Snarky Behavior

Q: What’s the problem with lawyer jokes?
A: Lawyer’s don’t think they’re funny, and no one else thinks they’re jokes.

The Washington Post has a Follow-up story on the world’s biggest d-bag, Roy Pearson, esq.

Mr. Pearson, as you may recall, is suing a local DC dry-cleaning business for $65 million dollars because they lost his pants. Apparently 1 pair of pants + the inconvenience of having to change to a different dry-cleaning location + pain and suffering = $65 million dollars. (I’d like to point out this is DC, where dry-cleaners rival Starbucks for corner locations. I literally live above a dry-cleaner. Every hill intern, legislative assistant, and pretentious Heritage Foundation research fellow owns one cheap black suit, which he wears every day, and gets dry-cleaned on Friday).

Oh, did I mention Mr. Pearson is also a judge in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court? Yeah, and that.

Well, apparently this skidmark on society’s term is up for reconsideration. Good, right? The city will can him for making a farce of the justice system, right?

No, his law-suit will not be a factor in his evaluation:

“Everyone agrees that to file a lawsuit asking for $65 million for a pair of pants is absolutely outrageous,” the D.C. official said. “But we are trying to keep that out of the discussion about reappointment. I don’t think it’s appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can’t retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights.”

Um… I’ve been pepper-sprayed for exercising my First Amendment right. You’re saying we can’t evaluate someone’s understanding and application of justice (and determination of frivolity) based on his external abuse of the very legal system he works for?

PS

I know all of my lawyer/law-school friends are reading this and secretly defending his right to a case. I hate you guys.