To be precise, the Chungs are facing a $65m problem in the form of a lawsuit regarding a pair of trousers belonging to a judge that the couple allegedly misplaced.

That's $65m for a simple pair of grey trousers. Pretty incredible? The Chungs would share such bewilderment. If they were in the mood for levity . . . and they are not . . . they might say they were being taken to the cleaners.

"They are good people, " said the couple's lawyer, Christopher Manning. "The Chungs have suffered both emotionally and physically [as a result of this lawsuit]. They are unable to sleep, they are very stressed. They are even considering moving back to South Korea." He added: "They came here seeking the American dream but Roy Pearson has made it an American nightmare."

Roy Pearson is the man behind this unlikely lawsuit, that hints at the lunacy that sometimes grips the litigation process in this most litigious of countries. Pearson is a regular customer of the Chungs' dry-cleaning business, located between an off-licence and a Chinese take-away in a strip mall in east Washington, but moreover, he knows a thing or two about the law; he is an administrative judge with the city authorities.

The twisting tale of Pearson's missing trousers began in the spring of 2005 when he had been appointed to his current job and was about to take up his position on the bench. According to court papers filed by Pearson, he discovered that five Hickey Freeman suits that he took out of his cupboard were "uncomfortably tight".

He asked the Chungs to do some alterations on the waistbands of the trousers, asking them to let them out by two or three inches. He decided he would take them in for alteration one at a time. Pearson claims that when he took in the grey trousers with red stripes for the $10.50 alteration on 3 May 2005, he was told they would be ready for him to wear when he started work on 6 May. But on 5 May they were not ready to be picked up and when he called back the following morning he was told that the trousers had been misplaced. The loss of the trousers and his inability to wear them for his first proud day in court caused him "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort", claims Pearson.

The Chungs, who have had their business for 12 years, agreed to compensate Mr Pearson for his loss, offering first $3,000 and then $4,600. Pearson declined such offers and the Chungs raised their offer to $12,000, many times more than the $800 Pearson says he paid for the trousers. But the judge even refused that amount. Instead he used his knowledge of the city's statutes to come up with the eye-watering compensation claim that has led observers to claim the case reveals some of the worst aspects of the US litigation system and highlights the need for urgent reform.

Pearson based his $65,462,500 claim on two signs that the Chungs had hung inside their dry-cleaning store. One of the signs read 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' while the other said 'Same-Day Service'. Based on these signs Pearson has argued that he is entitled to $1,500 per violation . . . that is $1,500 for each of the 120 days that the two signs were in the Chungs' store. (He is also multiplying each violation by three because he is suing Mr and Mrs Chung and their son. ) He has added to that $500,000 for "emotional damages" and $542,500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself. And in an ingenious way to get even more money out of the Chungs, he has asked for $15,000 to cover the cost of hiring a rental car at weekends for the next 10 years. He bases this final element of his sought-for compensation package on the argument that having shown themselves to be unreliable, the Chungs have forced him to drive to an alternative dry-cleaners to take care of his weekly laundry needs for the foreseeable future.

The case of the $65m lawsuit has gripped the legal world of Washington, where lawyers are as commonplace as politicians, and has been seized on by a multitude of bloggers, most of whom appear to believe Pearson is acting a little oddly. But the Chungs see nothing funny about their predicament.

"It's not humourous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened, " Mrs Chung told ABC News. "I would have never thought it would have dragged on this long. I don't want to live here anymore. It's been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea."

Her husband said: "It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees. For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees. . . we've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult, mentally and physically, because of the level of stress.

I've been in the dry-cleaning business for 14 years, but this has never ever happened before . . . if anything happened to our customers' clothing we would always compensate them accordingly and fairly."

Campaigners have demanded action.

The American Tort Reform Association (Atra) has written to city officials asking them to consider whether Pearson has the appropriate "judicial temperament" for his job.

"The District's consumer protection act and many others in states across the country are well-intentioned but loosely worded, " said Atra's president, Sherman Joyce. "Judge Pearson's lawsuit appears to be a somewhat typical, if wholly outrageous example of the exploitation such laws are increasingly subject to these days." Yet with still no agreement between Pearson and the Chungs, the case is due in court next month. Pearson has said he intends to call 63 witnesses to support his case.

At Custom Cleaners, the Chungs go about their normal business and their customers keep coming with their clothes. "Oh, is this the place? I saw it on the news, " said one regular, who declined to be named, as she left the store. "It sounds like this man [Pearson] wants to make some money."

The final twist to the story of Pearson's misplaced trousers is that . . . according to the Chungs . . . they turned up a few days after they went missing. Pearson denies they are the same pair of trousers but the Chungs and their lawyer Christopher Manning are adamant. Manning said the trousers were currently being held in a place of "safe keeping".