“If you want to conquer the world, you best have dragons.”

~ George R.R. Martin

*****

In 2021, I posted a blog in which I shared this observation:

“Based on the information I’ve reviewed when responding to inquiries and screening complaints over the past few years, I believe that the accepted norms of social media posts are seeping into pleadings and arguments.

I don’t say that with admiration for those causing the seepage.

Court is court.  It’s not the kitchen table, the town square, the bar, or Facebook. Give it the respect it deserves. Or, read Rule 3.5(d).”

The title of the post was Court Isn’t A Social Media Platform.  Do we have a formal ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction that it isn’t? No, we don’t. But I like my chances that a court would agree with my headline.

Which brings me to today’s unrelated story.

As of this week, we have a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction that “Court is not a cartoon.”

The ruling is here. It’s an order in which a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan struck a plaintiff’s complaint and ordered that it be refiled. According to the opinion:

  • “Each page of plaintiff’s complaint appears on an e-filing which is dominated by a large multi-colored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit, presumably because she is represented by the law firm of ‘Dragon Lawyers PC © Award Winning Lawyers.’”

The court went on:

  • “Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon.”

As a result, the court ordered the plaintiff to:

  • “file an amended complaint, containing the same allegations as the original complaint, without the cartoon dragon . . .” and,
  • “not file any other documents with the cartoon dragon or other inappropriate content.”

Speaking of headlines, here’s the ABA Journal covered the story under this one:

Well played ABA Journal, well played.

The Volokh Conspiracy, Above the Law, Law360 and the New York Times also reported the story.  Oh, and the ABA Journal coverage included this image of the logo in question:

As always, let’s be careful out there.

PS: My knowledge of dragons is limited pretty much to what I learned from Game of Thrones. But that’s enough to make me seriously doubt that a dragon could be had within the budget allotted for our moot court argument over which animals to hire to assist in the defense against a grizzly bear attack. As such, I’m comfortable publishing readers’ various arguments in the intro to tomorrow’s quiz without reopening the debate to include dragons.