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

Post by opello » Sat, May 03, 2025, 5:46 AM UTC

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…

Post by low_tech_love » Sat, May 03, 2025, 6:47 AM UTC

zzo38computer wrote: post #238

istjohn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ben_w » Sat, May 03, 2025, 10:12 AM UTC

some_furry wrote: post #245

ben_w wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New boss: "Why are you wearing a dragon fursuit?" Candidate: "Dress for the job you want" Boss: "Hired! Welcome to Fort Knox"

If I showed up at a work event with a dragon fursuit, my boss would be like: "Okay, what's the punchline?"

Post by exe34 » Sat, May 03, 2025, 10:34 AM UTC

jacobgkau wrote: post #206

lupusreal wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The influence of cartoon dragons probably don't come close the influence of judges and lawyers talking to each other about what schools they went to, what country clubs they belong to, etc. The breech of formality isn't being turned into a big deal because it might bias case outcomes; in that regard it's a rounding error washed out by innumerable more substantial sources of bias. It's being made into a big deal becau…

Too many "rounding errors" adding up seems like a reasonable justification for not allowing even seemingly small sources of additional inconsistency. Slippery slope and all that. Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced…

Post by perihelions » Sat, May 03, 2025, 10:55 AM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #266

perihelions wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading a couple years back, when some judges in Louisiana were exposed systematically discarding legal petitions from incarcerated plaintiffs into trash cans, without reading them. Totally nulled out any access to courts, any possibility of justice, for thousands of people. https://www.propublica.org/article/louisiana-judges-ignored-... ( "Louisiana Judges Systematically Ignored Prisoners’ Petitions Witho…

Judges in PA were just selling kids to private prisons. "Ciavarella disposed thousands of children to extended stays in youth centers for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building.[3] After a judge rejected an initial plea agreement in 2009,[4][5] a federal grand jury returned a 48-count indictment.[6] In 2010, Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeer…