this morning about how Roy Pearson, of $54 million pants fame, might not get reappointed as an administrative law judge, a reader sent us this:

"Note this help wanted ad for a new DC ALJ (from the July 9 edition of the Legal Times)."

"I ask you: Coincidence, or just good planning?"

Hmm... A salary pushing the six-figures, and the ability to call yourself -- or at least make restaurant reservations under -- "judge"? That gig doesn't sound half-bad...

Earlier: Roy Pearson: From Pseudo-Judge To Ex-Pseudo-Judge?

Last week we alluded to the possibility that Roy Pearson, plaintiff in the notorious $54 million pants case, might not be reappointed to his post as an administrative law judge. That possibility is now one step closer to being realized. From the Washington Post:

A city commission has voted to formally notify Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source.

In a letter sent to Pearson yesterday, the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges cited not only Pearson's infamous failed lawsuit against Custom Cleaners, but his work as a judge the past two years.

So it's not just about the pants. Pearson was also talking trash about his chief:

Concerns about Pearson's temperament as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity about the lawsuit this spring....

In e-mails sent to his fellow judges and cited in the letter, Pearson's contempt for Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone T. Butler was evident. In one of the missives, he spoke of protecting himself from any attempt by Butler "to knife" him. In another, he questioned Butler's competence and integrity.

Talk of a knife fight? Is Roy Pearson a judge, or a summer associate?

David Nieporent, at Overlawyered, sums up the situation nicely: "Apparently trying to destroy a business by using the legal system to extort millions from the owners isn't his big sin; his big sin is being rude to his boss."

Litigious Judge's Future Unclear [Washington Post]
Updates - August 8 [Overlawyered]

Earlier: Roy Pearson: No Justice, No Pants... No Job

What do "Judge" Roy Pearson, of $54 million pants infamy, and ATL frequent commenter "Loyola 2L" have in common?

Both are -- or should be -- looking for new employment.

First, Pants Man Loses Case. Next, His Job [Raw Fisher / Washington Post]

See the Associated Press and the WSJ Law Blog. From the AP:

The $54 million pants, as they've come to be known, were the subject of a widely mocked lawsuit that garnered international attention. Now, they have their own security guard....

On display [at a fundraiser last night] were what the Chungs say are the pants that Roy Pearson brought in, were misplaced, and were later found. The guests had appetizers and cocktails, and under the stern gaze of the security guard, some posed for photos with the pants.

Quips reader Melissa Zawadzki: "Don’t ya just love happy endings?"

The Smithsonian famously dissed Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. But how can they say no to a pair of $54 million pants?

$54M Pants Star in Fundraiser [Associated Press]
The Great American Pants Suit Fundraiser [WSJ Law Blog]

Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is still pressing (harhar) his $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. From the Washington Post's Marc Fisher:

Despite a clear finding by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff that Pearson's case against Custom Cleaners had no merit and that the cleaners' possible misplacing of a pair of Pearson's pants was not worth a penny to the plaintiff, Pearson is back.

He wrote to defense lawyer Christopher Manning this week to let the Chung family know that Pearson plans to file today a motion arguing that Bartnoff failed to address Pearson's legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case.

If you can stomach it, read the rest after the jump.

Who cares about all those fancy-schmancy Supreme Court decisions that just got handed down? This morning brings news of a far more important legal development.

This just in, from the Washington Post:

The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out today what he's going to get for all his troubles:

Nothing.

And the plaintiff, ALJ Roy Pearson (at right), will also have to pay the defendants' court costs.

A link to the opinion and judgment are available via the WSJ Law Blog.

Plaintiff in Pants Suit Gets Nothing [Washington Post]
The Great American Pants Suit: Judge Rules for Cleaners [WSJ Law Blog]

* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can't date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [Feministing]

* Angelina's lawyer self-deprecates; Angelina doesn't disagree with his bone-headedness; even Jon Stewart is not immune to her charms. [Legal Profession Blog]

* ABC and Fox look the same to me right now. [BreitBart]

* If 22-year-old graduates with little (if any) teaching experience are fortunate enough to get a coveted, resume- and Ivy-worthy job with Teach for America, they will get health benefits -- plus a free pass to say things like "I found my fellow teachers intelligent, caring and effective" and "I have no idea why so many low-income parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools" (to peers who did indeed survive public schools) -- before bailing for law school. [Citizen-Times]

* And because I am grateful to live in the free world, I encourage everyone to voice his or her opinions whenever given the chance. Of course, these bloggers do so with full disclosure of their identities in the face of harsh political consequences, but we can't help that we're cowardly, coddled, self-obsessed risk-averse lawyers living in the U.S. [All Africa]

If you've been feeling bad for Jin Nam and Soo Chung, the dry cleaners sued by crazy-ass pseudo-judge ALJ Roy Pearson for $54 million -- over a pair of pants -- now you can help:

As for what's going on in the case, Marc Fisher has this update in today's Washington Post. The trial is over; expect a ruling from Judge Judith Bartnoff sometime next week.

