Exit the Dragon

From Magistrate Judge Ray Kent's Order Striking Complaint today in Doe No. 2 v. Clinton County (W.D. Mich.):

Each page of plaintiff's complaint appears on an e-filing which is dominated by a large multi-colored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit, presumably because she is represented by the law firm of "Dragon Lawyers PC © Award Winning Lawyers". See Compl. (ECF No. 1). 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. 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.

See for yourself:

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Kudos on the headline.

[Eugene Volokh]

Glad you liked it!

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's fantastic. Makes me jealous 🙂

[ScottK]

Time to revise the oath for new lawyers.

... that I will refrain from using dumbass self-promotional imagery unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged, and maybe not even then ...

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Makes me wonder how long those lawyers have been in business. Their website has no "About" link, and the only date is "© 2025". Maybe they just started using their fancy new paper.

[wvattorney13]

Has to be Gen Z. It simply has to be.

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to his LinkedIn, the attorney who filed the complaint graduated from law school in 2008, making it quite unlikely that he’s younger than 40.

[Eugene Volokh]

According to the Michigan State Bar attorney search, Perrone was admitted to the bar in 2008, which suggests he was likely born in 1984 or earlier.

[GKHoff]

The court ordered the lawyer to dragon drop. Very computer savvy.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Oh dear.

[Bored Lawyer]

Have to give them credit for originality. Never saw anything like that in nearly 30 years of practice.

[santamonica811]

Yes, in terms of the Scales of Justice, he was very talon-ted. "The tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth?" ???

[sigh. never mind.]

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Everyone seems to be wagging this tale.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is it a fire-briefing dragon?

[Zarniwoop]

This is the sort of quality content that I really appreciate from the VC. Well done, schnapps all around.

And as SGTricks notes, an extra +1 for the headline.

[Magister]

The multicolor fonts seem worse but allowed. I kinda like the dragon, but then I don't have to read the text. (Was it an episode of Night Court where the ambitious lawyer submitted a popup résumé?)

[dwb68]

LMAO More of this. I love the watermark.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“without the cartoon dragon”

So they have to use a realistic looking dragon?

Do lawyers typically bill clients for these types of changes?

[NvEric]

But, but, what about the 1st amendment ?

[Area Man]

I thought the same thing! LOL

[not guilty]

"But, but, what about the 1st amendment ?"

At least one court, acknowledging that "[w]hether an attorney can claim First Amendment protection on his own behalf for his filing motions and making courtroom statements on behalf of his client is a question of first impression in this circuit[,]" Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 717 (6th Cir. 2005), has held (over a vigorous dissent) that motions and pleadings filed in court -- a nonpublic forum where the First Amendment rights of everyone (attorneys included) are at their constitutional nadir -- by an attorney on behalf of his client are not protected by the First Amendment. "[W]e hold that in the context of the courtroom proceedings, an attorney retains no personal First Amendment rights when representing his client in those proceedings." Id., at 720-721.

[Martinned2]

I always like it when courts decide that in court the normal rules don't apply. (Or when lawyers decide that legal professional privilege is much more important than any other sort of professional privilege.)

[The Turtle Dove]

And on the feast of St. George (transferred), no less. Shame on that Michigan lawyer; he should know that the logical, time-honored form is the stretched skin of a sheep, scrawled upon with a feather ripped out of a bird, using a dark smudge made by boiling chestnuts and iron.

Mr. D.

[Currentsitguy]

That's got to wreak havoc with some OCR software.

[Drewski]

This guy's website is also a thing that exists. It's very tasteful by Geocities standards, several of the features function (but not the shopping cart, sadly), and it includes a single review from someone named "Juice."

[Noscitur a sociis]

I took a look at this guy’s other cases. It looks like he just started using the dragon recently, but has been using different branded watermarks for a while. And in December, he sued his insurance company for not covering his hospitalization for bipolar disorder.

I hope he gets the help he needs, without doing to much damage to his clients in the meantime.

[Vryedni]

He color coordinated the cartoon dragon with the name of his firm in the complaint.

[Ciobair]

That's nothing but a bit of Puff

[Martinned2]

You got some love from Lowering The Bar:

Credit to The Volokh Conspiracy for posting this earlier today and thanks to the reader who sent it to me. (I don’t know how Volokh got it first. I’m way more ridiculous than he is.)

https://www.loweringthebar.net/2025/04/dragon-lawyer-files-complaint-with-cartoon-dragon.html