$54 Million Lawsuit Over Missing Pants Ends With Suspension

If Roy Pearson wanted to keep his pants he should have taken a belt and suspenders approach. To that end, the DC Court of Appeals has 90 days’ worth of suspension right here.

It’s rare that a court case that fails to touch upon core constitutional principles manages to get its own Wikipedia page. But Pearson v. Chung is one of those exceptions. Pearson, a former administrative law judge, sued his dry cleaners for losing a pair of his pants that he claimed were worth over $1,000. Over time, his demands ballooned, peaking at a $67 million claim before retreating to a more restrained $54 million.

After failing to prevail on his claims, and consistently losing disciplinary proceedings against him, the Court of Appeals has weighed in and outlined some issues with Pearson’s damage figures:

We agree with the Board that this is one such case. The total damages figure is shocking in itself; simply put, Pearson asked the trial court to award him $67,292,000 because of his dissatisfaction with defendants’ dry cleaning services. But the constituent parts of that $67,292,000 total are equally troubling. Pearson asked for $90,000 to rent a car, a facially disproportionate request in response to the alleged need to patronize another dry cleaner. He claimed that his emotional distress over a few common and innocuous signs and a lost pair of pants was so severe that he was entitled to $3,000,000 in damages. Perhaps most remarkable was his request for a judgment obligating the Chungs to provide him with ongoing services and to pay him $10,000 immediately based on nothing more than his own request, a demand that the Hearing Committee called “patently non-cognizable,” was made after the defendants had already taken down the signs at the heart of the controversy, was tethered to no statutory basis, and was completely out of proportion to any likely shortcoming in dry cleaning service. These damages theories were utterly frivolous, implausible to the point of having “not even a faint hope of success,” and they violated Rule 3.1.

Now, 15 years after Pearson lost his pants and 11 years after the underlying case concluded, the ordeal is finally over, with the Court of Appeals affirming the Board on Professional Responsibility decision suspending Pearson’s license for 90 days based upon findings of misconduct in both motion and discovery practice and seriously interfered with the administration of justice.

Sitting around for 90 days can be tough but with a little patience, Pearson can be back to the profession soon enough. So our message to him is… wait for it…

Just keep your pants on.

Pants Judge Suspended [Legal Profession Blog]

Earlier: Judge Who Sued Dry Cleaners Over Missing Pants Facing Ethics Charges
Judge Who Sued Dry Cleaner For $54 Million Over Missing Pants About To Get Wedgie From Disciplinary Committee


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Announcing The Lawyer Forward Podcast

Back during the August 2009 OCI season, amid the wreckage of the Great Recession, a UT-Austin 2L named Mike Whelan sent in a tip to ATL. Mike wanted to share some obnoxious and insensitive remarks he overheard from visiting law firm interviewers. Appended to his account, he included a few “Notes,” including, “Note to self: start a law firm, and do it better than these guys.” Indeed, he went on to start a successful solo practice, while simultaneously managing to become a sought-after speaker, writer, and consultant.

Early on, Mike saw there was something amiss with the current practice model and the culture it fosters. Not only is it destructive to lawyers, but it is also, at best, unsatisfactory for the clients it means to serve. Mike is on a mission to find another path for the profession, and we are thrilled to add his Lawyer Forward to our growing family of ATL podcasts.

Lawyer Forward is a unique entry into the exploding legal industry podcast landscape. The format is narrative — stories that illustrate principles explored in Mike’s highly regarded book of the same name. Lawyer Forward will bring to bear (to quote Nicole Abboud) Mike’s “unique ability to distill and explain oft-confusing concepts” to “lay out a roadmap for lawyers to carve out their own space in the future of the legal profession.”

In his first episode, Mike explores the loneliness and isolation many lawyers feel right now. He gives surprising advice on how to tackle that isolation — including purposefully building social silos — and how doing that work makes for better lawyers and happier clients.

Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.

The Rule Of Law Is A Precarious Thing

(image via Getty)

One year ago, the team I was a part of was handed a resounding defeat by the Supreme Court in a so-called “contempt of cop” case. As I wrote at the time, I felt the ruling would further add to an already dangerous level of erosion in public trust of law enforcement. Unfortunately, this concern has been validated just a year later with not only national, but global protests of police abuse.

Of course, given all that has happened before and since, the continued loss of public trust in law enforcement was easily predictable. But the most astounding development to me in the past few years is that one can find increasing agreement from all political sides that major problems with police accountability exist. Take for example, Leon Wolf and Elie Mystal. These are two individuals who operate at dramatically different ends of the political spectrum. Wolf is a staunch conservative, the former editor at large at RedState and the current editor at the Glenn Beck-founded publication The Blaze. Mystal was a liberal firebrand here at Above The Law for many years and is now The Nation’s justice correspondent. Yet I urge you all to read the similarities given by both Wolf and Mystal in response to violent reactions against police abuse.

Both implore readers to try to understand the viewpoint of Americans who have long suffered most under a system that does not hold bad-acting cops accountable. Both agree the problem has continued for this long because a segment of America “does not really give a damn what cops do” because they know it will never happen to them. Most importantly, both agree that increased accountability of police is the most straightforward solution, and for good reason.

In his highly influential work, Donald Black argued that most of what we define as criminal acts are in reality a form of self-help, done often as a response to the conduct of someone else and in the absence of legitimate intervention by the state. In other words, most crimes are moralistic in nature, whereby people take the law into their own hands and act as judge, jury, and executioner of perceived wrongs done to them. Building off of Black’s work, Mark Cooney would show that many within the United States, such as in minority communities, are operating in a stateless environment where attempts to invoke legitimate enforcement by the state is generally met with either “indifference” or “hostility.” The result is that many have become understandably antagonistic to the law, and therefore tend to rely on the older system of self-help. Put simply, the rule of law still exists in a precarious state in this country, and it is the hostile or indifferent treatment by those who enforce the law that is a major contributing factor for this reality.

In no way do I mean to suggest all officers are bad people or do a dishonest job. But I agree with the opinions of both Wolf and Mystal “that excessive police force is punished way less often than it actually happens” and that “[i]t takes incredible strength to practice nonviolence in the face of murder and oppression.” Despite the gross flaws that still exist, however, I have made the point of stressing that over that past two decades things have gotten measurably, and in many ways, remarkably better. Of course, that does not mean excusing any of the existing harms. In fact, I would argue that social (but also peaceful) outrage is one of the best tools available in effectuating change.

From a purely legal standpoint, any day now the Supreme Court will decide whether to take on a number of cases regarding the atextual, ahistorical immunity the Court has unilaterally manufactured that shields law enforcement from accountability. One hopes that current outrage will cause the Court to reconsider this immunity, but there is also no reason to suspect it will change course. Until and unless legal accountability becomes more readily available, however, we can expect the rule of law to continue operating in a perilous state.


Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Law Firm Employee Gets Slapped After Racist Tirade

White America is finally starting to come to terms with the fact that the cavalcade of racist BS just never ends. The latest incident that’s gone viral on social media features the operations manager at a small law firm in Glendale, Arizona, Tamara Harrian (she’s also married to the name partner).

Harrian’s antics were caught on camera by a patron of the gas station, Greg Conn, when she stormed in. Harrian demanded to be helped before another gas station customer, Karina Rodriguez, when she got all racist about it. Harrian laid her hands on Rodriguez who responded by slapping Harrian.

Conn sets up the scene before the video starts:

I was checking out and this lady comes into the store all flustered yelling at the clerk to get another clerk to help because the line was getting long and her pump wasn’t working. Another clerk came out and she said to the young lady in the video, she can go checkout in an authoritative manner.

The young lady said “thank you but I don’t need your assistance.” She was clearly annoyed with the lady like everyone else in the store. At this time the lady told the clerk not to serve her, told her she can leave, and go back to her country. That’s when I took out my phone, and the rest is here in the video.

From there the video tells the rest of the story:

Bob Harrian has gone public since this video went viral. He’s opened up about his wife’s mental health issues, saying she’s had bouts of paranoia for about a year, following a break-in.

Harrian said he has tried to get treatment for his wife but has failed at doing so. He said he was astounded by the video, but also said this might be the proof that he needs to explain to his wife that she can be a detriment to herself.

“Karina, I don’t know what to say. I’m just so sorry,” Harrian said, in an emotional message to the woman on the receiving end of the tirade in the video. “I’m just so sorry that this happened. You never walked into that store thinking something like this was going to happen. I understand, and I’m sorry. I’m sorry for what she said. It was very hateful. It was — it’s indefensible, but I just have to tell you this. It’s her mental illness. A year ago, she would never done — never have even thought of that.”

