WASHINGTON — It gives the phrase “taking someone to the cleaners” new meaning. A Washington judge who says his local dry cleaners lost a pair of trousers is suing them for $67 million.

Even in the world’s most litigious society, the case has dismayed many in the legal community.

His dispute began in 2002, when Roy Pearson took a pair of trousers into Custom Cleaners in his Fort Lincoln neighborhood of the capital. They were lost.

The owners, Jim and Soo Chung — Korean immigrants like many in the business — offered $150 in compensation, which was accepted. There are suggestions of a row, which involved Mr. Pearson being barred for a time. Those trousers do not form part of the writ.

Relations were patched up, and three years later, shortly after being appointed from lawyer to a tribunal judge, Mr. Pearson took in a pair of trousers and asked them to be let out a few inches. In court papers, he claims they too were lost. The Chungs vow they were found a week later and say they have the stub to prove it.

Mr. Pearson’s first letter of complaint to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Then lawyers got involved. The Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, said their lawyer, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.

But Mr. Pearson, who sits on government tribunals, refused to back down. He based his writ on the cleaners’ failure to fulfill two signs in their window: “Satisfaction Guaranteed,” and “Same Day Service.”

He reached the figure of $67 million, or $67,292,000 to be precise, as follows: Washington’s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Mr. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants (the Chungs and their son).

He also included $15,000 to rent a car every weekend for 10 years, arguing that he didn’t own a car and had to drive to a cleaner in another locality.

He also seeks $500,000 in emotional damages and $542,000 in legal fees, though he is representing himself.

“People in America are now scared of each other,” said legal expert Philip Howard. “It’s a distrust of justice, and it’s changing our culture.”

A victory for the claimant would rank alongside other examples of excessive or frivolous litigation, such as the $2.9 million, later reduced to $640,000, awarded to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald’s coffee, though the victim in that case suffered third-degree burns.

Mr. Pearson has set the Chungs and their lawyers a long list of questions, which includes: “Please identify by name, full address, and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States, and the world that advertise ‘SATISFACTION GUARANTEED’,” according to the Washington Post.

The Chungs have removed the signs upon which Mr. Pearson’s case rests.

“This case shocks me on a daily basis,” said their lawyer, Mr. Manning. “Pearson has a lot of time on his hands, and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It’s going to cost them tens of thousands to defend this case.”

Soo Chung, speaking through an interpreter to ABC News yesterday, broke down in tears. “It’s been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea.”

Mr. Pearson did not return calls. The trial starts next month.