“But, it is possible that the Court will award legal fees to the Defendants in this case. Not a strong possibility but it could happen.”
I can’t speak to what is legally possible or likely, but I’d like to make one observation (a moral observation, not a legal one): If the attorney is not eventually held liable for the defendants’ legal fees, he will have essentially won the case. That is, he will have accomplished what he obviously set out to do, namely, ruining the defendants.
Based on what we’ve seen so far, I can’t say that this outcome makes me feel any better about our legal system.
**emotional distress, pain and suffering, defamation of character, who knows. I’m definately not a lawyer, but they should be able to dream something up. This scum bag should be forced to compensate the owners of the cleaners for lawyer fees and for their own time spent in defending this worthless case. **
DC allows tort claims for malicious prosecution but the standard is pretty hard to meet. The owners of the cleaners (“plaintiffs”) would have to prove (1) that the underlying suit terminated in their favor; (2) malice by the party initiating the underlying suit. In DC malice is defined as the doing of an act without just cause or excuse, with such a conscious indifference or reckless disregard as to its results or effects upon the rights or feelings of others as to constitute ill will or evil motive. (3) lack of probable cause for the underlying suit; (4) special injury occasioned by the plaintiffs as the result of the original underlying action. The first element is a slam dunk but the remaining elements are not easily demonstrated in this case. Although we all agree the damages claim of $54 million was without merit the court has ruled that the man’s claim for compensation for his lost pants was worthy of a hearing on the merits.
To assert a claim for malicious prosecution would require filing a new cause of action and the resulting attorney’s fees and expenses. Even if the owners of the cleaners could meet the burden of succeeding on their claim and were awarded monetary damages the likelihood of seeing a payday from the judge is almost non-existent.
This case isn’t over for him. As you can imagine, the press coverage in DC is uniformly against the judge including an editorial in the Washington Post today which concluded with “Mr. Pearson was poised for a new 10-year term when publicity about the pants suit caused the judicial tenure commission to put a hold on the process. If it is interested in maintaining the credibility of an office charged with deciding civil infractions of D.C. rules, it should act quickly to foreclose any possibility of Mr. Pearson’s reappointment. That he showed such poor judgment in pursuing his own case should disqualify him from deciding those of others.”
With all the media scrutiny on this case, I will be surprised if the trial judge doesn’t award fees, espcecially if it is an elected position (I can’t remember if the judge hearing this is elected). It can always be overturned on appeal.
With all the media scrutiny on this case, I will be surprised if the trial judge doesn’t award fees, espcecially if it is an elected position (I can’t remember if the judge hearing this is elected). It can always be overturned on appeal.
DC is unique in that the Superior Court judges are nominated by the President of the US, confirmed by the Senate and serve 15 year terms.