Wearing Down the Judicial System With a Pair of Pants [Washington Post]
Custom Cleaners Defense Fund [official website]

Over at the Washington Post's Offbeat blog, Emil Steiner is liveblogging Pearson v. Custom Cleaners -- aka "The Case of the $54 Million Pants." Check it out by clicking here (and scrolling down -- no, farther down).

Here's Steiner's account of the plaintiff's testimony:

If I had $54 million in my pocket, I'd almost give it to Roy Pearson to end this thing. Pearson took the stand this afternoon in his trial against Custom Cleaners, and it wasn't exactly spellbinding.

Pearson went into seemingly every minute detail of life: his history of community service, his weight gain as a middle-aged man, his financial woes and his painful divorce. Even the opposing defense counsel was rubbing his eyes and suppressing yawns.

But the judge let Pearson tell his story, taking occasional notes, always with a somewhat bemused expression on her face. I could almost see the thought bubble over her head: Take as much time as you need to orchestrate your circus. (Though if circuses were this slow, Barnum & Bailey would be out of business.)

Then, just before 3:30, Roy L. Pearson broke down, appeared to almost cry, and quickly requested a break. Would it be heartless to ask whether he had been bored to tears?

Jeez. Should we lay off Judge Pearson? Until now, he struck us as a raging asshole rather unsympathetic plaintiff. But now it sounds like he may have... issues.

Does Roy Pearson need $54 million? Or does he just need a good therapist -- and the right combination of prescription drugs?

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners: The Plaintiff Testifies (and Breaks Down!) [Offbeat]
Offbeat Blog [Washington Post]

Remember administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson? He filed a $67 million lawsuit against his dry cleaners. Over a pair of pants.

Well, the judge has decided to show some mercy upon the defendants. He has reduced his demand in the case:

A judge who was seeking $67 million from a dry cleaners that lost his pants has loosened the belt on his lawsuit. Now, he's asking for only $54 million, according to a May 30 court filing in D.C. Superior Court....

He is now focusing his claims on signs in the shop that have since been removed. The suit alleges that Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."

So now he just wants a mere $54 million. What a great guy!

Judge Now Wants Just $54M From Cleaner [Associated Press via WTOP]

Earlier: 'Judge' of the Day: Roy Pearson, Jr.

JEEZ. What a tool.

An administrative law judge, Roy L. Pearson, is suing his dry cleaners. Over a missing pair of pants (subsequently found). For the insane sum of $65 million.

We kid you not. More details here.

Okay, we're not completely shocked. Clownish antics from an ALJ? Heaven forfend.

No, we don't have the highest opinion of administrative law "judges." Roy Pearson should be flattered that news stories about his idiocy identify him as a "judge," instead of a "petty and lame-ass federal bureaucrat."

The defendant dry cleaners are represented by one Chris Manning. Is he Christopher C.S. Manning, of Manning & Sossamon, or Christopher N. Manning, the newly-minted Williams & Connolly partner? We're guessing the former; but we're hoping for the latter. We like the idea of the mighty Williams & Connolly steamrolling this prick pseudo-judicial moron.

More commentary from Overlawyered, here and here, and the WSJ Law Blog, here and here.

The second Overlawyered post provides a link to a reported opinion arising out of Roy Pearson's divorce. The opinion reveals that Pearson and his ex-wife were having sexual relations very infrequently. Guess Pearson decided to go screw his dry cleaners instead.

And screw them he has. The Chungs have been so traumatized by the ordeal that they are thinking of closing their dry cleaning shop and moving back to Korea. Happy now, Your Honor?

Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants [Associated Press]
Roy L. Pearson, Jr. [Office of Administrative Hearings]
The $65 million pants: Judge Roy Pearson [Overlawyered]
Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million [WSJ Law Blog]