That’s their domain
Our platform integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services
Yeah, very much not what I want from my lawyers, thank you
Wait until they turn up to court wearing it.
My God that is absurd looking. I can understand like a little logo in the right hand corner or something. But the whole page? And every time they’re their name is listed it’s bolded purple and capitalized? Wow
“We do not have a standard document format, but please do not make your filing look like Time Cube, it’s not very professional” -the judge, probably
Oh, the literal wording is freaking great.
Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, containing the same allegations as the original complaint, without the cartoon dragon by no later than May 5, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.
Judge is having none of this bullshit.
I can understand like a little logo in the right hand corner or something.
There is also a little logo in the right-hand bottom corner.
Right? It’s like they did reasonable and then just blew past it
Good. Some places should keep their dignity.
If my lawyers pulled some shit like that I’d have different lawyers.
I would be suing my lawyer
I’m skeptical that, whether-or-not the judge can take issue with it, a dragon in a suit reaches the bar for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty. Though I suppose that it’d be interesting to see Dragon Lawyer and a backup, non-dragon lawyer fighting that one out in court.
On what grounds?
EDIT:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon.
Lmao, I’ve never heard of any other watermarks warranting this extreme response. Does the judge just get to decide whatever he wants is impertinent or scandalous?
Yeah, “scandalous” is too much. I can see “impertinent”, though. I don’t agree, but courts are notoriously uptight.
Lmao imagine people who equate costumes and dress-up as an actual judge of character calling other people “juvenile”. I would argue that their attitude and shooting down a legal document to be “impertinent”.
Does the picture change the wording? No
I’m so sick of fucking small-brain morons who can’t get over something as stupid as appearances in things where it is completely irrelevant.
This fucker doesn’t even powder his wig.
Way to tell on yourself, ya fuckin’ scallywag.
impertinent
I don’t know if there’s a specific legal meaning — legal jargon isn’t always plain English — but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of “impertinent”:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impertinent
impertinent (comparative more impertinent, superlative most impertinent)
-
Insolent, ill-mannered or disrespectful; Disregardful.
-
(archaic) Not pertaining or related to (something or someone); Irrelevant or useless.
I mean, the term right before it in the code is “immaterial”, which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it’s archaic in common-language use doesn’t mean that it is in the legal world — a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.
kagis
Yeah, sounds like it:
https://www.lsd.law/define/impertinent
Definition: Impertinent means something that is not relevant or important to the matter at hand. For example, if someone is talking about their favorite food and you start talking about your favorite color, that would be impertinent because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In legal terms, impertinent evidence or allegations are ones that do not help prove or disprove the case and are not important for the court to consider.
A lawfirm’s watermark being deemed irrelevant or inconsequential as grounds for dismissal of a complaint seems like a rule that never applies to anybody else.
IT was not dismissed! He told them to resend it without the cartoon image.
Did you actually read the record? Because that’s not at all what happened. Go back and read the next paragraph.
Unless I’m a judge and I don’t like em
-
The hilarious part is that they think the rule of law actually still applies in America. It’s already dead. The message just hasn’t yet traveled from the nerves back to the brain yet.
I knew this story would find its way to you, @[email protected], I just knew it.
Reddit’s lawyer forum had some discussion:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1ka9oc1/lets_all_start_filing_pleadings_with_a_giant/
The trial court ordered them to refile without the cartoon dragon, but did not order them to refile without a cartoon dragon.
This needs to be regulated. Like allowable D&D dragon type scales to years in practice
So, are chromatic dragons allowed at all, or just metallic? Or maybe just gold, for the lawful aspect.
Circuit split. Ninth Circuit allows chromatic obvi but Fifth has said only metallic
The judge missed the opportunity to put the order on paper with a sick dinosaur watermark
Go to his website. https://dragonlawyerspc.com/
Our platform integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services
Millennials who grew up on anime are hitting the age of finishing their law degrees and I couldn’t be prouder
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.
Sorry
Delete it now
Nah, they addressed that in the thread — I only grabbed a subset. Said that they’d need a more-dignified dragon to address that.
Millenials?
Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA)Oct 20, 2022 https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/ How Long Does It Take to Become a Lawyer in … That’s five years of education followed by maybe 2 years of work on the job training) which works out a lot cheaper.Mar 23, 2025 https://www.reddit.com/ US Lawyers, why is Law school so long in the US …
Does this person think 40 year olds are just finishing their law degrees? Or is this evidence of a bot with data only dating up to 2013?
Ones who grew up on anime so I’m assuming the young end of millennials
Are you aware just how long anime has been around? There are boomers who grew up on anime. Astro Boy is from the 60s.
It does affect the contrast and thereby readability, so I can get behind that order.
Yeah but the cited reason that it was “impertinent” and they followed with “The Court is not a cartoon”, so their reason for dismissal is not about readability.
They say the logo is “not only distracting, but juvenile and impertinent”.
I’m assuming it distracts from reading the document, so that was at least the first reason given.
What’s more, they didn’t even dismiss the complaint, just ordered them to resubmit it without it. Anyone claiming they dismissed didn’t bother to read the article.
This shit is tacky af and does not belong on legal documents.
But he looks so confident and authoritative…
Delete it now
Delete it now
Subjective.
fursona
dubiously
Does it count as a fursona if it’s got no fur, just scales?
yes. The furry community at large has tons of people who match this description. Scalie is a subset of furry. There are also furries whose fursonas are birds, covered in feathers. Oddly enough I don’t think I’ve ever heard of them being called anything but ‘avians’ though, not ‘featheries’, but I’m willing to be proven wrong on that.
I even know a few people who have insect fursonas.
Well, some insects are furry. I mean, bees are furry.
Delete it now
Sure, but when the government does it, it’s fine: https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/3258274/opsec-history-from-ancient-origins-to-modern-challenges/
They didn’t strike down the complaint, they struck down the dragon…
Yep, on the grounds that the dragon is not an allegation, a claim for damages, or a request for relief.
Damn, I’m usually an uptight fuck and think furries often bring this aspect of their identity into places where it isn’t appropriate, but I think the judge has a stick up their ass here and 100% agree with drag. The judicial branch is a joke when this fucking chode gets to treat the highest court in the land as his fascist rubber stamp, but these people get their complaint stricken by a magistrate judge for a cute, harmless cartoon of a dragon.
There are a lot of absolutely terrible judges out there, which I’ll never dare to excuse. But this particular instance isn’t anywhere on that level. The judge is merely saying to cut this bullshit out and resubmit it without it.
From the records:
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, containing the same allegations as the original complaint, without the cartoon dragon by no later than May 5, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.
