Who’s being unethical here? Obviously the judge thought it was the lawyer, and judges win these arguments. Still…
Federal magistrate judge Ray Kent was so offended by a law firm’s dragon logo appearing on each page of a plaintiff’s complaint that he struck the lawsuit filed by attorney Jacob Perrone on behalf of an inmate accusing jail officials in Clinton County, Michigan of being “deliberately indifferent” to her when she started vomiting. Perrone’s firm is called Dragon Lawyers, a perfectly acceptable name now that all but one state permits firms to have trade names rather than the traditional firm titles featuring the names of founders and partners. As you can see, the firm’s logo was embedded in the document….
…but faintly: I don’t see anything to flip out over, but flip the magistrate did. In his order Judge Kent noted that “each page of plaintiff’s complaint appears on an e-filing which is dominated by a large multicolored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit, presumably because she is represented by the law firm of ‘Dragon Lawyers PC © Award Winning Lawyers. Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent,” Judge Kent wrote. “The Court is not a cartoon.”
And thus it was that Judge Kent gave Perrone’s client until May 5 to refile her lawsuit “without the cartoon dragon.” He also ordered her not to file “any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.”
Various commentators, including the estimable Eugene Volokh, seem to think this example of a judge abusing his authority and throwing a fit over a law firm’s logo is funny. I don’t think it’s funny. True, 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.” But how is the dragon logo for a firm named “Dragon” impertinent or scandalous? Calling the logo “redundant” is a stretch just because it was on every page: so what?
The issue isn’t worth fighting about, so the lawyer apologized; if he wanted to fight, I think he would have a solid First Amendment argument. I guess we should be grateful that the judge didn’t help an illegal immigrant avoid ICE by sneaking out the back door.
At least as far as we know…
Ethics Alarms 
That’s one big watermark. I really don’t see the point of its use in a court filing. Trademarks are used to reinforce a brand among consumers. I don’t see the State as a potential consumer. I can see how a judge might find this the first patch of ice that will lead to a very slippery slope.
I would not use such a large icon watermark on business correspondence unless I was selling digital games or something geared toward the youth market. I don’t see its appropriateness of use in this case.
I’m not an attorney, but I agree with the judge that it’s distracting. Were I the judge, my approach would have been to ask, “Would you please resubmit this without the dragon watermark?” Maybe add, “I find it distracting and I’d like to be able to focus on the merits of your arguements.”
I guess judges don’t need to be diplomatic.
It may be legal, but such a large, colorful watermark seems more appropriate to the game stores my attorney husband loves to shop at, than to a law firm. A small, black ink-only dragon logo in the lower left corner (where our law firm has the attorney information on its court stationery), similar to a return address with logo on a #10 business envelope, would have been much more likely to pass muster with the Michigan judge.Sincerely,Catherine McClarey
It’s definitely legal. As with the invasion of trade names and abrasive advertising, the lines of propriety are blurring. I’d like to see some clear standards laid out: as it stands, apparently any judge could refuse a complaint because he didn’t approve of the firm name or cut of the lawyer’s jib. How hard would it have been to have the clerk call and say, “The judge is having trouble reading the complaint because of that big watermark. Can you please send a clean copy without the dragon?”
A cartoon as a logo doesn’t suggest that the court is a cartoon, but this judge was acting like Yosemite Sam having a tantrum. Great horny toads!
I agree it’s distracting. It also seems a bit obnoxious and somewhat immature. I can see someone with vision problems having trouble reading the document because of the giant purple dragon on every page.
I would have a hard time taking the law firm seriously myself. It would appear the judge had a hard time doing that, too.
AM, Chris, and Cathy discuss issues I have with the watermark.
In my mind, I am asking, “what was the lawyer thinking?” Yeah, it’s legal and a cool design, but this is a lawsuit filed in federal court. I wouldn’t file something with that watermark in a justice court much less a federal court (unless it were relevant to the pleading or issues involved) because it is distracting. I don’t want some judge throwing my case out because of some silly logo. Imagine having to explain to a client – or to your malpractice carrier – that you now have a statute of limitations problem on some valuable claim because a court struck a pleading containing a stupid dragon watermark.
