A Little Lagniappe

Several years ago, I read an interesting story regarding the human condition, and how our minds work. It involves a food vendor, who charged more than competitors for french fries. Despite the price difference, and the perceptively comparable product, this vendor found great popularity. The fries were served in a container, just as at other stores. 

However, this vendor placed the container inside a bag, and thereby what might be called "extra” fries fell around the container into the bag rather than back into the heating tray. The perception of the consumer purportedly receiving something extra was seen by that author as driving brand loyalty. The author contends that those "extra" are "just an illusion." Tell that to my waistband. 

I am somewhat enamored with a particular vendor as regards my daily soda. I consume too much, too often, and too readily. They had me at "diet," as fallacious as that is. I have striven over time to forgo soda. However, I find it extremely difficult.

I am drawn to this vendor by the somewhat ridiculously low price. I am certain, despite this, that the business makes substantial profit from the sale of soft drinks. See Can I Get a Team Gulp (July 2014). As a result of my soda, loyalty, that outlet tends to dispense all of the gasoline I purchase. My feelings (or addiction) are sufficiently pervasive to motivate a working knowledge of where their outlets are around the state, and periodically a map search for a location. It is likely beneficial to their bottom line that I perceive value in their soda fountain. 

My perceptions of their business benefit are also enhanced otherwise. They deliver a periodic “you’re good.“ If you haven’t experienced this, maybe you’re shopping in the wrong places. Repeatedly, I will visit this merchant around the state, fill my fountain drink and proceed to the register only to face the cheerful question. “is that all today.“ When I respond “yes,“ I receive a cheerful “you're good.“ I often protest as I harbor some guilt at their beneficence. However, they are invariably insistent, persistent, cheerful, and utterly gracious. That alone is important. 

Having made no other purchase, conveyed them no benefit, they simply convey this gesture. They do it with a smile and spontaneity. It is, in a world of increasingly disgruntled, disassociated, and frankly rude retail interactions, a huge charm. 

Their attitude, courtesy, and the free drink are a significant draw. As I traverse various highways, it is not uncommon for me to venture out of my way to patronize their store. I have often driven past many of their competitors to fill up and grab a soda. I am obviously pleased by the service and the courtesy even when there is no free soda, but let's be honest, it helps. 

Obviously, I am in no way, endorsing or advocating for this unnamed business. The point of this blog is to illuminate the value of the lagniappe. For the uninitiated, this French word came to the popular vernacular through exposure to the Big Easy. Obviously, that metropolis did not make this word, but it made it real, at least for me. Lagniappe means:

"a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase; broadly : something given or obtained gratuitously or by way of good measure"

In the days when the Big Easy was the land of milk and honey, one was frequently treated to a little something extra. Your meal might be delivered with a little bowl of jambalaya, red beans, or Etoufee. Any mention of not having ordered this was met with “that’s all right,“ or "I know.“ Most times there would be some accompanying familiarity "honey," "sugar," and similar were common. A smile was invariable. The South is indeed a wonderfully gracious place. 

The lagniappe is a gesture. It’s a courtesy. It’s a pleasant surprise and compliment. It’s an attitude that signals gratefulness and appreciation that you came in. It, undoubtedly builds loyalty, encourages rapport, and encourages repeat business.

I hear about lagniappe in the world of Worker’s Compensation from a variety of professionals. Lagniape comes in the form of trinkets, personal attention, and other values. Each year at the various conferences, I see people with buckets of trinkets they are lugging home. I have never been one to collect such. 

But I am particularly enamored with the personal attention aspect, that is so often lacking in our modern society. In fact, I might drive out of my way to make purchases even if there was never a free soda. It is quite possible the cheerful and utterly gracious alone would be sufficient lagniappe. 

A smile (no offense) might just be enough. Workers' Compensation is a service industry (community), so it might be good for us to remind ourselves and each other of that periodically. You never know what someone is going through. The smile can be in person, or someone can simply hear it over the phone. Harder to convey it in an email, but personal attention is easy even there. 

Is it so hard to inquire about someone's day ("How are you") and literally listen to what they reply? Is it so hard to remember a little something about them (as if you value them intrinsically - "how is your son's little league going?"). It will not move the world, but it might just be the little something extra that allows someone to feel valued and appreciated. The little Lagniappe might go a long way to make someone's day. 

Find a way to make the gesture (Sorry, no, you can't buy me a soda). 

Dress Code?

The New York Times recently published a take on the acceptance of slovenliness in our world. Can't we all just ignore hygiene and wardrobe and get on with what really matters? See What We Lose When We Loosen Dress Codes.

If you missed it, the august and respected United States Senate recently pitched its dress code in the refuse pile. Some celebrate it, some decry it, and others see it as merely a false distraction from the real challenges and issues facing the republic. There is merit perhaps in all three perspectives. The reason for the change is likely a senator who makes no bones about it: "I dress like a slob?”

There is nothing wrong with slobs. I have known many. They have been introverts and extroverts, tall and short, funny and droll. There is no pigeon-holing the slob. Intermingled within them are the New World Order of other various appearances that some find disturbing: tattoos, wild hair, or looks generally. Let's be clear, I am not likely to notice how you look. More importantly, I really don't care. 

I see people's personal appearance as a personal choice. In my own defense, I am never at all certain what colors go together to begin with. I am no fashion maven, make-up expert, or social influencer. If you believe that thing you are wearing is fashionable, striking, or more, then more power to you, I say. I see no reason you should not be able to. If sharp teeth are your choice or culture, more power to you. Horns? sure, go for it. You be you. But, know that some might disapprove, stare, or even gawk. "Don't say I didn't, say I didn't warn ya," Blank Space, Taylor Swift 2014).

