Randy Brooks wrote the song back in 1977, which has become a classic. Not too much from that era can be called "classic." In it, Mr. Brooks describes an untoward outcome of a forgetful matriarch struggling home from a holiday celebration. She somehow comes across a right jolly old elf and his team. In the process, she tragically meets her end. The song's lyrics are no doubt running through your head by now. The two lines that apply here today are:
"You can say there's no such thing as SantaBut as for me and Grandpa, we believe"
Yes, 'tis the season, and many will be jolly. The Florida OJCC will be closed for several days in observance of holidays. The Governor was most gracious this year extending our holidays in recognition of the fantastic job that state employees do for you all year. I could not agree more with that sentiment. The OJCC is so lucky to have such a fantastic team that works so hard for all of you. The closures will be:
December 23, 2022 (Friday)
December 26, 2022 (Monday)
December 30, 2022 (Friday)
January 2, 2023 (Monday)(get used to writing that "3," always a new year challenge!)
But, back to "me and Grandpa." The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently published a parenting column in its Family Tree section. The headline caught my eye: "Time to end Santa's 'naughty list'?" This was followed by a question "is there a darker side to the beloved Christmas tradition?"
And all I could think was Humbug! Though, admittedly, I have no idea what that word means. Somehow, I am inclined to also exclaim "Bah," but I'm holding it in.
The legend of Santa Claus is ancient, dating likely to the fourth-century a.d. according to the historians over at Coca-Cola Australia. I've seen their polar bears, so we know this is a trustworthy source regarding the holidays (and they did try to get us all to sing in perfect harmony, once upon a time?). Despite the significant volume of empirical evidence in support of the existence of that "jolly old elf," the BBC author is a doubter. He refers to Kris Kringle as a "myth," and describes how he has crafted his own myth for his daughter. He acknowledges the "naughty list," and "can't help but feel pangs of guilt." In the spirit of my rapidly advancing age, I am tempted to tell him to keep his helicopter off of my lawn.
The suggestion is also there, however, that the author does invoke the "Santa's watching" and "naughty list," despite some angst about it.
The story notes that in 1978 a survey "found 85% of four-year-olds said they believed in Santa." In 2011, we were gaining ground with 85% of "5-year olds" (don't be distracted by the "four" and the "5," unless you are a grammar guru and can tell me why those would be different). These youngsters are, the author assures us, the "true believers." There is some lamentation expressed, noting that with the media blitz in his favor this is not hard to believe ("features in every Christmas TV Show and movie"). Ok, let's be honest, Old St. Nick likely gets more press than Kim or Meghan (whoever they are).
The story proceeds to quote a philosophy professor and opinions about "the Santa lie." The "emphasis on belief over imagination" is seen "as harmful." There is some hand-wringing about parents' "creation of false evidence and convincing kids that bad evidence is in fact good evidence." The conclusion is that this myth-making "undermines the kind of critical thinking we should be encouraging in children." This might be a bit more persuasive from a vast raft of potential professionals, but philosophy? Really?
This myth-making is philosophically seen as damaging as it "encourages people to believe what they want to believe," and yet, there is no mention of any right to "live like a refugee." Sorry Tom, RIP, Refugee, Backstreet 1980).
Not to be outdone, there are some contrary experts quoted as protagonists for the so-called myth. One expert psychologist contends that the "transition period" over which most kids cease to believe in Santa is about two years. She explains that this is a developmental time in which children "gradually build up their understanding and knowledge of the world." They begin, in this period, to become "operational thinker(s)" and as such, they start to question, then they reach conclusions regarding "logical sense," and finally "they start to gather evidence." Ah, evidence. Finally, he gets around to something that is related (remotely perhaps) to workers' compensation!
How do we anticipate the process of trying a lawsuit (or workers' compensation claim)? Well, first we hypothesize, then we analyze, and then we "start to gather evidence." Evidence - a novel idea, and according to some it is periodically a myth. In a recent evidentiary ruling, one of the Florida judges made some observations about a trial process. The judge noted:
"Between 05/26/22 and 08/03/22, claimant was paid ten (10) weeks of impairment benefits. This is a simple, undisputed fact. Yet, both sides steadfastly refused to stipulate to this simple fact, and both sides vehemently objected to the other side’s attempts to produce evidence in support of it (for the claimant, largely illegible copies of the checks, and for E/C, a payout ledger, neither of which were timely listed, produced or filed). It was only after 45 to 50 minutes of arguments and repeated objections that this simple, undisputed (yet ultimately immaterial) fact was finally 'established.'"
One might wish in that setting for "operational thinker(s)." An hour spent arguing about something no one disagrees with? An hour trying to prove what need not be proved? An hour "vehemently objecting" to each other striving to independently prove what neither denies? The myth in this recent little legend, I might humbly suggest, is professionalism. There is no point in proving what everyone knows.
And, I would submit that you and yours are welcome to take the Tom Petty approach if you prefer ("You believe what you want to believe"), but "as for me and grandpa, we believe." Believe what? Well in Santa, of course. But also, that some may struggle with identifying the issues, exercising logical sense, and gathering evidence. At the outset, the "logical sense" step is where you might conclude you don't need evidence, or the hour that might be unnecessarily spent wasted on it.
Me and grandpa? We believe that lawyers should talk to each other. We believe that issues should be framed and defined before the trial starts. We believe that stipulations are appropriate, effective, and useful. We believe in Santa also, but we may either of us grow out of that last one. Is the legal profession collectively, and utterly lost on some path that obscures professionalism? Can we as a community of lawyers bring ourselves back from the edge of the abyss and begin again to speak with one another? Can we reclaim the next generation of lawyers to be effective litigators?
Well, I for one believe we can. And if you say we cannot make progress, I say Humbug! (I can hear Inigo Montoya noting "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” (Princess Bride, 20th Century, 1987). Get another cup of coffee, and I will go look it up. In the meantime, stay safe this holiday season. Consider where we might all get if we spoke with each other more and at each other less in 2023. It is going to be the year of professionalism, and you are invited to join in. Stay tuned, more on that effort(s) is coming soon.
I'm back. Humbug, it seems, means "something designed to deceive and mislead." So, it fits perfectly. To all those who want to talk about how the legal profession is irretrievably lost, Bah Humbug. Stay tuned. "Meand grandpa, we believe" in you and in ourselves.
