The cartoon dragon wore a crisp suit, its arms folded with authority. It graced every page of a federal court complaint like a mythical partner in the firm. But Judge Ray Kent was not amused.
“Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent,” the magistrate judge of the Western District of Michigan wrote in an April 28 court order. “The Court is not a cartoon.”
That stern declaration marked the climax of a surreal legal moment in East Lansing, Michigan. The lawyer behind it, Jacob A. Perrone, had emblazoned the towering purple dragon across a serious court filing—a complaint on behalf of a woman who says she nearly died in jail after being denied medical care. Every page carried the creature like a medieval watermark, which Judge Kent described as “dominating” the document.
What might sound like a scene from a late-night comedy skit was, in fact, very real. And it has raised questions about the limits of branding in the American justice system.
“People Like Dragons”
The law firm in question is called Dragon Lawyers. That’s not a nickname. It’s the actual name of Perrone’s practice.
His website features the same purple dragon and, perhaps less impressively, a string of broken links. According to the firm’s homepage, it “integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services.” But it was Perrone’s flair for mythical marketing—not machine learning—that caught the judge’s eye.
When contacted by The New York Times, Perrone defended his choice. “I liked Game of Thrones,” he said. “People like dragons.” He admitted that the dragon image was not a bespoke design, but a stock cartoon he bought online for $20.
For the record, he did not draw it himself.
In response to the court order, Perrone agreed to strip the dragon watermark from future filings—at least in federal court. “I’ll tone it down,” he said. But the dragon, he insisted, is here to stay as the firm’s mascot.
A Moment of Surrealism in a Serious Case
What makes the story less amusing is the context. The complaint Perrone filed—adorned with the suited dragon—concerns a woman alleging that her life was endangered while incarcerated due to medical neglect. It’s a grave accusation, and Kent made it clear that the cartoon undermined the seriousness of the case.
Legal analysts and bloggers pounced on the episode, their headlines breathing fire. “Judge Slays Dragon-Branded Lawyer’s Marketing Effort.” “Exit the Dragon.” “Magistrate Judge Is Breathing Fire.” The story quickly became internet folklore.
VICE was less forgiving in its tone: “There’s just something about the cartoon dragon lawyer picture that’s taking the wind out of your argument’s sails,” one article noted. In a satirical flourish, it asked whether Perrone had considered using a “wizard paralegal” instead.
But beneath the headlines lies a deeper commentary on the shifting norms of professional decorum. In an era where personal branding often trumps restraint, Perrone’s dragon may be a symbol of how blurred the lines have become.
Courts Are Not Cartoons
Judges wear robes for a reason. Courtrooms operate on centuries-old traditions meant to convey solemnity and respect.
Perrone’s branding clashed with that tradition. “The Court is not a cartoon,” Judge Kent wrote, underscoring a boundary that perhaps needed to be redrawn in bold.
While Perrone must refile the complaint—this time without any dragons—the episode might have served its purpose. Dragon Lawyers is now nationally known. And Perrone is already thinking about how to wield that recognition.
He’s not ruling out keeping the dragon on his website. In fact, with so much free publicity, it’s easy to imagine the purple beast becoming something of a local legend. Perhaps even, as VICE joked, dunking basketballs at Pistons halftime shows.
But in the courtroom, at least for now, the dragon has been dismissed.
