Although our system has self checks, how much hardship and burden has been placed on the Chungs? I would like to see the system self check sooner so that cases like this never even get to this point.

One certainly has to have sympathy for the Chungs. If Pearson's divorce case was even remotely comparable to this lawsuit, then the Chungs' counterclaim for attorneys fees should be successful. Pearson was described by a judge in a prior lawsuit, his divorce case, as someone who unecessarily extends the process. Pearson was ordered to pay his ex-wife's attorneys fees. Court documents and the judge's comments in this case are consistent with that characterization of Pearson.

"While this case symbolized a privileged judge's misuse of the system, its resolution reassures us that our system has effective, built-in checks against such things."

Really? Then how come the victims of this affair, the Chungs, are worse off than before they were sued, and will likely not recover their attorneys' fees unless an American Tort Reform Association fundraiser succeeds? (As Ms. Franklin has stated, the suit does not qualify under the current rules' far-too-narrow definition of "frivolous.") What was the built-in check that would have prevented Pearson from successfully extorting a $12,000 settlement from the Chungs?

The Chungs and their lawyers have themselves expressed positive sentiment about what this case shows about the civil justice system. They said that it was a "great day for justice" and that they were "happy with the result" when asked what they thought of the American justice system. See Washington Post Article. The public shaming and professional and financial consequences Pearson has experienced from this lawsuit are a victory in our justice system, and send a message that unreasonably interpreting the law doesn't pay off.

But the financial consequences of this case are definitely important to consider. The judge for this case, Judge Bartnoff, still has to consider the Chungs' motions for payment of their attorneys' fees and for professional sanctions against Pearson. The public and professional outcry (of which trial lawyers have been a significant part) as well as the facts Bartnoff mentioned in the findings certainly call for these motions to be granted.

And as we wait to see what happens here, we have to remain critical and remember the victims who would be harmed if NOT permitted to sue for their legitimate, legally recognized injuries. This is the vast majority of lawsuits brought on by individuals, people who don't have time and resources to pay for litigation that just isn't worth it, and who probably have only decided to do so after realizing that court was their last resort for protection. Indeed, every day we read about how mandatory arbitration agreements are quietly privatizing justice and stripping away citizens' rights.

We shouldn't let media-hyped cases (how much time has been spent and ink has been spilled talking about this judge's pants?) distract us from the grave injustices that would occur without a civil justice that protects the public from harm.

End all judicial immunities. The judge that permitted this claim to proceed past initial filing has damaged the legal system. People all over the world are laughing at this fiasco, thanks to the pro-lawyer rent seeking bias of the cult criminal on the bench.

When a claim for $65 million for pants lost for one week arrives at the court, the first duty of the judge is to dismiss it, and order a psychiatric examination of the filer.

The judge should pay for his negligence, and the resulting damages, out of personal assets. To deter.

The taxpayer is innocent and should pay nothing.

"unreasonably interpreting the law doesn't pay off."

That's just false: if Pearson were sinister, rather than delusional, he would have settled at great profit for $12,000, the Chungs would still be out tens of thousands of dollars, and there would have been no repercussions from negative press coverage. And more successful trial lawyers have successfully stole billions from legitimate businesses using the same unreasonable interpretations of consumer fraud law as Pearson did, as Michael Greve documented in his book "Harm-Less Lawsuits."

And, once again, you raise a strawman: not a single reformer has suggested abolishing the civil justice system. It's possible to have a civil justice system that protects the public from harm while enacting the reforms that also protect the public from trial lawyer lawsuit abuse, and you regularly fail to recognize that most reforms proposed would have no effect on legitimate lawsuits, simply prejudicially tarring all of them with the same paintbrush. Why won't DMI ever address actual reformer arguments instead of the pretend ones?

The Chungs do indeed think this is a "great day for justice." It's just a shame that it came after two years of injustice.

I've expressed my dismay at Pearson's actions, and I don't think it's fair that the Chungs had to endure this ordeal. But my critique of the tort "reform" response to this case is about the hypocrisy of rallying behind this cause (which the AAJ also did) and not rallying behind all the other "little guys" who've gotten short changed due to tort "reform," and who would be screwed if the tort "reform" response to this pants-suit were to take root.

Now, had Pearson collected the $12,000 settlement, we would have a whole new hypothetical and a whole new set of questions about the terms of the settlement (Would we have known the settlement amount? Would they have been able to publicize this? What were the lawyers' strategies?) and the consequences thereof. So we can't prematurely say that it would pay off for him. But abusing the system has paid off for corporate interest groups, and this is the connection tort "reformers" refuse to make as they express dismay over this one case but not for corporations' abuse of power in the court system. Studies estimate that anti-trust/trade violations cost our society $250 billion annually, and workplace injuries and illnesses cost us $183.2 billion - @274 billion annually. And those losses hurt the American people. (See Drutman and Cray's "The People's Business)

Ted writes: Not a single reformer has suggested abolishing the civil justice system. Well, that would be far too straightforward, and would create far too much public backlash. However, through severe restrictions on people's access to the courts and to a fair and adequate recovery under that system, "reformers" are slowly chipping away at the civil justice system. This would ultimately result in its virtual abolishment.

Ted says: It's possible to have a civil justice system that protects the public from harm while enacting the reforms that also protect the public from trial lawyer lawsuit abuse. But simply stating that trial lawyer lawsuit abuse exists does not make it so. If that were the case, I'd go around talking about my cure for cancer I just figured out.

He also says that I "regularly fail to recognize that most reforms proposed would have no effect on legitimate lawsuits." It is refreshing that he acknowledges that at least some reforms do affect legitimate lawsuits--that's a start. But my "failure to recognize" is actually a refusal to delude myself into thinking that "reforms"--like limiting/eliminating punitive damages that send a message to wrongdoing companies, and forcing class actions into consumer-hostile courts--don't effect legitimate lawsuits.

Kia: I advocate ending torts litigation. Its self-stated goals are in failure. It carries transaction cost without evidence of any benefit. People like all you lawyers use government power to extract cost. You return nothing. That is the definition of rent seeking, a crime by slick land pirates.

If you disagree with that claim, let torts help the lawyer, the judge and the legislator. End all their self-dealt immunities.

If you cannot support that fairness, and extend the great benefits of torts to the cult criminal hierarchy, all you lawyer hypocrites need to shut your lying mouths.

I tried. I can see no substantive difference between Kia and Ted.