Are you a personal injury lawyer who can't resist adding a foreboding “Winter is coming” to the end of your demand letter? Or perhaps you're a bankruptcy lawyer who wishes that more Chapter 7 debtors would be like Lannister and always pay their debts? Maybe you couldn't resist bursting out at the retirement party of a colleague, “And now his Watch has ended.” If so, then you're not alone! It seems all of society is eagerly awaiting the April 14 debut of the eighth and final season of the iconic HBO series “Game of Thrones.” And, it seems, judges are no exceptions.

By that, I don't mean that some judges channel their inner George R.R. Martin by taking a ridiculously long time to issue rulings (although let's face it, some do). No, I'm talking about those judges who proudly let their geek flag fly by incorporating “Game of Thrones” references into their judicial opinions. Take, for example, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum. In her 2017 opinion in the case of Rodriguez v. City of Doral, Rosenbaum and her 11th Circuit colleagues dealt with the case of a city of Doral (Florida) police officer who had been pressured into resigning after openly supporting a political opponent of the mayor. Rodriguez filed suit, claiming that he had been effectively terminated and that his First Amendment rights had been violated. Although the trial court granted summary judgment for the city, the 11th Circuit reversed. In her opinion, Rosenbaum quoted Tyrion Lannister (from Season 6's episode “Oathbreaker”), saying: “A wise man once said the true history of the world is a history of great conversations in elegant rooms. Whether or not that may be accurate, a true history of the United States would be incomplete without a history of great political conversations. … And great political conversations could not exist in the absence of the First Amendment.”

Rosenbaum thankfully referenced one of the better Tyrion quotes from the eminently quotable dwarf. Imagine if she had tried another memorable Tyrion saying like “I drink and I know things.” But most judges who quote “Game of Thrones” do so in analogizing the high-stakes battleground of modern litigation to the political and bloody power struggles of Martin's Westeros. Take, for example, the 2015 decision in O'Bannon v. NCAA, a landmark challenge to universities' profiting off of the “amateur” status of collegiate student-athletes. In considering the NCAA's argument for reducing the award of attorneys fees for the plaintiffs, the court rejected a Dickensian comparison to “a tale of two lawsuits.” Instead, the court found inspiration elsewhere:

“Perhaps a more apt allusion would have been to George R.R. Martin's 'Game of Thrones,' where individuals with seemingly long odds overcome unthinkable challenges, but suffer stark losses along the path to victory. In Martin's world, 'When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die, there is no middle ground.' For Plaintiffs, their trial victory in this adventurous, risky suit, while more than a mere game, is nothing less than a win that warrants attorneys fees for work spent on all claims—successful or unsuccessful.”

Other judges have also displayed a fondness for allusions to the political machinations in “Game of Thrones.” In his 2013 opinion in Ward v. Andrews McNeel Pub, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty for the Southern District of New York rejected the copyright infringement claims over a book of hangman puzzles saying, “Since the books provide the puzzles, they are designed to be played solely by one player. Thus, 'When you play the game … either you win or you die. There is no middle ground.'” And in sorting out the confusion caused by similarly named plaintiffs in the 2013 breach-of-contract case Digital Satellite Connections v. Dish Network, a federal judge in Florida noted, “In 1998, Donald King entered into one such contract with DISH Network under the name 'Donald King d/b/a Digital Satellite Connections.' As will unfold below, the Kings in this case (which also include Catherine King and Kathy King) are nearly as hard to keep track of as the kings in George R.R. Martin's 'Game of Thrones.'”

Of course, some references are more subtle than others. In his 2016 concurring opinion in Flores v. City of San Gabriel, Ninth Circuit Judge John Owens slyly hinted at his “Game of Thrones” street cred. The case involved the city of San Gabriel's liability under the FLSA to certain employees for failing to include certain cash-in-lieu of benefits in calculating what was owed for overtime purposes. While he agreed with the majority, Owens disagreed with giving credence to a standard for determining “willfulness” first articulated in a 1972 case, Coleman v. Jiffy June Farms. Owens disagreed with what he called the majority's “qyburnian resurrection of the Jiffy June standard.” This was a direct reference to “Game of Thrones” once-discredited maester Qyburn, who famously used his ghoulish skills to resurrect the moribund Gregor Clegane after “The Mountain” was poisoned in his duel with Oberyn Martell. We saw what you did there, judge!

So when you tune in to “Game of Thrones” on April 14, don't just toast the Starks, Targaryens, or Lannisters. Lift a glass for those judges who are big fans like the rest of us—and who aren't afraid to show it.

John G. Browning is a shareholder at Passman & Jones in Dallas, where he handles a wide variety of civil litigation in state and federal courts.