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.

[TheAmazingEmu]

I mean, Virginia made me promise to demean myself in the practice of law. This might qualify.

[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.

[Ghost]

Also, the @yahoo email address.

[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.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think the lawyer can win this one by mousing around.

[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?

[Judge Magney]

Apparently photographic images of real dragons are permitted.

[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.)

[wnoise]

I can understand that the speech clause might not be directly on point, but how can it not be covered by "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?

[Jack Jordan]

The Mezibov opinion includes judicial falsehoods that are among the most blatantly and absurdly unconstitutional I've ever seen. Cf. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023).

Our Constitution commands “commitment to protecting the speech rights” (and freedom of thought and conscience) “of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message.” Elenis at 600-601. “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.” Id. at 602.

“[T]he First Amendment” protects “all persons,” including those who communicate for “profit.” Id. at 601. “All manner of speech” is under “the First Amendment’s protections.” Id. at 587. Under “[t]he First Amendment,” “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish.” Id. at 603. “The framers designed” the “First Amendment” (freedom regarding religion, speech and press) “to protect” Americans’ “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.” Id. at 584. “They did so because they saw the freedom of speech” (and freedom of thought and conscience) as “end[s]” and “means.” “An end because the freedom to think and speak is among our inalienable human rights.” “A means because the freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” Id.

Our “liberty” consequently encompasses our “right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Id. at 602. Our “Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech” prohibits punishment for “ideas” that judges “consider” merely “unattractive,” “misguided, or even hurtful.” Id. at 603. “[T]he First Amendment protects” every lawyer's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned” or “misguided” and “likely to cause” judges “anguish” or even “incalculable grief.” Id. at 586.

[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

[David Welker]

One issue with this watermark. You cannot read what is written as easily.

Obviously, this watermark was a bad idea.

[KenveeB]

That's the main problem IMO. It's distracting and makes the text difficult to read. It wouldn't matter if it was a dragon or another logo. It's huge and multicolored across the entire page.

[David Welker]

It looks like "John Doe" is very happy with the service received from Dragon Lawyers...

Outstanding Experience
I cannot thank Dragon Lawyers enough for their support during my estate planning process. They made everything so easy to understand and guided me through every step with patience.
★★★★★
John Doe

https://dragonlawyerspc.com/criminal-defense/

[Sarcastr0]

That dragon slaps.

[tkamenick]

It ate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

How very Trumpian -- tasteless, obnoxious, mindless, boasting that conceals fragile masculinity.

[Bwaaah]

In your study of music, you might consider moving along to a second note.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Bro, do you post as sarcasmic too? Every post about anything non-Trump, he's the first to haul Trump in.

[Ghost]

Things I've never seen in a court pleading before:
1. Giant cartoon water mark filling the page.
2. Different colored fonts.
3. Different styles of fonts in the same caption (see the court title at the top which uses both different colors and different fonts to identify the court)
4. Phone number in the signature block that uses letters instead of numbers.
5. Attorney signing the pleading with just initials of his first and last name. ("JP")
6. Attorney using "Esq." as a suffix for his own name in the opening sentence of pleading where a party's counsel is identified.

[SRG2]

FWIW one thing that took me by surprise when I first moved here was that "Esq." was used as a suffix only for lawyers. In Britain, proper style when addressing a letter would have that as a suffix for any male recip[ient. The envelope would read, "Richard Roe, Esq.", and likewise the address at the top of the letter. Only in the text would it differ, viz, "Dear Mr Roe".

I wonder when and why the American custom prevailed.

[Ghost]

Yes, in the United States, the Esq. suffix is only used as polite way to address a licensed attorney. It is, however, seen as bad form for an attorney to address themselves as Esq. So, if an attorney sends a letter to another attorney, it's perfectly fine if they add an Esq. to the recipient's name (although it's uncommon) but the sending attorney should not sign the letter with an Esq. at the end of their name.

[Grichard]

It's traditionally bad form for anybody--lawyer or not--to give a title to their own name. As a doctor, I tie myself up in knots over this. I can't overcome my upbringing by introducing myself as "Dr. Grichard" ... but I still need to communicate to my patients that I'm a doctor rather than some other staff person. I mostly settle on "I'm Grichard; I'll be the anesthesia doctor taking care of you." But it's still awkward.

[ReaderY]

Looking forward to the return of the tiger.

[KenveeB]

Who thinks plastering ANY logo, let alone a large colored cartoon, across the back of the entire page is a good idea? I saw an article about this and thought it was silly when I was just picturing a small logo at the top of the page or something. This is absolutely absurd.

[Jack Jordan]

Juvenile and impertinent, indeed. Judge Kent essentially confessed in writing to knowingly violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution in a juvenile and impertinent manner.

Judge Kent admitted to striking an entire filing because he, personally, was merely offended by a mere watermark: "Use of this" mere watermark was (to Judge Kent) "distracting" and "juvenile." But the judge knew he had no power to strike an entire filing even if a mere watermark was distracting and juvenile. The judge knew that federal law expressly and specifically permitted a judge to "strike from a pleading" only certain content. The judge knew the law did not empower him to strike the entire pleading for the reason he stated.

Judge Kent also knew that federal law expressly and specifically permitted a judge to "strike from a pleading" only "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” So Judge Kent also contended that the watermark was "impertinent." He did not even bother to argue that it constituted "matter." The words that Judge Kent chose to justify his own conduct implied that he thought the manner (not the matter) was impertinent ("juvenile" and "cartoon").

As SCOTUS re-emphasized 60 years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan, such judicial "repression" of expression must "be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice" and "judges are to be treated as ‘men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.’ " Judge Kent needs to act like he remembers his oath (in 5 U.S.C. 3331) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Under our Constitution, the duty of every federal judge is to be independent of everything--even the judge's own pride and prejudices--except the legal authorities that govern the judge's performance of his public service. Judges are public servants vested with the power to adjudicate "under" our "Constitution" and "the Laws of the United States," and they may "hold their Offices" only "during good Behaviour." Judges are not above the law.

It is not the function of judges--any more than it is the function of the president--to repress expression merely because such a public servant finds the manner of expression impertinent or otherwise offensive.