The author of the NY Times article suggests that how people dress, and their appearance, "telegraphs intricate messages to those around us, as well as to ourselves." There is suggestion there that our perceptions of dress are "entirely context-dependent." She suggests that there is no surprise or question in our seeing "A tuxedo’d guest at a wedding," but "A tuxedo’d guest at a picnic is a spectacle." That context-dependence is likely true in a variety of things.

A man with horns, facial tattoos, and pink hair is likely perfectly expected in some settings, and perhaps a distraction in others. A woman wearing neck rings is perhaps mundane in some settings, and not in others. Or, stated differently, such a person is perhaps perfectly expected by some observers and is a distraction to others. A famous keeper of keys noted this similarly, the way uniqueness may stimulate attention:

"Well, of course he was interested in Fluffy. How often do you come across a three-headed dog, even if you're in the trade?"

(Hagrid, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Warner Brothers, 2001). With all due deference to the man with horn implants, "how often do you come across" that? That is not any manner of deprecation. You be you, that is what I always say. But, if you are the only one in town with purple skin and yellow teeth, be prepared for some people to do a double take. Shave your head and no one will likely even notice. Shave half your head and perhaps they will look twice. There is nothing wrong with your look, but the difference is just like being the only one at the picnic in a tuxedo. The mind picks up on "different." 

The Times author notes that there are perceived challenges to a "code-free" world. There is discussion there of a disparate impact on those who perceive themselves to be women. The author describes a fair number of choices that she contends import disparate challenges applicable only to women. Not ever having been a woman, I defer to her and others' perspectives on this point. That said, perhaps her view is a bit constrained? Maybe those many challenges are faced as well by those who think they are men? 

But, one conclusion resonates perhaps more broadly: "Decisions all carry a perpetual risk of tipping us somehow into 'inappropriateness.'” That is rather a stark conclusion. Perhaps it is more fair to say that any decisions tip us to being noticed. Whether we are overdressed (tuxedo) or under (shorts and flip-flops), we may set ourselves apart. That may lead us to being noticed and criticized. See, as much as I respect your right to look as you wish, I also respect the rights of the observer to be surprised, off-put, or worse. 

While that is intriguing, is it really new? Is it really novel? I suspect I own a couple of ties that may fit in this "inappropriateness" category. I have been told that there is a reason that tie or that shirt was on a table at the retailer with a sign that said "Free, take as many as you wish." 

The Times author says that the way people look can impact them. She questions whether clothing are intricately interwoven into the way they are perceived. It seems to be the perception of the observer rather than the intent of the wearer that is of concern. Would certain appearances "deprive (one) of gravitas?" Would appearance rob one of "dignity and authority?" Would appearance "exacerbate . . . inequity?" This is likely to be a resounding yes. If you dress up in a clown suit with a big red nose, it is probable some people will expect you to be a clown. You can put that down to prejudice, bias, or worse. But, you cannot claim that it surprises you. 

The conversation continues with complaints or criticism of the Senate's discrimination in this action. It is noted that the new relaxed dress code (or absence of one) applies only to the Senators. The staff and support there are apparently required to remain true to a code of formality and structure. There is no mention as to whether the staff might sport tattoos, horns, or brightly-colored hair. Let us not even begin down the path of piercings. In our world of egalitarianism, why do rules apply selectively to some?

The author stresses strength of "commonality" and similarity. There is a perceived strength in some degree of uniformity or similarity. And when our U.S. Senators begin wearing shorts and hoodies to the ball, there is some angst or anxiety expressed. But, in the end, does appearance matter? Can someone be effective despite the predilections of appearance, the choices of attire and more?

I have no inkling whether there is power in appearance. When you look like me, you never put any stock in appearance getting you any advantage. I will, alas, never be viewed as attractive. My chances of being "internet famous" ("no one (cares) if you are Internet Famous," Life Sux, Leah Kate, 10K Projects) are entirely dependent on shock and awe (a unicorn in my forehead perhaps?). Or is it Instagram Famous? Beauty will never get me anywhere. But is there some such power for those who can simply color-coordinate a tie with the rest of an ensemble?

In the world of seeking redress, is there purpose or pitfall in appearance? When one appears before a judge, stated simply, does appearance matter? I would suggest that the answer is yes. That is not to say that everyone does not have the absolute right to look as they wish. They do. Without question. And, another fact is that everyone in the world has bias. 

That is a rock not many will turn over. Like it or not, people are biased. We all know it, but few will admit it. Bias comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes. A good summary is here, but it is very cursory. For more depth, look at the 175+ types of cognitive bias here. Judges are trained to both recognize bias and combat its influence. But, humans are humans (or at least I believe so, that could be a bias). Some say, as regards cognitive bias:

"Research suggests that there are more than 175 different types of cognitive bias. It refers to deviation from standards of judgment whereby you may create inferences, assessments, or perceptions that are unreasonable."

Get that "you may create." The bias is yours. You decide. And if you are in the "I can look as I want" camp, then bless you. You do you! But know that the bias and perception belongs to the observer. Your affinity for any appearance may empower you personally, and simultaneously compromise your effectiveness, credibility, and gravitas in the eyes of others. You can lament that, but, well see Taylor Swift above. 

So, dress as you will. The Senate has decided that for at least some there any clothing choice is appropriate. That means senators can wear whatever they wish. But, they cannot decide how people will perceive them for it. Make no mistake, the formality of a dress code does not change that, people might have previously thought them all stodgy and pompous for all wearing suits and ties. But, the code merely institutionalized a "look" so that there is some anonymity in the crowd (if everyone is made to wear a tuxedo to the picnic, tuxedos will perhaps not be perceived as odd to any, or as to so many, observer(s)).

All that said, showing up to a hearing in your basketball shorts and hoodie is not recommended. Sorry, bias. Parties, lawyers, witnesses, and more should strive to appear neat, clean, and presentable. If you have horns, well I'm not sure how to advise you. But, whether it offends one's individuality or not, appearance matters. I have studied trial proceedings and judges for decades. I can tell you that your appearance both matters to the finder of fact and can be a distraction. 

