A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals on Thursday imposed a 90-day suspension from the practice of law on a former District of Columbia administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner 15 years ago for more than $67 million for allegedly losing a pair of his pants.

Judges John Fisher, Catharine Easterly and John Steadman said in an unsigned opinion that they agreed with findings by the District of Columbia Board of Professional Responsibility that former Judge Roy Pearson Jr.'s 'litigation tactics went beyond aggressiveness and crossed the boundary into abusiveness.'"

The panel ruled that Pearson had violated professional conduct rules prohibiting frivolous litigation and the interference with the administration of justice.

"It is also true that, as a technical matter, some of Pearson's theories presented a matter of first impression," the panel said. "But the lack of a definitive holding precluding a legal theory does not mean that it cannot be frivolous."

Pearson, who represented himself in the disciplinary proceedings, was not immediately reached for comment Thursday evening. Pearson formerly was a judge with the District's Office of Administrative Hearings.

Pearson claimed that the owners of Custom Cleaners in D.C. lost a pair of suit pants and tried to give him a pair that weren't his. He sued the owners in 2005, raising fraud and consumer protection claims. The case went to a bench trial in 2007 and his claims were rejected. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2008.

During the litigation, the dry cleaner owners made three offers to settle, the largest being $12,000. Pearson rejected all three.

Pearson's claims, according to the panel, "continually expanded throughout litigation and his liability and damages theories became more clear—and more outlandish—as the case progressed." The panel described the total damages figure as "shocking in itself; simply put, Pearson asked the trial court to award him $67,292,000 because of his dissatisfaction with defendants' dry cleaning services. But the constituent parts of that $67,292,000 total are equally troubling."

The "constituent parts," the panel said, included $90,000 to rent a car because he allegedly needed to patronize another dry cleaner; $3 million in emotional distress damages, and $10,000 immediately for ongoing services by the dry cleaner that he sued.

In 2016, a hearing committee of the professional responsibility board recommended a 30-day suspension with a stay for a two-year probation period. But the board in 2018 rejected that suggestion as too lenient.

Before the D.C. Court of Appeals, Pearson argued that the long delay between the Pearson v. Chung litigation and the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings required dismissal of all charges.

But the panel said that "because Pearson v. Chung is a matter of public record, as are the legal arguments that Pearson made, the motions that he submitted, and the damages that he demanded, we are unable to discern any impairment of Pearson's defense that resulted from the delay. The delay, while troubling, does not rise to the level of a due process violation."

The D.C. Court of Appeals panel found Pearson's lack of disciplinary history was a mitigating factor. And the court said that even if Pearson's "actions were heartfelt," as quoted from an earlier case, that does not mean they were "innocuous."

"Pearson has chosen at every step of the disciplinary process, including as recently as his oral argument in this appeal, to levy accusations against disciplinary counsel, the board, the hearing committee, and this court," the appellate panel said. "The ongoing nature of Pearson's conduct indicates that a 90-day suspension is appropriate."