After Seven Years Of Investigation, Sanction Proposed For Pants Judge

Does anyone remember the D.C. Administrative Law Judge who sued a cleaners for over $60 million in a dispute concerning a pair of pants?

The D.C. Disciplinary Counsel has had that rather highly-publicized matter under investigation since May 2007 and apparently took seven years to file charges.

A hearing committee just issued its report

This disciplinary proceeding arises out of litigation that Respondent conducted on his own behalf in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia between June 2005 and August 2007 an in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals between August 2007 and March 2009. In pursuing his case, Respondent made factual allegations and advanced legal positions based thereon with respect to events that had occurred not only in May and June of 2005 but also in July of 2002.

As to the seven year delay in prosecution, the usual response: No harm, no foul.

After careful consideration of his testimony in this regard, the Hearing Committee has concluded that Respondent has not established even by a preponderance of evidence that he incurred any of the alleged prejudice. See In re Morrell, 684A.2d 361, 368-370 (D.C. 1996). Therefore, the Hearing Committee recommends that the Board conclude that Respondent has not established his Seventh Defense.

As to frivolous litigation

the Hearing Committee has concluded after much deliberation that Respondent’s course of action was an unacceptable perversion and betrayal of the noble law reform work that his former, distinguished legal services organization and other such entities properly pursue. The Hearing Committee recommends, therefore, that the Board conclude that Respondent pursued unmeritorious claims and supporting theories in violation of Rule 3.1. 

The hearing committee finds that the former judge violated Rules 3.1, 3.2 and 8.4(d) and recommends a stayed 30-day suspension with two years of probation.

The report may be accessed at this link under the name In re Roy Pearson.  

Between the delay shown here and the one mentioned in a post last Friday, is it well past time to wonder about the ability of the Office of Disciplinary (formerly Bar) Counsel to fulfill its public protection mission? (Mike Frisch)