Like it or not, all a judge may remember about you is that you have purple hair, horns, a spider-web tattoo on your forehead, or a very noticeable piercing in your nose, forehead, or face. Did you think it was unnoticeable? Of course not. You like it and desire it. But you cannot control how it is perceived. 

In a trial, you need not wear designer clothes. You need not have your hair or nails professionally done. Trial is not ever a fashion show or pageant. But, clean and neat may be important or critical. If everyone is wearing a tuxedo, then you may be more comfortable and effective in one too. If you cannot abide tuxedos, then wear your basketball shorts. However, remain aware that how others perceive your choices may impact their acceptance of you and your arguments, statements, and thoughts. Like it or not, a judge or jury may discount your testimony because of your appearance. 

In the Spielberg classic, 1941, the protagonist enters as a waiter in a breakfast cafe. The movie's premise is "war nerves" following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans have died and people are scared. The protagonist wears a gaudy shirt with "Pearl Harbor" printed among many American Flags. There is abuse and a fight. After the fight, the following exchange occurs between the soldiers and the protagonist (Wally):

Cpl. Chuck 'Stretch' Sitarski : "You ain't gonna tip him, are you Sarge?"

Wally Stephens : "It's OK! I don't need your tip!"

Sergeant Frank Tree : "I think you do, get rid of that shirt."

Should appearance matter? Absolutely not. The fellow wearing the dog collar with a bull ring through his nose should be treated the same as the lady in the clown suit. The kid in the Pearl Harbor shirt should not be assaulted in the restaurant. The man wearing an environmentally-conscious recycled material sweater should be treated the same as the man in the mink coat. Everyone should be perceived and treated equally. No bias should ever intrude. Grow up. "Should" does not equal "would." 

Is it a realistic expectation that no bias will exist? It is not. People without (fill in the blank here, horns, piercings, tattoos, purple hair) are likely to notice those with that affectation. They may look down on and therefore doubt those who have it. I had a judge tell me a face tattoo story once, and a finding of the witness lacking credibility. I questioned why and the judge said "anyone with a face tattoo like that lacks judgment and therefore credibility." Anyone judge? Davero?!?

Maybe, just for today, go for the neat and tidy. Perhaps, for the sake of probabilities, strive to minimize the potentials for distraction. If there is a reason for distraction, by all means, own it. If you will be the only physician to testify, dressing like a physician at trial may invoke precisely the bias (doctors are smart) that you seek. If the challenges of your job are relevant, put them on display (a laborer appearing wearing a lifting brace is a visual reinforcement). But be wary of what you intend to communicate and the potential for unexpected perceptions.

Expression is free (bless that Constitution and those who wrote it). You may look as you like. Be a slob and be proud. But, know that you control only the outgoing message. The rest of the world is just as free to fault you for that expression. Sure, that is not fair. Sure, bias is often bad. Sure, that is the way it is though. Be a slob. You be you. 

AI and the Coming Regulation

The Florida bar has jumped feet first into an amazingly complex topic: artificial intelligence. A special committee has been formed, which was featured in The Florida Bar News recently: AI Tools & Resources Committee to Draft Rules and an Ethics Opinion. It is reportedly addressing a multitude of potential issues.

In Complicated, Avril Lavigne rendered some advice that might be a consideration as we embark:

"Chill out, what ya yellin' for?

Lay back, it's all been done before

And if, you could only let it be, you will see"

Tech is not new. Disruption is not new. Ethics challenges are not new. Sure, technology helps you do things faster. Mitch Ratcliffe said, “A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila.” And in the end, AI is all about computers. So now, perhaps we can make mistakes even more efficiently.

Nonetheless, there is varied interest in AI, ranging from ambivalence to curiosity, and anxiety. No one seems to know anything for sure. It is fine fodder for the water cooler, coffee room, or webinar (shameless plug, join us for The Point on September 28, 2023; we are discussing AI with some experts). Compared to me, anyone who can spell AI without help is pretty much an expert. 

The Bar expresses an overriding anticipation that AI may be able to enhance “access to justice." There is a persistent angst in the legal community that we must do more to democratize access to legal services. Not necessarily enough angst to trade in the Maserati for a Hyundai, but angst. For decades, it has been clear that each end of the human spectrum can achieve reasonable access. Those with money hire counsel and others qualify for appointed or volunteer counsel. But the middle class has been largely or wholly ignored in those pleas for democratization. How does a working person pay hundreds of dollars an hour for a will or to resolve a property dispute?

There is thus AI anticipation, appreciation, and hope for a “Brave New World.” But there is evidence of concern and anxiety. I have personally expended significant time experimenting with artificial intelligence (more on that below), see also Intelligence (November 2022); Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017); AI and the Latest (June 2023). Despite that, and more, I am woefully unprepared for the coming revolution. 

What lies ahead fills me with a thrilling excitement, yet beneath it, a subtle undercurrent of fear hints at the unknown challenges that await on this uncertain journey. How many seminars have you attended regarding AI? How many articles have you read, how many conversations have you engaged in, and how much time have you invested? I can assure you, confidently, that, regardless of your answer to those questions, you have not done enough. Not worried? "You will be" (Yoda, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, LucasFilm, 1980).

Some of the human reaction to the coming of our new robot overlords is downright humorous. The Florida Bar and others are carefully looking at ethical considerations, and their human rules (Rules of Professional Conduct). They have brought together their best legal minds to address the coming cataclysm. Or, perhaps they are that young man with flowers? (Men in Black, Columbia 1997).

