http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002058.html?nav=hcmodulemmvCOURTS
Judge Who Lost Pant Suit Loses Job
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page B04
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.
Roy L. Pearson Jr. lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner. (Jacquelyn Martin - AP)
TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebook Print This E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 2 comments about this item.
View All Comments ?
POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging?
? Links to this article
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.
A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.
