Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 297 posts

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#211

Post by egypturnash »

perihelions wrote: post #37

- "The whole story would be far more humorous were it not from a case in which Perrone represented a woman who claims that she nearly died after being incarcerated and not given proper medical care. Perrone must now refile his complaint in that case—without the cartoon dragon." That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world. It's not as if the victim had the luxury of many choices of law firms, or any c…

The coked-up AI cartoon dragon attorney.

His website, which also features the purple dragon and a bunch of busted links in the footer, says that the firm "integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services."

Hopefully this lawyer is making sure this AI isn't making up the cases it's citing, which is a continuing problem: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ai+make+up+legal+cases

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#212

Post by piker »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #200
perihelions wrote: post #37

- "The whole story would be far more humorous were it not from a case in which Perrone represented a woman who claims that she nearly died after being incarcerated and not given proper medical care. Perrone must now refile his complaint in that case—without the cartoon dragon." That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world. It's not as if the victim had the luxury of many choices of law firms, or any c…

The "outcome" is simply that the judge simply directed the attorney to stop using the dragon watermark. Whats the problem? And, by the way, I'd recommend a bit less credulity about this kind of lawsuit. While there is no doubt that a lot of terrible things happen in America's prisons, it is also extremely common for inmates and former inmates to file exaggerated or even frivolous claims about the conditions of their…

Absolutely. Federal courts are filled with nonsense habeas petitions by pro se plaintiffs claiming this exact kind of stuff. The fact that this person managed to get representation adds some credibility, but then we’re also here discussing how ridiculous that particular representation has behaved.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#213

Post by bccdee »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #200
perihelions wrote: post #37

- "The whole story would be far more humorous were it not from a case in which Perrone represented a woman who claims that she nearly died after being incarcerated and not given proper medical care. Perrone must now refile his complaint in that case—without the cartoon dragon." That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world. It's not as if the victim had the luxury of many choices of law firms, or any c…

The "outcome" is simply that the judge simply directed the attorney to stop using the dragon watermark. Whats the problem? And, by the way, I'd recommend a bit less credulity about this kind of lawsuit. While there is no doubt that a lot of terrible things happen in America's prisons, it is also extremely common for inmates and former inmates to file exaggerated or even frivolous claims about the conditions of their…

Why would they spend money on a frivolous case they have no chance of winning? Lawyers, dragon or no, are expensive, and people in prison don't exactly make money. Conversely, abuse of prisoners is endemic in America. I find this all extremely plausible.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#214

Post by impossiblefork »

alwa wrote: post #116
impossiblefork wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the dragon is terrible and it's very inappropriate, but someone can't behave sensibly may still be someone whose case the courts must hear.

They’re more than willing to hear the case. It’s the lawyer, not the complainant, who the court is chastising. If anything, it scans like the court is concerned, like you are, that this vulnerable person’s case isn’t being presented with the seriousness it deserves.

Yes, but if a filing is sensible they should not care. It is reasonable to forbid further such filings, or require it to be re-filed, but artificially delaying something for the sake of seriousness or decorum is not to take it seriously.

If it is a serious matter you deal with what you have.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#215

Post by bandrami »

crazygringo wrote: post #196

The problem doesn't even seem to be the dragon. The problem is you don't "watermark" court filings in the first place. That's generally not a thing. Court filings have strict requirements around formatting. This isn't any different from trying to file in Comic Sans or a 48-pt font. Unfortunately this stunt is functioning as free publicity for this firm, because it's getting written about...

I used to sysadmin for a law firm that used watermarks for draft filings as they went through the internal workflow on the theory that nobody would be stupid enough to actually file something with a translucent toucan on it, so it would make accidentally filing a draft less likely.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#216

Post by default-kramer »

OJFord wrote: post #145

Is there a term for this (bad) style of writing or linguistic device where you mention the thing ('purple dragon') in the title/first paragraph and then really force a synonym in the second? > Federal Magistrate Judge Ray Kent of the Western District of Michigan was unamused by a recent complaint (PDF) that prominently featured the aubergine wyrm . (Emphasis mine.)

I realize no one is claiming otherwise, but this writer almost certainly did it intentionally for humorous effect. ("Aubergine wyrm" is just too good to be accidental.) It's like "the lick" in jazz.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#217

Post by dfc »

bccdee wrote: post #213
pdabbadabba wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "outcome" is simply that the judge simply directed the attorney to stop using the dragon watermark. Whats the problem? And, by the way, I'd recommend a bit less credulity about this kind of lawsuit. While there is no doubt that a lot of terrible things happen in America's prisons, it is also extremely common for inmates and former inmates to file exaggerated or even frivolous claims about the conditions of their…

Why would they spend money on a frivolous case they have no chance of winning? Lawyers, dragon or no, are expensive, and people in prison don't exactly make money. Conversely, abuse of prisoners is endemic in America. I find this all extremely plausible.

I think contingencies are common in cases like this? The lawyer gets paid iff their client wins.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#218

Post by Analemma_ »

jacobgkau wrote: post #198
exe34 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he studied enough for law school and was able to work in a court for years before becoming a judge, I would assume his ADHD is under control and he is not that easily distracted.

Consciously, sure, but with some studies saying judges tend to rule differently on similar cases based on whether it's before or after lunchtime, do you really want to introduce more subliminal variables like decorations into the legal process?

The "hungry judge" finding did not replicate [0], and the original paper had serious methodological flaws, namely, that prisoners with parole hearings later in the day were more likely to have either overworked "shared counsel" (the Israeli equivalent of public defenders) or no counsel at all [1]. You should consider the hungry judge effect another debunked victim of the replication crisis.

[0]: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/...

[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#219

Post by kstrauser »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #205
kstrauser wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our first user at one company was Richard Test. He had user ID 1001. Well-meaning people deactivated his account several times over the years because it looked fake to them. Sorry, Richard. I hope you were more amused than annoyed.

I’ve told your story about Mr. Test to several people over the years but I’ve never been able to remember where I got it from. I’m glad to have finally found it again, and thank you for the anecdote!

Hah! That’s awesome. What a small world!

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#220

Post by zzo38computer »

bandrami wrote: post #215
crazygringo wrote: post #196

The problem doesn't even seem to be the dragon. The problem is you don't "watermark" court filings in the first place. That's generally not a thing. Court filings have strict requirements around formatting. This isn't any different from trying to file in Comic Sans or a 48-pt font. Unfortunately this stunt is functioning as free publicity for this firm, because it's getting written about...

I used to sysadmin for a law firm that used watermarks for draft filings as they went through the internal workflow on the theory that nobody would be stupid enough to actually file something with a translucent toucan on it, so it would make accidentally filing a draft less likely.

Writing "DRAFT" on it might also help.
Post reply on HN