Most have heard the stories of the recent intrepid ineptitude in the great state of New York. Mamma Always Said (June 2023). All have heard the story of these rocket scientists who chose to engage an AI tool to draft legal pleadings and elected not to proofread, or cite check. They billed their client for the effort, (over billed?), and filed their lazy "work" with the court. 

In response to that human debacle, courts around the country have begun entering orders requiring attorneys to sign certifications regarding the (non)engagement of AI. Organizations engaged in the licensure and discipline of attorneys are actively discussing rule or regulation amendments to regularly require such certifications. Remember Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J.K. Rowling, 2004)? - “I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.” I enjoy both affirmations and protestations.

Certifications are nothing new. The Florida Rules of Procedure include a requirement that litigants certify that they are using the correct font and pitch. Fla. R. App. P. 9.210. Every time I read that rule I think of Chico Marx (yes, I can see the font and likely can judge the pitch, but the certificate does perhaps remind me that I should care). There is a broader implication, without the label "certificate." Every time a Florida Lawyer signs a document, this is a "certification" under Fla. R. Gen. prac. Jud. Admin. 2.515. The lawyer's signature on the document is a certification that:

1. the attorney has read the document;
2. to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support the document;
3. the document is not interposed for delay; and
4. the document contains no confidential or sensitive information, or that any such confidential or sensitive information has been properly protected by complying with the provisions of rules 2.420 and 2.425.

So, let's be honest. I am presented virtually weekly with the old "I did not know it said that judge, my (fill in "paralegal," "secretary," "law clerk," etc.) wrote this." That is fine. But, counsel, you signed it. Did you "read the document?" Did you make conclusions about it? And, let's be absolutely fair, the Fla. R. Gen. prac. Jud. Admin. do not apply to workers' compensation proceedings (perhaps this one should?). 

But, what of the Rules of Professional Responsibility? They apply to all lawyers in all proceedings. 

Rule 4.1 says lawyers will be "competent," which includes "knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation." The comments to that rule clarify that this includes training, education, continuing education, and "inquiry into and analysis." 

Rule 4-1.3 says lawyers will be diligent. The Comment refers back to competency, see above. The lawyer should keep the client informed and engage them in discussion as regards "the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished." Imagine informing the client you are going to bill them for some work, but have an LLM (Large Language Model, another name for AI) spit out the documents you will blithely and blindly file on their behalf. 

Rule 4-2 says "a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice." What the document says represents that judgment. 

Rule 4-3 says "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous . . ."

Rule 4-3.3 says "A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or . . . "

Rule 4-3.5 says "A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court."

Rule 4-5.3(b) says "(2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer:"

"knowledge, skill, thoroughness," combined with "inquiry and analysis," applied in an "indepdent," "professional" and "candid" manner. Through "judgment," within the "basis in law and fact," the lawyer will avoid false statements, correct inadvertent falsity, and alert the tribunal to what is known. And, the lawyer will be ultimately responsible for her/his own and the performance of her or his team in this effort overall. 

At the end of the day, I have to ask a quite simple question. I would appreciate you, taking it in the spirit, in which it is intended, and considering it deeply. It is simply this: who cares? Perhaps that seems flippant or irreverent. Apologies. Lawyers are delegating to non-lawyers every day, regularly submitting pleadings they claim to have never read, misrepresenting facts, and worse. This is known, too often accepted, and frankly ignored. Not all lawyers. Not by a long shot. I know a great many who take their oath, responsibilities, and the cited rules very seriously. But, every day sees violations in some corners of the state. 

Will a new certificate about AI change that? Will this new certificate impede those who scoff at and ignore the current rules? Or, will it merely burden and inconvenience the lawyers who strive to be compliant, professional, and thorough already? Too often, America reacts to perceived challenges with new laws or regulations rather than enforcing what is already on the books. The new regulation route is easier, quicker, and seems positive. New regulations can signal action but won't make us face the current sloppy practice. Certify we did not use AI?

Let us consider a parallel. Do we expect accountants to sign certificates that this filing (say a tax return) was (or not) created with the help of QuickBooks? Do we ask engineers to certify that the calculations for this bridge were created with the help of Microsoft Excel? As the age of enlightenment has dawned upon us, have we ever even imagined asking someone to certify that the foregoing blog post benefited from the employment of Google searches, spellcheck, grammar check, Brief Catch, etc., etc., etc.? I hope you get the picture. How did I write this? Where did I glean the perspective, the citation, the conclusions? 

You see, perhaps many are going to foist upon you, an unlikely, illogical, and factually false premise, that AI is new. It is not. In fact, a great many of the lawyers, paralegals, doctors, engineers, accountants, and other professionals with whom I have worked over the last millennia have, in fact, been artificial intelligence. Sorry, that is demeaning and dismissive. But, if you met them, if you just talked to them (heavy sigh). In fact, we might make a valid argument that some of them weren’t "intelligence" at all. I re-read that sentence, and I find that it is utterly insulting, abrasive, and accurate. My apologies to all, but read on. 

Back in the day, I used to go to a place called a “courthouse“ in which records were stored. In order to keep my clients abreast of the various litigations, I would inquire there of a human being, who would retrieve a large bundle of papers related to a particular case. We called it a "file." I would sit at a table, and I would observe those documents while furiously scribbling notes on something we called a “legal pad." Sometimes I would read the documents into a tape recorder. 

Many of today’s acolytes and fledglings will suggest how much easier it would have been to simply snap a picture of those documents with my handy cell phone. However, in those days, “phone meant something different.“ (Jumanji, Welcome to the Jungle, Sony 2017). Yes, Virginia, there were no camera phones. Admittedly, many of us had cellular phones, but they were bolted to our vehicles. They were dependent upon our vehicle’s battery and were only useful for making calls to people. Weird, huh?

