It's hard to feel sorry for Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, the man sued the dry cleaners for $54 million because they lost a pair of his pants. The media fury over the latest example of runaway litigation in this country has shed unwelcome light on Pearson, and he may not be reappointed to his $100,512-a year job.
(Q)uestions about his temperament and demeanor as an administrative law judge had surfaced long before a media firestorm engulfed him this year.
Since his initial two-year term expired in May, Pearson has been sidelined from the bench and is still earning his $100,512 salary working as an attorney adviser at the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. A commission that reappoints administrative law judges at the OAH is expected to vote today on the first step toward denying his appointment to a full 10-year term.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler has complicated that process by offering shifting recommendations of neutral, positive, and finally negative about Pearson's reappointment, according to internal documents obtained by Legal Times.
Given their history, it's hard to imagine why Butler would have anything positive to say about Pearson. Less than three months after starting work in May 2005, Pearson sent a 14-page letter to then-Mayor Anthony Williams urging him "to inquire into whether corrupt ethics, demonstrably poor judgment and failed leadership constitute 'good cause' to remove Chief Judge Butler."
Pearson's scathing letter -- which also accused Butler of "physical intimidation" and a "Mafioso-style of 'leadership'" -- was triggered by a minor misunderstanding over the starting date and length of Pearson's two-year term. The mayor took no action against Butler.
In February 2006, Pearson went a step further and submitted 33 pages of written testimony for an OAH oversight hearing held by D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Council's Judiciary Committee. "The chief judge has unilaterally taken hundreds of cases from administrative law judges who will not rule as he directs and has reassigned those cases to administrative law judges who will agree to rule as they are instructed," Pearson wrote.
Mendelson says that although he appreciates input from D.C. employees, Pearson "is not an administrative law judge I have looked to for insight into the agency."
The story goes on to describe Pearson as, basically, a bully in judicial robes.
Butler wrote that Pearson's behavior on and off the bench "brings discredit to the judiciary" and that "he has not lived up to the ethical canons that govern the judiciary." In an interview last week with Legal Times, Butler said that Pearson "is an annoyance like a mosquito bite."
"The pants lawsuit was actually not unexpected, knowing the personality. Up to that time, I was still pretty sure he was not going to make a good judge," Butler says. "That's almost like another straw added to the others."
Judges are expected to behave in a manner that does not shed negative light on the judiciary. It's hard to see how Pearson's antics--particularly the pants suit (pun intended!)--can do anything but that. And what attorney is going to be willing to have a case tried by such a judge? The truth is, Pearson's 15 minutes of fame creates doubt in the minds of many as to whether he has the proper judicial temperament.
The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges met last week to discuss the reappointment of 10 judges, including Pearson.
The commission will meet again today, when it is expected that a letter will be issued notifying Pearson that he may not be reappointed, the first step in ending his tenure as an administrative law judge. If that letter is issued, Pearson will have 15 days to respond with any written comments, and he may choose to appear at the commission's next meeting in September to present evidence or other witnesses. The commission would then vote up or down on his appointment to a full 10-year term.
This is another one of those actions-have-consequences situations. Pearson certainly has a right to sue the cleaners for $54 million for losing a pair of his slacks, but that doesn't mean he's immune from scrutiny for it.
|