I suspect, though, the law firm uses that logo all the time because it is part of the firm’s brand. In my experience, pleadings get rejected at the intake/filing stage. There is a Houston PI lawyer who calls himself the Texas Hammer running ads where he takes a sledgehammer to insurance companies. Dumb ads but, hey . . . .
Most of the time, a docketing or intake/filing clerk gets this stuff and unilaterally rejects it because it doesn’t conform to their nebulous reading of filing rules. In Texas, lawyers are required to file all pleadings electronically. Almost all courts have some sort of online filing system. Yet, the pleading and filing rules differ from county to county, and in some counties from district and county courts within the same county. It can be maddening when you file a lawsuit or a pleading in Harris County district/county court you have spent hours and hours drafting and some clerk rejects your filing because the clerk thinks that the motion should be the lead document and exhibits and affidavits are attachments to the lead document and not separate lead documents, or the clerk thinks the motion and attachments should be filed as one combined document. Head, meet wall, repeat.
jvb
I’ve experienced that with e-filing court documents in Illinois, where all docs in civil cases (but not criminal cases) have been required to be e-filed for several years now. There is a single e-filing website which all counties in Illinois are to use, but there are still differences in filing rules for different judicial districts, and often from county to county within the same judicial district. (I could spend an entire paragraph just describing the variations for how proofs of service are to be filed within my own judicial district!) And I’ve never seen court documents filed by opposing counsel in one of our firm’s cases which have any kind of watermark. I’ve never seen a specific rule about it while reading circuit court rules — but it could just be something that local circuit clerks assume is just common-sense not to mess with in their court.Sincerely,Catherine McClarey
The problem with this watermark in particular is that it’s primarily using a dark purple color, which contrasts way too much with the white “paper” background and not enough with the black print.
The point of a watermark is that it’s visible, but barely visible and much closer in overall color to the background, since it’s supposed to be part of the background. This one obnoxiously gets it backwards.
I look at this as a “When Ethics fails, The Law steps in” situation where the ethical obligation of the law firm is not to make their documents harder to read, but they failed that duty. “The Law”, in this case, is the judge telling them they’ve screwed up and they need to fix it.
–Dwayne
As a non-lawyer, for which I’m grateful that my inclination in that direction was short-circuited, I often get the impression that lawyers are arrogant assholes. What’s the point of lathering a legal document with juvenile artwork? Hey, look at me, I’m powerful and breathe fire? If not that, then what? Many professionals let their accomplishments speak for them. Some others, aarrggghhhh, who knows? Certainly not professional-looking, and therefore unethical.
Doesn’t every court have its own local formatting rules? From what I’ve read it’s not uncommon to see rules about everything from fonts to line spacing to margins. Why would a great honking color watermark be off-limits?
This is a good point- my jurisdiction has all sorts of formatting rules. Kicking out distracting watermarks that aren’t relevant to any issue in the case is perfectly fine.
The article addresses why the watermark isn’t redundant, impertinent, or scandalous, but it leaves out the immateriality bit. As the dragon is wholly immaterial, I’d say the judge’s ruling was proper.
It’s distracting, and could interfere with some people’s abilities to read and comprehend the document, especially if they have ADHD tendencies. It’s also a slippery slope…what about the next firm that wants to print everything with an elaborate art nouveau border or in gothic script?
Personally, it gives me a “Better Call Saul” vibe, so from a practical standpoint, the firm might want to rethink the benefits of appearing a bit too “huckstery” to potential clients.
Boy, you just made me tamp down a “Hold my beer!” outbreak by mentioning that particular slippery slope.
I think the watermark is unethical. It’s clearly there to promote the firm’s brand to third parties, since the firm’s client has already hired it, and the opposing counsel obviously won’t.
So if the watermark is even a little bit distracting to the judge, the firm is putting its own interests over the clients.
Having said that, I think the filing should have been rejected by the clerk.