Later, back at the Batcave, I would read my notes into a tape recorder  or put them into a "file." If recorded, someone across the hall, and down the way, would listen to my droning, obnoxious voice, and transcribe those thoughts onto paper (using a typewriter, word processor, or eventually a personal computer ). 

In my process of dictation, I would augment my lack of intellect by cheating. I’m ashamed to admit it, but coming clean now seems appropriate. Back years ago, I had obtained a book, a book of knowledge, in which I could reference words, and find other words that sounded more supercilious and pompous. We called it a Thesaurus. I used those words, as if they were my own, and inserted them into those documents, in order to create the impression that my intellect was greater than it was. Not of my intellect, but borrowed. Of course, subject to my judgment.

When my resulting document would come back to me for proofreading (back in those days, lawyers, actually read documents before sending them or filing them), I would carefully look for errors in grammar, punctuation, and even spelling. In the spirit of full disclosure, I often cheated using another "book" called Strunk and White, a dictionary, or another publication. Again, not mine, but my judgment. 

But, we proofread. Nothing went out the door without being checked. That was another era. Lawyers today don’t proofread, they don’t use “books,“ whatever that word means. That is because for decades, as documents are now created in computers, suggestions have been made regarding spelling, grammar, and word use. We have all come to both expect and accept the help of these genies in the machines. Their intelligence is not real, and it is not new, but it has never seemingly worried us. That fundamental AI has been with us for years.

We similarly received help from secretaries, paralegals, other lawyers, and more. We asked folks to read, react, and opine. We took their input (or tolerated it) and perhaps made changes to the original output that was our own. But, yet again, my judgment. You could suggest I tone down the insulting, abrasive, and accurate, but whether to leave it or delete it is my judgment. I can use you, and pick your brain, but in the end, I decide what is in this blog and what is not. 

Lawyers perhaps became lazy, spoiled, and dependent. There’s a very good chance that without these tools, most of us would be unable to find our way to the bathroom by ourselves. Do you know where your dictionary is? Do you even remember when you saw it last? If the electronic age ground to a halt, Would you be able to handwrite a document, find an envelope, calculate the postage, or figure out where to mail it? Technology is a huge benefit, but I gotta admit it’s making us all somewhat dependent and less abled.

In those forays to the courthouse, I encountered fantastic verbiage. I read compelling arguments, eloquently stated, and effectively presented. Don't tell anyone, but I used what I found. I copied. I plagiarized words and relied upon the fantastic and exceptional research and writing that I perceived (In college, using other's work like that is plagiarism, but in the practice of law it is merely the highest form of flattery). That said, I checked every one of those case or statute citations before using (judgment). I used those lawyers' work without attribution, but I remained "independent" and applied "judgment." I used my own "inquiry and analysis" in deciding what I would harvest, what I would use, and how. 

That said, that research was not all mine. The interpretations and arguments were not all mine. I was standing (carefully) on the shoulders of others who had come before me. I was benefitting from others who had already plowed similar fields. I was benefitting from their intellect and their work. But, and this is critical, I never counted on it, blindly accepted it, or substituted it for my own judgment. And, in truth, I frequently found seemingly trail-blazing and amazing stuff that turned out upon closer examination to be fanciful, forced, or even false. That stuff I threw away (judgment). Those authors' conclusions and arguments did not meet my standards and did not rise to my acceptance or reliance. 

The Florida Bar rules already require lawyers to be frank and honest. They stipulate that when a lawyer signs her or his name, they are certifying the document contents. Despite this, many lawyers have abandoned that responsibility. Many would be absolutely shocked and appalled at the sloppy, inconsistent, illogical, and false representations that appear above the signatures of revered and respected attorneys. Those lawyers do not respect your rules. They do not fear your rules. They do not care about your expectations or seek your approval. They could care less about your scorn. They perhaps decided long ago that the only line that matters is the bottom line; is it "all about the Benjamins?" (Puff Daddy, 1997, Atlantic Records). 

I respectfully submit, that no one needs additional rules regarding artificial intelligence. In the first instance, AI is here, and it is inevitable (Thanos, Avengers Endgame, 2019, Marvel). The rules already cover the challenges. Does it matter where a lawyer gets data, phraseology, grammar, or arguments? The fact is that whether this comes from a partner, paralegal, some other lawyer's filings, or an AI, the lawyer remains responsible for exercising independent judgment, being analytical and critical, and producing the ultimate product. We certify that when we sign. The source or origin is not novel in that it is an AI. That is a distinction without a difference. "Build a bridge, and . . ." 

When lawyers don't exercise judgment, why not take some action? When lawyers inappropriately and blithely defer to paralegals, ignorantly or unthoughtfully cut and paste from some LLM, or even plagiarise some other lawyer's wretched refuse, why not merely discipline them for failure to comply with our existing rules? The fact is that too much has been delegated, deferred, and ignored already. Most (perhaps all) lawyers know it. It is not a secret. There are simply not enough troopers on the information superhighway to pull them all over. Only the most egregious scofflaws ever get stopped. Few of them are ever punished. 

Perhaps we "don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties," (A Few Good Men, Columbia 1992) you need to rely on paralegals. Perhaps one cannot earn a living in this profession without such economic leverage? Perhaps an honest day's work for a day's pay simply won't suffice? I have heard some interesting representations over the years about how much a lawyer "can't" operate an office on. 

My all-time favorite occasion was at a meeting, and that same lawyer offered me a ride back to the airport in his hand-made Morgan. Perhaps the bottom line is the overriding truth and the be-all and end-all? And if so, then why not just ignore the existing rules as well. But, if the rules matter, then respectfully, the existing rules quite handily cover any bad behavior that might come from engaging Artificial Intelligence.

