Posted on 07/25/2007 11:37:06 AM PDT by MrLegalReform
Last month, Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that Washington, D.C. administrative law Judge Roy Pearson would not get $54 million for his allegedly lost pants. The decision surprised no one except maybe Judge Pearson, who is expected to appeal the verdict.
But the "victory" for Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners, has cost them at least $83,000 in legal fees and counting. The case has drained their life savings and left them with a large debt.
I'm thrilled to say that the Institute for Legal Reform and the American Tort Reform Association co-hosted a fundraiser on their behalf which to date has collected more than $64,000 to help offset their legal defense costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at instituteforlegalreform.com ...
That idiot judge who sued for that ridiculous amount of money should have been made to pay the 83 large.
The judge should have to pay reasonable attorneys fees, but the idiot lawyers who ran up such a ridiculous bill should just not be paid. It’s a grossly excessive fee which should not be paid BY ANYBODY.
I’m not sure what really disturbs me more. That the moronic judge was allowed to sue for $54 million, or even get a judge to permit this within their court, or the fact that defending against such a lawsuit required $83,000 in legal fees.
The judge should have made an award of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees. Depending on hourly rate and number of hours, this $83,000 could very well be termed reasonable. I would assume they have itemized fee statements to back it up. The judge should definitely should make the plaintiff pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees.
Both Judges should pay.
Both seem ideas worth importing south of their border (or west for Alaska and Hawaii).
Appearances in federal courts everywhere are very expensive.
How much did the (*&(*&$%*&!!!!! pants cost?
That was the damages, get it?????
The judge who heard this case should be thrown from the bench and run out of town.
The putz who brought the suit.....death by Bula-Bula.
Why don’t sharks attack attorneys?..........professional courtesy. Both judges and the law, in this case, are beyond reasonable . This is another reason why we have less respect for laws today.
$54 million dollar pants suit. Thought for a second Bill & Hillary were donating more clothing to charity for the tax writeoff.
Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.
This case should have been stopped as ridiculous before it even got to trial.
I smell a rat in this story. I know for a fact that the American Association for Justice (formerly American Trial Lawyers Association) not only condemned this judge’s suit (notice he represented himself, no lawyer would take his case) but also they promised to represent pro bono the owner of the cleaners and pay any bills he had accumulated prior to their taking over.
That's what I was thinking.
Where's the decent attorney to take this case pro bono to sue the pants (pun intended) off Judge Roy Pearson for his vicious, predatory lawsuit?
Jerks like this must be made to have something to lose for such behavior!
It would also have the effect of relieving big companies of responsibility for their actions. It would also most likely greatly increase the costs for bringing a case to trial, even clear cut cases.
Try to remember that in most cases the plainiff's attorney is working on a contingency basis. Which means if there is no recovery, he is eating not only his own costs but those of experts and other accrued fees. So very few true frivolous cases get filed. In this pants case, he couldnt get a lawyer to represent him.
And what constitutes being frivolous? Take the McDonalds coffee case. The case is the same whether the damages asked for was just medical bills or for actual and punitive damages (which is what the bulk of that award was (punitive)). And I think it is reasonable to ask whether a company's decision to super-heat its coffee, even after previous instances of scalding customers, was reasonable. BTW, on appeal, that award got knocked back into reality. I'm not even sure she recovered anything except her actual damages.
It would also have the effect of relieving big companies of responsibility for their actions. It would also most likely greatly increase the costs for bringing a case to trial, even clear cut cases.
Try to remember that in most cases the plainiff's attorney is working on a contingency basis. Which means if there is no recovery, he is eating not only his own costs but those of experts and other accrued fees. So very few true frivolous cases get filed. In this pants case, he couldnt get a lawyer to represent him.
And what constitutes being frivolous? Take the McDonalds coffee case. The case is the same whether the damages asked for was just medical bills or for actual and punitive damages (which is what the bulk of that award was (punitive). BTW, on appeal, that award got knocked back into reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.