I'd like to believe that, and I think I still do, but it just seems odd the way the judge phrases his opinion. I agree that the defendant's wording is ambiguous, but that last sentence gets me:

> In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute...

Maybe it's just in jest or intended to be a (racially-coded?) slight at the defendant. It doesn't change the overall argument, but it stands out to me. Why wouldn't you just say "lawyer" there, probably without the quotes?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I would like to imagine legal opinions are written carefully. Hopefully I'm missing something.