In the interest of full disclosure, this blog post was prepared through dictation to an iPhone, it has been enhanced through the use of Chat, GPT (one paragraph was composed by it), and other LLM, and it has benefited from automated spellcheck, grammar check, dictionary, thesaurus, been manipulated on a Microsoft Surface using Microsoft Word and similar programs. Ultimately, it was processed onto this World Wide Web with the assistance of programs such as Grammarly and more. Despite that, for the most part, it’s my work. In the end, the judgment (or you might say lack of it) is all mine. Yes, Virginia, some of the foregoing was included merely to touch your nerves and keep you engaged. 

And, so that we are clear, if I had not told you the truth about all that technology I engaged, you would likely not have been able to discern it (which paragraph above is not mine?). You see, students have been extensively using AI for a while, and professors (the smart ones called "doctor" and "distinguished," and more) cannot really tell. So say the students. So say the Doctors. You see when someone turns in or files garbage, the source does not matter, the lack of judgment does. And, if they produce and present impeccable work, do we care beyond the fact that they are either brilliant or savvy enough to be skillful borrowers? In college, absolutely. But in practice?

So, we can learn how to use this next iteration of the Age of Enlightenment, or not. But we cannot kill AI. We cannot prevent it or hide from it. AI is here. We simply cannot "go upstairs and book a conference room." We cannot "talk (AI) to death." (Bourne Identity, Universal 2002). My certificate and disclosure above add nothing. Let's admit that the other certificates don't add much either.

If you are going to add a certification, why not make it simply "By signing, I certify I have complied with all rules regulating The Florida Bar." Perhaps that focus on the existing rules would move us forward? If it won't, I would suggest no other certification will either. Some will argue that such a certificate adds nothing (see above re fonts), but such a certification might just remind some lawyer why she/he should care?

If you agree with me, good for you. If you disagree, please attribute that to the evil and awful AI that created the parts of the foregoing that you find bothersome. We can be productive or we can sit back and "harumph" through this. In the end, AI will come. As you ruminate, know that will be true. It will come whether you steal the "Who-feast" or not (The Grinch that Stole Christmas, Universal 2000). We know that because it is already here, and perhaps so well disguised that you didn't even notice.

It will all be alright. The world will not end. For more on the topic, consult someone smarter than me. See Is Skynet Near (Pamela Langham 2023) and AI for Legal Risk Management (Pamela Langham 2023). Be patient, be observant, and be aware. AI is here and it will make practice and business better. It might even help to increase the bottom line. See you all on the other side.

Hidden Costs

Too often, we think of business in terms of mathematics. Certainly, there’s an anticipation or expectation that numbers will add up, books will balance, and existence will be sustained. There is also a tendency in consumers to view prices in a strictly comparative perspective. They limit their examination to what one meal experience costs compared to another. This is a value-based analysis that is not wrong but may be overly simplified.

Each element of an experience engenders a certain degree of cost. Fixed overhead may include the rent or mortgage cost of the premises, taxes, and more. That is somewhat easy to predict. 

There are also variable costs, and variability can be dependent on volume. For example, the cost of food or beverages. As the volume of served patrons increases, so does the marginal cost (each meal plated costs something). Some in business school strive to convince students such costs are strictly variable (no meals plated means no marginal cost). 

However, there is an undeniably fixed element that is too often ignored. One cannot serve the marginal (additional) patron, a chicken parmigiana unless money has been expended in order to possess some inventory of chicken. That chicken is purchased with an eye towards serving, in which case it will become a marginal cost of that meal if served. However, if the chicken does not sell, it remains a fixed cost of doing business (inventory).

These financial relationships are largely subject to management, through careful ordering, inventory control, market predictability, and other tools. It is perhaps more easily controlled with beverages, due to the greater propensity for shelflife and extended use.  Nonetheless, in order to be in business, some volume of cost must be expended in anticipation.

My views on these management challenges dawned eons ago in college but were honed in the real world. There exists no singular absolute formulaic approach to the interrelationships. The best management will periodically be left with unsold inventory, or with disappointed customers, troubled by output shortages ("I’m sorry we’re sold out of that").

When a business makes a fixed-cost commitment, it must, then hope for a customer response that is sufficient to allow the business to meet that obligation, as well as the marginal expenses, and render some profit. Profit, for all of the negativity too often expressed, is the purpose of business. If there is no potential for profit, what is the motivation for the business to take the risk of investing in fixed or variable costs?

Some of these linear examples may certainly be mathematical. However, it is suggested that the overall success of any business enterprise is largely multi-variable calculus. There are interrelated, independent, and unfortunately, unpredictable variables involved. And unforeseen circumstances can frustrate even the best planners.

One of the most studied independent variables is the human element. Staffing any business is largely art instead of science. A particular server may be capable of unbelievable focus and volume. Others, perhaps not so much. I have managed dining room crews of which one server was barely capable of covering five tables, and yet another could easily please 10. 

I’ve had to contend with the jealousy and animosity of the five-table staff, and their inability to recognize personal limitations. “Why does she get 10 tables and I only get 5?” The inverse complication is as likely, “just because she can only handle five tables, why do you limit me to that?” Similar arguments are raised by others in the tip-compensation category (bartenders, valets, etc.). 

Would you hear the same complaints from hourly wage workers? Surprisingly, I have. I have had cooks explain to me that they prefer to be alone in their kitchen. I have witnessed a single cook handling a 100-table lunch rush with efficiency, efficacy, and aplomb. however, I have also witnessed three-person cook crews, who could not handle such a rush under any circumstances. Volume and human individuality each require management.

These thoughts came to me recently, as I read an article regarding a musician, who was scheduled to perform at a venue. He canceled because of his personal shock and dismay regarding the venue's pricing of the event ($90.00 to $200). The performer has a perception of the reasonable price for such an experience ($25) and canceled the commitment based on conclusions regarding the higher prices. The sentiment is admirable, and the theme is interesting.

