WSJ law blog has more details on Judge Roy Pearson’s plan to file for a reconsideration of the verdict against his pants suit, and also has a copy of the Chungs’ motion for attorneys fees, of which they’ve now racked up $83,000 (Lattman, Jul. 6).
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
I remain interested in seeing the detail on those fees, which is not provided in the motion — not in what’s posted online, anyway.
$82,000 for attorneys fees huh? Seems like there might be a good idea for a post about the high cost of the present tort system. Specifically, the overbilling and over charging of clients by defense firms. I especially liked the line where they ask the court to compensate the Chungs for their harassment, financial, and emotional toll by paying $82,000 to their Attorneys. I’m sure they will sleep much better at night knowing their high dollar DC lawyer got $82,000 for defending a trivial tort case a first year associate could probably knock out. No one can honestly say plaintiffs are the sole burden on the tort system without looking at the heavy and unreasonable fees defense attorneys bill their clients.
In defense of the defense attorneys, the cost of litigating this particular case was high because Pearson filed a lot of frivolous motions, which must be opposed.
You can look up the docket history of the case at the D.C. Superior Court web site.
In my own experience, it’s always more work when your opposition is stupid or crazy.
Comments on this entry are closed.