I don’t see the problem. It’s from a company called “Dragon Lawyers”. If it was idk “Flower Lawyers” they could put a flower with a tie or something. What is it with those snowflakes not being able to handle a decent watermark. It’s not like it’s somehow offensive.
NGL, I think it looks really unprofessional. Imagine “flower lawyers” putting a tulip in a cartoon suit and giving it a menacing expression, it would look just as dumb. Likewise, a dragon could make for a much classier design if approached in a different way.
Exactly. This isn’t some little iconic flourish in the corner, footer, or the header. There’s also some general rule of thumb with watermarks being flagrantly disregarded (keep it simple and monochromatic so it doesn’t impact content legibility).
And even if I personally didn’t have a problem with it, I would seriously question the competency of any law firm that mis-read their audience so dramatically. I can’t imagine many courts looking at that and not having at least an immediate knee jerk reaction of “The hell is this? Are they fucking with us? Is this a joke?” which is an absurdly poor opener to your case as a lawyer.
If some firm got a headshot of the lawyer handling the case scowling and used that as the background of every page in their document they’d be laughed out of court. Just because “dragons are cool” or something doesn’t make this any less silly.
Edit: The dragon icon in the footer is perfect if they wanted some visual flair to set them apart, and it’s a relatively simple monochromatic design. It just makes it even more absurd that they didn’t just use that and instead went for this detailed and visually busy picture.
I don’t see the problem. It’s from a company called “Dragon Lawyers”. If it was idk “Flower Lawyers” they could put a flower with a tie or something. What is it with those snowflakes not being able to handle a decent watermark. It’s not like it’s somehow offensive.
NGL, I think it looks really unprofessional. Imagine “flower lawyers” putting a tulip in a cartoon suit and giving it a menacing expression, it would look just as dumb. Likewise, a dragon could make for a much classier design if approached in a different way.
Exactly. This isn’t some little iconic flourish in the corner, footer, or the header. There’s also some general rule of thumb with watermarks being flagrantly disregarded (keep it simple and monochromatic so it doesn’t impact content legibility).
And even if I personally didn’t have a problem with it, I would seriously question the competency of any law firm that mis-read their audience so dramatically. I can’t imagine many courts looking at that and not having at least an immediate knee jerk reaction of “The hell is this? Are they fucking with us? Is this a joke?” which is an absurdly poor opener to your case as a lawyer.
If some firm got a headshot of the lawyer handling the case scowling and used that as the background of every page in their document they’d be laughed out of court. Just because “dragons are cool” or something doesn’t make this any less silly.
Edit: The dragon icon in the footer is perfect if they wanted some visual flair to set them apart, and it’s a relatively simple monochromatic design. It just makes it even more absurd that they didn’t just use that and instead went for this detailed and visually busy picture.