Of course, whenever a lawyer’s family is involved in an incident like this, the question of lawsuits has arisen. However, Bob Harrian confirmed they will not be suing Rodriguez over the now-viral slap.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Ulysses, Meet Ramy

This will not be an IP column. Under the circumstances, writing one this week seems inappropriate somehow, especially when cellphones throughout my house start blaring every night around 7 p.m. “Imminent Extreme Alert.” “Citywide curfew in effect for NYC. 8PM-5AM Nightly.” I am into my fifth decade as a native Brooklynite. Never would I have imagined the current state of things. Just a few months ago, nightfall brought a seemingly unending string of ambulance sirens offering eardrum-shattering testimony to COVID-19’s silent and deadly reach into Brooklyn’s neighborhoods.

Now, the sounds of righteous anger engulf Brooklyn’s landmarks as the populace of a diverse city rises up in the face of injustices rendered both in the present and across generations. Naked anguish confronts us in the faces in our neighbors, whether it be because of the economic impact of the COVID-19 lockdown, or the loss of friends and family to the ravages of the coronavirus, or the total and utter disgust of right-minded people with those who perpetuate racism against minorities.

Yes, there is anguish, but there is also hope. Hope that the resilience of New Yorkers will once again overcome the current difficulties. And that a healthier, more cooperative, more unified society will soon be seen — in our city and across our country.

No thinking person has been left untouched at this moment. First, our physical spaces constricted as all but the most essential of us were asked to stay home. Now, many have taken to the streets, joining together to demand a better society, even in the face of the continued health risks that make a return to the way things were seem more unlikely with each passing day. It is a time of struggle on many fronts, with every responsible adult confronted with the need to process the meaning of what continues to unfold. How each of us undertakes that process surely differs. So too are the conclusions and resolutions for change we each will eventually reach and adopt.

As much as we focus on the image we project to others, it is often much more important to focus inward, especially during times of crisis. Because as much as we share, we are all individuals at bottom, blessed with the free will and intellect to decide our own courses of action in the future, as well as our responses to the events of the present. The path we take to get where we want to go is ours alone.

A grateful spirit always helps. Even when it might seem hard to find things to be grateful for. In truth, I am blessed not to have that problem. But the times also demand that I reflect on the struggles of those that came before me, as we all reckon with the struggles we are facing as a society. What helps, at least for me, is to try to learn, even as we are barraged on all sides by those who claim to have all the answers we need. Right now — in addition to my usual study of Jewish religious texts on a daily basis — my encounters with two very different outlets have served as fuel for introspection even though they both speak to me in profound ways.

Perhaps because I am a first-generation immigrant, son of parents who were forced to flee their native Egypt due to religious persecution, I have always been a student of American history. (I majored in history in college and seriously considered taking at least a master’s in American history before starting law school. And yes, history studies are good training for a career as a patent litigator, with their focus on the close reading of texts and trying to place ideas in the proper historico-conceptual framework.) At the moment, I am in the midst of Ron Chernow’s magisterial portrait (the basis of a current miniseries on the History Channel, for those who prefer watching to reading) of one of my childhood historical heroes, Civil War military legend and two-term president Ulysses S. Grant.

While I was long acquainted with Grant’s exploits as the commanding general of the Union army, I was less versed in his early life, which Chernow’s biography describes in fascinating detail. Many know, for example, of Grant’s presiding over Reconstruction. But I did not know that despite his significant financial struggles as a young father, he freed the only slave given to him as a dowry by his wealthy slave-owning father-in-law. Or that he was a middling student at West Point, distinguished only by his horsemanship and preternatural calm under pressure. But it was him, not his more decorated classmates, that rose to the pinnacle of military and political power. I find comfort in his story, if only as a reminder that grit and dedication to principles have always been as key to success in this country as the privilege of wealth or class.

Learning is not restricted to what can be gleaned from 500-plus-page works of nonfiction. As the son of Egyptian immigrants, I have never seen an accurate depiction in popular culture of growing up in America in a household defined by Middle Eastern sensibilities and customs. Until now, with Hulu’s Ramy, the critically acclaimed comedy series about a Muslim family in New Jersey created by and starred in by Golden Globe winner Ramy Youssef. I am Jewish, not Muslim, but as the show reminded me, I also have plenty of Egyptian in me as well. From the food and table manners to the storyline involving romance between first cousins (I promise, it is common in Egypt, and no, neither I nor my siblings was born with nine heads) to the nostalgia expressed by a character for speaking French, the show stirred up recognition of a key part of my identity precisely at the time that so many of us are being asked to consider how to respect our differences while celebrating our similarities.