This performer had agreed to appear for $120,000 in exchange for a one-hour performance. The outside observer might examine that mathematically and conclude that this performer is worth $120,000 per hour, $2,000 per minute, or $33 per second.  However, such a conclusion would, perhaps, fail to consider the other costs associated, including transportation to and from, crew, set-up expense, other performers (“the band“), taxes, licenses, and more. Just as a venue might have variable costs, so might a performer.

Upon publicity of the cancellation, the venue in this story voiced its perspective regarding costs. It explained its size limitation, 1,500 people. It explained some of its hidden costs. 1,500 people at $25.00 is only $37,500. If you sold each of them four drinks at $7.50 (assuming a 75% profit margin on each), then there is another $33,750. Not enough to pay the singer $120,000. If you sold each patron ten drinks at $7.50, that would yield $84,375, and the cost of the singer would be covered ($37,500 + $84,375 = $121,875).  There is food sale revenue also, it must be considered, but the margins are thinner on food. 

Is it rational for a venue to host an event at a loss, or to expect such consumption? What about the ticket commission? What about the bookkeeping? What are the odds you can get each patron to pay for ten drinks, or that you can get them each to buy 5 at $15.00 each? And, if you could, at the end of the shift you simply covered your singer cost, but what of the other fixed and variable costs? What of the venue, the security, etc."

No one is "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. The bottom line is that this venue cannot stomach a $25.00 ticket price and this singer cannot abide a $200 price. They are at impasse. However, it is important the relationship and information reveals the challenge of “hidden cost,“ which is a real interest of workers' compensation, though too rarely discussed. 

Workers' compensation at its best is a hidden cost, included in service or product pricing of many market participants. I say many rather than all because there are certainly legal methodologies for avoiding the inclusion of this cost. For example, products and materials might be procured from off-shore sources (while the Big Three shut down this week, the foreign cars kept flowing). Those are produced at a likely lower cost, and without the hidden cost of Worker’s Compensation. Workers in foreign countries often do not enjoy this benefit or other protections such as FMLA, ADA, Unemployment, and more. Buying a foreign-produced product or service perhaps diminishes cost.

Similarly, to reach the market, a manufacturer or importer might use a large transportation company, with the benefits of size, diversity, and depth on the bench. Alternatively, one might select an independent contractor, an owner and operator, for the same function. In doing so, one might absorb the cost of Worker’s Compensation, or avoid it.

This discussion is largely of macro and microeconomics. Unfortunately, that subject is not common in America’s high schools. Furthermore, the average college graduate will likely escape with a degree and have largely avoided any study of the implications of the laws of economics. Despite the resulting lack of foundation, everyone engaged in business, must confront the challenges associated with the fundamentals of economics, the difficult choices, the probable shortcomings, and the potential for misunderstanding.

In the end, business is difficult. This absolutism remains. Whether one is the business, owner, manager, labor, or supplier. The complexity is difficult for those who study economics. Unfortunately, it is harder still on those who have no time for such study as they scramble about striving to earn a living in the complex calculus of economic exchange.

The implications of these thoughts are important. The existence of hidden costs can impact the overall price and profit of any supplier of goods or services. The seller and the consumer may be very sophisticated and yet not share identical visions of what value each conveys in a particular exchange. Each may have wants, desires, and perspectives that are not apparent to, or appreciated by, the other. 

Either might be labeled as "greedy," "generous," "impractical," or "brilliant." Each is striving to maximize earnings and that may be from minimization of cost or maximization of income. Each has proprietary knowledge, hidden costs, and personal challenges. Each is managing a process that the other may not understand. 

In the end, it is often difficult to calculate the actual value of any exchange, even for those who are intimately involved in them. 

The Fourth Wave

The United States continues to be the target of an illogical madness. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently explained How the fentanyl crisis' fourth wave has hit every corner of the US. I remember in the 1990s when I first heard of Fentanyl and the various doctors who expressed their eager and adoring attitudes toward it. There were many orthopedic patients suffering intractable pain and we were all led by the physicians into the opioid expansion.

I have been less than a fan of opioids as the trend has turned toward death and destruction. In Florida Workers' Comp: Florida's 2018 Session - Opioids (March 2018), I reviewed various prior posts that address opioids. In the end, these drugs are killing thousands of people each year. Much of it started in a prescription world and evolved into illicit use. Today, perhaps more of it begins with illicit use. There is a certain population that is willing to use these substances despite the associated risks.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says that Heroin overdose is on the decline. The current threat is from synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. There is an apparently inexhaustible supply of this substance and a ready population of consumers ready and willing to expose themselves to it. That said, it is practical to believe some are being exposed unintentionally. That is, they seek illicit drugs voluntarily but do not intend to include this one in particular.

Time and again in Hollywood productions, we see the all too familiar police interview. Hollywood loves to make police and lawyer movies and shows. In that context, there is a persistent theme of motive for this crime or that. Often, in the context of motive, there is "the victim owed you a lot of money." The savvy suspect so often reminds the intrepid investigators, "why would I kill someone that owes me money, dead men never pay." That is an interesting line of thought. 

Do dead drug addicts pay? 

Why are these powerful opioids being pushed? They are killing a great many people. It seems illogical to kill your customers. However, it is likely I am ignorant of the intricacies of the drug trade. 

The BBC explains that the "fourth wave" involves the integration of Fentanyl into other drugs. Victims and advocates are convinced that users are surreptitiously being exposed to this drug. They intend to use illicit drugs, voluntarily use illicit drugs, but are not specifically seeking this killer.  The reader is urged to sympathize with these users and suggestion that the government could do more to facilitate their illegal drug use in some safer environment. 

Some insist that there is a lack of awareness of the threat of Fentanyl. Grassroots organizations are featured in the article. Their agents are visiting the public in broad efforts directed at consciousness-raising. Some complain that awareness campaigns have used the wrong models for their billboards and other efforts. 

