This lawyer got so much free advertising out of this. He’s probably got clients booked out for years now.
NGL this is sick af and I would NOT fuck with this law firm.
Is dragon fursona correct? I would think is more accurate to say dragon scalesona, no?
I’ve got some serious doubts about the character of anyone who presents themselves as a purple dragon.
https://dragons.fandom.com/wiki/Purple_Dragon_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
The Purple Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) is a type of dragon in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. It is an evil-aligned chromatic dragon.
Purple dragons, often confused with deep dragons, are possibly the least well known of the chromatic dragon family. Most surface creatures have no knowledge of the existence of purple dragons. Many of those that have heard of purple dragons dismiss such stories as myth or misconception. After all, in the darkness below the earth, who can say whether a dragon’s scales are purple or black?
Black dragons rarely live far underground. The deeper explorers descend, the more likely they are to encounter a purple dragon than a black. People who live permanently in the deep hollows of the earth know purple dragons as an all-too-real and a much feared threat.
A purple dragon is a talented manipulator of other creatures. It achieves control through lies, misdirection, and direct mental domination. A purple dragon might seek control for any number of reasons, including sheer delight in bandying its power about, a desire to form a bulwark of allies and thralls for security, or curiosity about newly discovered tunnels or crevices leading to unknown areas deeper below, for which recruiting bands of disposable explorers might serve its purposes.
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
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.
Sorry to tell you but I’m a millennial in law school right now and all my classmates are zoomers. 😬
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.
Sorry
Removed by mod
Nah, they addressed that in the thread — I only grabbed a subset. Said that they’d need a more-dignified dragon to address that.
That’s their domain
Based on the Reddit thread I linked to, they have two (which do not host the same website).
There’s also https://firebreathingdragonlawyers.com/
Both of them are only a month old.
$ whois dragonlawyerspc.com|grep "^Creation" Creation Date: 2025-03-30T17:01:47Z $ whois firebreathingdragonlawyers.com|grep "^Creation" Creation Date: 2025-03-30T08:14:12Z $EDIT: Also, if either domain had lapsed and was simply re-registered at that point, archive.org’s Wayback Machine had never indexed it prior to that point.
Our platform integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services
Yeah, very much not what I want from my lawyers, thank you
Check the links in their footer
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.
I knew this story would find its way to you, @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz, I just knew it.
Good. Some places should keep their dignity.
Removed by mod
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.
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
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
“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.
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?
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’s not a dismissal. It was stricken, with the option to refile the exact same substance in a new format.
And this kind of stuff happens all the time, like when someone forgets to attach a table of contents, a certificate of compliance, a certificate of word count, an incorrect word count, improperly formatted documents, etc.
This is a pretty common response to improper format, like certain courts that require a particular font, a particular page size, a particular spacing requirement, etc. Those usually have a written rule the court can point to and say “hey follow local rule so and so” and just make them re-file.
It’s a little bit less common where someone violates an unwritten rule, and the court comes in and says “cmon you should’ve known better.” But it happens.
Did you actually read the record? Because that’s not at all what happened. Go back and read the next paragraph.
IT was not dismissed! He told them to resend it without the cartoon image.
The complaint itself was dismissed. They now have to file it again.
Could be my terminology is wrong.
Not wrong, just that you’re correcting me for semantics.
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.
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.
Yeah, no need to resort to linking to Reason.com articles.
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.
The judge ordered them to resubmit the completing without the logos. Didn’t dismiss the case, and not sure if there were any other consequences yet, but it seems reasonable to me.
