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

161–170 of 297 posts

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

#161

Post by tjohns »

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 Times New Roman, and you turn it in using 16 pt Comic Sans - it's entirely within the professor's right to say the formatting is so distracting that it makes their job difficult and ask you to print out a revised version before they'll grade it.

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

#162

Post by advisedwang »

zahrc wrote: post #15

Any image in this position would be distracting. However, I have never understood notions like this: “it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon” Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking.

The legal system relies on an sense of awe. Gavels, neo-classical buildings, wigs, elevated benches, latin and yes formality in documents are all just ways to build and maintain that awe.

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

#163

Post by jeroenhd »

zahrc wrote: post #15

Any image in this position would be distracting. However, I have never understood notions like this: “it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon” Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking.

If this was a small claims court over a $100 garden fence post being broken, maybe. An annoying distraction, for sure, and unprofessional for someone who's supposed to take your case seriously, but little harm done.

This is about a woman whose entire life hangs in the balance. A higher standard of care and professionalism is expected.

Plus, depending on where you live, judges may decide to hand out punishments for whatever power-tripping reasons they see fit. There have been plenty of videos online of judges handing out sentences to (black) people for not responding in whatever the American version of the Queen's English is. It's an absolutely fucked up system, but when you're operating in such a system, an appropriate amount of fear and respect for the judge is necessary.

You can play games with the court in your own time, but don't risk your clients' lives because you feel compelled to add your stupid mascot to official documents.

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

#164

Post by exe34 »

lolinder wrote: post #139
lupusreal wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The formality of the process helps them keep their conscious clear. Attacking the formality of the process therefore threatens them.

The watermark is actively distracting from the enormously important work of reading the complaint in detail. This isn't a question of formality for formality's sake, it's a question of ensuring that the processes run smoothly so that justice can be done.

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.

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

#165

Post by fc417fc802 »

kstrauser wrote: post #81
JCattheATM wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reason for disappointment, but you likely won't be invited back.

Um, this is highly region dependent. If it were a hot day, I would be comfortable interviewing with a CEO in nice shorts and a clean t-shirt, and fully expect that they'd dress similarly.

The example wasn't just "an interview" it was "a high end restaurant" but TBF the outcome is indeed highly dependent on both region and the personal preference of the CEO.

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

#166

Post by registeredcorn »

radlad wrote: post #113
hk__2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just confirms OP’s point that "you don't have any say in what the developer does", since the only way to get your modifications in if the developer disagrees is to maintain your own version of the code.

This is also true of paid software, except you have to start from scratch.

I forget how the phrase goes, but it's something like, "Someone else can do it better than you, but no one will ever care more about what you need than yourself." The point basically being that there are tradeoffs: you are either okay with imperfection, or you have to do it yourself. It appears true, whether it be for software development or home repair.

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

#167

Post by low_tech_love »

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.

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

#168

Post by RiverCrochet »

rootsudo wrote: post #7

I get why furries are called that — they’re into human-animal caricatures with fur. What do you call someone who likes dragons? Scalies?

My cousin is a furry, and she has the following the say about it:

'You still use the term furry, really. "Furry" has become an wide umbrella term used for artwork featuring fictional anthropomorphized animals and tends to cover any species - so this would include fur-less animals such as reptiles, amphibians, birds, and even insects.

"Scalie" is used to describe art/characters featuring anthropomorphized reptilies and dragons. Fans of them would still be furries tho.'

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

#169

Post by ryandrake »

daveslash wrote: post #141
sokoloff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a bank that wasn’t happy with “Rich Bastard” being used as dummy data but not being replaced in the mail merge, resulting in a couple thousand of their wealthiest customers getting a mailing with the salutation “Dear Rich Bastard,” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dear-rich-bastard/

I learned a long time ago to be very careful with mock, dummy, or test data.... because some people will just push anything to prod, take screenshots during your demo and paste it into the official documentation... you name it. I was giving a demo on how to set up multiple computers in a federated setup using Active Directory, ADFS, etc... I had about 5 VMs named things like Hank, Peggy, Bobby, Boomhauer, Bill, and a…

I've never really understood developers' apparent need to add cutesy stuff into their work product's test data, variable names, easter eggs and so on. Adding this stuff is all downside risk with no technical benefit that you can explain in a written postmortem that will be read by your boss's boss's boss.

I mean, I get the motivation: You're working on a boring, dry, SeriousBusiness project, and have a creative itch that needs to be scratched. We all have a nonzero desire for a little joy and irreverence at work. But, man, scratch that itch with hobby projects, not stuff that's going out into the public! Or start a "wear a funny shirt day" at work or something like that. I know this is unpopular and makes me look like Debbie Downer, but our projects already have enough technical risks without deliberately adding more.

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

#170

Post by low_tech_love »

zahrc wrote: post #15

Any image in this position would be distracting. However, I have never understood notions like this: “it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon” Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking.

The judge is right, but unfortunately there is no easy way to handle it. Right now, effectively, what he did was give JAKELAW the free advertisement that he wanted to get when he submitted the document in the first place. Hell even I have memorised his phone number. That was not a watermark, that is intentionally put there to annoy and distress the reader so it becomes news. He knows his audience and played all his cards right. Gaslit the judge, put the judge in a situation where he has to be the “bad” guy (even though he’s right), and has even earned some leverage to criticize the system as being frivolous.

And to be honest we can waste our time indefinitely trying to argue the meta here that “maybe Jake is not that bad”, and let him catch us on his gaslighting trap, but the truth is that yes, he is the asshole playing with people’s lives, not the judge.

Post reply on HN