At the same time, Ramy’s telling of the challenges faced by immigrant families rings true, especially when those immigrants are adherents of a minority faith, or come from a culture that is very different from that of the typical American. Perhaps more importantly, the show reminds us that even among struggles, both personal and cultural, there is still room for laughter, joy, faith, family, and growth — propelled by the typical American optimism that freedom and opportunity for all will lead to better lives for all. To get there, we must strive to better ourselves, help those less fortunate, and remind ourselves that our society will endure as long as good people of all races and creeds work together for the benefit of all our country’s people. Here is hoping the tragedies of our recent past make way for a better future very soon.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.


Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

The Biglaw Firm That’s Raking In The Big Bucks Thanks To The Pandemic

(Image via Getty)

While other law firms have been conducting austerity measures thanks to the coronavirus, one Biglaw firm has been busying itself by making bank off the pandemic that’s been bringing its competitors nothing but pain.

Kirkland & Ellis, perhaps better known as the $4 billion firm, has already raked in almost $100 million thanks to its booming bankruptcy practice. How did they do it? Kirkland is outbilling its peers by representing 11 of the 24 large, public companies that have filed for bankruptcy thus far in 2020 — while no other firm has represented more than three. As reported by Bloomberg Law, the firm’s investment in this practice area has proven to be prudent:

Early results show Big Law competitors have so far been unable to topple Kirkland for what are often the most lucrative bankruptcy assignments: representing large, indebted companies negotiating a reprieve from creditors. Kirkland’s clientele includes brand name retailers such as J.C. Penney, Neiman Marcus, Pier 1 Imports, and Stage Stores.

“There’s a widely held perception that Kirkland has one of the best restructuring practices in the world,” said Kent Zimmermann, a consultant for law firms at the Zeughauser Group. “It’s another example of how it can really pay off to pick your spots and be among the best in chosen areas of focus. That’s what you’re seeing at Kirkland.”

Thus far, Kirkland has taken in more than $94 million related to those cases (and this amount doesn’t even include the firm’s representation of J.C. Penney and Intelstat, for which K&E has yet to report its early earnings). Given the pace of this year’s filings, we’re sure there’s more revenue to be made for Kirkland:

The 12 filings in May doubled the number of filings from January through April. And the 24 filings through five months this year are just one shy of the 25 large public company bankruptcies filed during all of 2019, according to [UCLA Professor Lynn] LoPucki’s bankruptcy database.

“This could be larger than either of the two earlier booms,” LoPucki said.

Kirkland & Ellis had a great 2019, but its 2020 could be even better thanks to all the distressed retailers and public companies that have been forced to file for bankruptcy due to COVID-19. Thanks to their bad luck, the firm will have a banner year.

Kirkland’s Bankruptcy Business Out-Billing Peers In Pandemic [Bloomberg Law]


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Embracing Cloud Technology

More than ever, law firms are looking at new ways of getting work done, with one industry analyst predicting that $1 trillion will be spent on cloud computing over the coming decade. But how and why should law firms consider cloud technology?

Cloud technology enables firms to be more flexible not only for their clients, but their staff as a means to accelerate workflows through customized workspaces based on the matters being worked on.

For many firms, determining how to continue to manage their practice with remote workers, as well as think ahead to how their legal practice and business model will undoubtedly change, is a massive undertaking.

– How do you work with anyone from anywhere?
– How can our firm manage custom apps?
– Where does the cloud investment end up?
– How do we look ahead through the clouds?

To find out more, complete the form below to download the whitepaper, Among the Clouds.

Is Defunding Police Departments The Answer?

The death of George Floyd has spurred national and international demonstrations as well as calls to defund police departments. It sounds like a radical idea but, in reality, depending on how such strategies are implemented, the approach is less radical than it sounds.

First, it doesn’t mean eliminating the police. “Disbanding” is a not a great banner name for the movement. Reimaging might be a better word choice.  No one believes we don’t need police at all. We just need to use them differently.

Police are charged with doing too much in this country. They not only arrest offenders, book them, then have to be available at criminal prosecutions, but they also do everything from being present at a car accident to talking down would-be suicide jumpers to acting as crossing guards.

This is too much to handle and a waste of resources. Some of the money allocated to police for larger staffs, more vehicles, and additional weaponry could be better dispersed among other agencies that could better handle the jobs that don’t have to do with making arrests.

Let me give you an example. The family of a client of mine called 911 because their child was in the midst of a psychotic episode. EMS workers came accompanied by police — two big burly guys. The kid spit at them. But for the father’s intervention (I might add that both the father and son were Caucasian), the kid would probably have been beaten. After police found cocaine on him, he was charged with drug possession and served a summons the day after he got out of the hospital. How’s that for encouragement to call 911?

911 is a great tool, but it shouldn’t necessitate bringing out the police. If the situation involves a person who is mentally ill, suffering from drug withdrawal, or simply homeless, a mental-health worker or social services outreach person might be a better fit. When I lived in Paris, years ago, and found a barely conscious drug user in my apartment hallway, needle sticking out from her leg, my first reaction was to call the police. My French neighbor intervened telling me, “No, here we call the firemen.” A much saner choice.  When the firemen arrived, the woman was removed without struggle and brought to a hospital, not jail. It’s automatically less confrontational, when the people intervening carry a first-aid kit rather than a gun and handcuffs.

At least one city in the United States is implementing this approach. In Austin, Texas, when 911 is called, the dispatcher asks if the caller needs police, fire, or mental health services, then sends out the appropriate team.

I’ve handled dozens of cases of people charged with felony assaults simply because, in the course of being arrested for something minor, they flailed their arms which led to rougher police action and an injury to the cop. Even if minor, any injury to a police officer makes the crime a felony. If a mental health worker had attended, the situation might not have spun out of control.

Police departments around the country have grown fat with funding since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even cops in small towns are able to purchase paramilitary equipment which, when used, makes them daunting presences rather than neighborhood resources and creates further barriers between them and the people they’re charged with protecting.

There’s no doubt police are needed to enforce the law, but they’re not miracle workers. They should not be thrown into situations (specifically with the mentally ill) for which they’re not trained. Some are racist. Many are not. They’re just trying to earn a living.

Perhaps we’ve asked them to do too much. What better time than now to reorient our expectations of them, both for their safety and everyone else’s.  That’s what “disbanding” is about.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Eddie Lampert Continuing To Spread International Goodwill

RBZ abandons fixed forex exchange system

People walk past the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe building in Harare, Zimbabwe, February 25, 2019. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo

“It was resolved that a formal market-based system of foreign exchange trading will be put in place. To ensure that foreign currency trades were monitored in real-time, the committee (Monetary Policy Committee) urged the bank to expedite the implementation of the electronic foreign exchange trading system for compulsory use by bureaux de change,”  RBZ governor John Mangudya  said in a statement yesterday.

“The committee also urged more active application of the open market operations bills to deal with any identified excess liquidity balances in the market.”

The decision by the RBZ boss came following a sitting of the bank’s Monetary Policy Committee on May 22, 2020 which considered a wide range of issues confronting the local economy.

Currently, the entire market whether formal or informal is operating based on the daily parallel market rates which continue to fuel the annual inflation rate that stood at 765,57% as of April.

Renowned US economist Steve Hanke has described the Zimdollar as the second junkiest currency in the world. “Today, the parallel market rate has traded between 80 and 85. In mid May 2020, it was 40. An increase of 100% in three weeks reflects the black market implosion,” former Finance minister, Tendai Biti, tweeted.”The restrictive measures by the central bank are corroding the Zimdollar and, therefore, self-defeating. They have run out of ideas,” he added.

As a result of the continued fall of the Zimdollar, the RBZ has been seeking to promote production to boost exports. Mangudya also announced that there was need to release more financial resources for the productive sectors of the economy by banks.

“To assist that process, the committee resolved to reduce the statutory reserve ratio from the current 4,5% to 2,5% with effect from June 8, 2020,” he said.

The statutory reserve ratio refers to the percentage of a bank’s deposit holdings that must be preserved by the central bank as a form of security.

Mangudya added: “The committee also resolved to reinstate, with effect from July 1, 2020, the 30-day limit of liquidating surplus foreign exchange receipts from exports in order to ensure that more foreign exchange was released onto the market.”

Post published in: Business