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

231–240 of 297 posts

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

#231

Post by bitwize »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #225
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...

What’s the purpose of the format requirement? To enable ocr or to just prevent silly games like this one?

Both to prevent silly games and for similar reasons as the "no brown M&Ms" rider in Van Halen's venue contracts: if you read and followed the instructions in detail for small things like formatting, you read and followed the instructions for the things that actually matter as well.

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

#232

Post by y33t »

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...

> Unfortunately this stunt is functioning as free publicity for this firm, because it's getting written about...

Yeah I suspect a lot of their cases going forward will be on contingency.

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

#233

Post by istjohn »

low_tech_love wrote: post #167
neilv wrote: post #51

I used to put a diagonal light gray huge "DRAFT" across pages of certain documents for which it was important that a working draft not be interpreted as final. What would've been a great use for the lawyer's dragon documents would be to clearly mark incomplete/unapproved drafts, for internal review only. Because, obviously, there was no way that you would accidentally submit a filing to the court with a huge purple c…

His business is called “Dragon Lawyers”, his phone number is JAKELAW, his main reason for using is because “people like dragons” and his firm’s goal is to “integrate AI to lower the cost of legal services”. I’m pretty sure this is not the guy pulling his hair off for 12+ hours a day to make sure he is doing it right.

Don't stop there: 80% of the links on his website don't work and he has fake reviews from "Johnathan Smith," "Michael Brown," "Emily Johnson," and "Sarah Davis."

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

#234

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> Why would they spend money on a frivolous case they have no chance of winning?

We’re assuming the defendant is without means. If I were in jail, I’d probably spend a decent amount of my spare time filing this sort of thing. If it were hopeless, I could also see myself just trolling. What else will I spend my money on?

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

#237

Post by istjohn »

tjohns wrote: post #161
impossiblefork wrote: post #98

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

All the court is asking the lawyer to do is to re-file without the distracting formatting. It's not like they're throwing the entire case out. It'll still get read. It's also worth noting that the local rules for just about every court prescribe document formatting - so it's not like any of this should come as a surprise to the attorney. Putting this another way: If a professor tells you to submit an essay in 12 pt T…

By my reading, the judge isn't even making him refile. They just said to not do it again.

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

#238

Post by zzo38computer »

istjohn wrote: post #233
low_tech_love wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His business is called “Dragon Lawyers”, his phone number is JAKELAW, his main reason for using is because “people like dragons” and his firm’s goal is to “integrate AI to lower the cost of legal services”. I’m pretty sure this is not the guy pulling his hair off for 12+ hours a day to make sure he is doing it right.

Don't stop there: 80% of the links on his website don't work and he has fake reviews from "Johnathan Smith," "Michael Brown," "Emily Johnson," and "Sarah Davis."

Having a specific telephone number and liking dragons are not the real problems.

The fake reviews and broken links would seem to be real problems. Adding watermarks to documents that should not contain them is also problems. "Integrating AI to lower the cost of legal services" may also be a problem.

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

#240

Post by tomhow »

bitwize wrote: post #229

[flagged]

We've asked you this before, and we're now asking again: could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful .

Post reply on HN