The evidence cited is compelling. The volume of overdose deaths unrelated to Fentanyl is decreasing (as a percentage of overall overdose deaths). The increases are in Fentanyl used alone and Fentanyl with stimulants. Some contend this is intended, with the stimulant allowing an extended experience of the high. Others seem to suggest that the Fentanyl is being surreptitiously included in illicit stimulants as an inexpensive extender or filler. 

Regardless, there is evidence supporting that the Fentanyl is highly addictive. The people who are choosing to be exposed to this, or who are being inadvertently exposed through their intent to consume other street drugs, are becoming addicted to this. It is likely perhaps that they then seek it out intentionally in order to satisfy the demands of that addiction. 

According to the National Institute on Drug Addiction, overdose deaths exceeded 106,000 in 2021. I can remember when the rate was half that. That was in 2014. In less than a decade, overdose deaths have essentially doubled. Will they double again in the next ten years? 

Will people suddenly heed the threat and the warnings and quit using drugs? Doubtful. Will the continued push for ever-increasing access to pot lead to less drug use and overdose? Doubtful. Is there an answer that affords some promise of fewer deaths? The situation is puzzling from various perspectives. But more so perhaps in the riddle. Why is there anyone in the distribution chain who is not concerned about the high death rate among consumers? 

It seems that the suppliers are all incentivized to keep customers alive and using. And yet, the death rates continue to grow. The riddle, it seems, is not in the fact that there are users and addicts, but in the ease of recruiting an ever-growing population of new consumers. Who needs the old consumers when there are new ones so ready? How can there be so many new ones, despite the overwhelming prevalence of news coverage and public awareness?

It is indeed difficult to understand. It is a riddle whose solution escapes our government and an effect that seems destined to grow. The CDC says the leading causes of death are

• Heart disease: 695,547
• Cancer: 605,213
• COVID-19: 416,893
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 224,935
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,890
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,342
• Alzheimer’s disease: 119,399
• Diabetes: 103,294

Perhaps when drug overdose reaches comparable figures to stroke it will be enough? If the rates of overdose double in the next ten years, it will equal or exceed accidents. Perhaps then it will be enough? or will it require another ten years and a doubling to equally COVID to get the word out? What distinguishes drug overdose from the causes listed here? Overdose is perhaps the easiest to avoid completely. 

Being an Effective Advocate

I recently received a phone call, unsolicited, from an advocate, seeking assistance; we'll call him "Jim," with sincere apologies to everyone out there actually named Jim. Jim's dispute likely had nothing to do with Worker’s Compensation, and at least purportedly centered on a labor dispute.

Jim's issue was thousands of miles from me, and yet Jim seemingly chose me (I later learned that was false and Jim was contacting whomever could be reached). Jim's approach was filled with invective and venom, the tone was acrimonious and accusatory, and the effect was utterly offputting (ineffective).

The call made me think about the least effective methodologies for seeking assistance. It reminded me of the potential for ignorance and confusion among those who would be advocates. In litigation, advocacy is the goal and the role. What is the advocate's role? If you are offending and abrasive, can you be persuasive? Maybe.

However, advocates would do well to remember to maintain focus on their goal. Facts are helpful, the law is helpful, and circumstances can even be helpful. Name-calling and invective, not so much. Anger? Almost never helpful.

Jim started from a foundation of ignorance. My name had been found on some list or document, and assumptions had been made. Bad ones. Jim thought I possessed some superpower or influence. That was a mistake at best. Jim was prepossessed with recruiting me to be an advocate for some cause. I am not an advocate, and I do not take up such causes. In fact, the Code of Judicial Conduct says I cannot advocate for your cause. I cannot "lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others."

Jim did not understand that. Worse, somewhere along the line, Jim lost the capability to listen. Rather than process what was said, Jim chose to rely upon persistence, insults, and bullying. To be fair, those work in some settings. But not so much in others.

Jim chose, in seeking my support, to engage in name-calling, accusation, and emotion. Those accusations undoubtedly held some great value for Jim. However, Jim was seemingly incapable of comprehending that anyone might harbor a different perspective on facts or circumstances. Jim's worldview was stunted and constrained, and it did not further his interests.

Hint for the advocate, righteous indignation, insults, and invective are unlikely to facilitate productive communication. Admittedly, there may be a place for each in a particular conversation. Notably, it is unlikely that that place is at the beginning.

Jim wanted me to adopt his worldview, unsolicited, and unproven. Jim encouraged me to join his cause, take his side, and advocate on his behalf. He was confident that my role as a judge would lend credence to my advocacy on his behalf. He was as confident in his demeanor as he was inappropriate in his requests and language.

Jim was eager for advocacy. But, in retrospect, I wonder if he would have appreciated or sought my involvement in opposition to his position, goal, and outcome? I suspect not. It is likely that Jim would have been apoplectic and worse if some judge had taken the opposite side in his dispute. I did not raise that hypothetical with Jim, as convincing as it might have been with a rational person. I did not raise it, because Jim was not rational, reasonable, or even listening.

Therein lies the fallacy of Jim's call. His emotionally charged and illogical approach was unlikely to ever move his cause with any rational listener. His unwillingness to listen was going to prevent Jim from ever gleaning knowledge or better understanding. His approach was insulting, bullying, and ineffective.

I am glad that this call was an anomaly in my life. I am sorry for the litany of people who also had to endure contact with this fussy, illogical, and emotional Jim. In his approach and immaturity, however, lie lessons for the advocate.

First, be calm and collected when making an argument. Emotional, insulting, threatening tone, demeanor, or words will not be likely to move your issue.

Second, listen. That is not so hard. Listen. Someone might tell you something that could aid your comprehension. Someone might say something you can use.

Third, be careful with repetition. If you have a powerful fact, then there is perhaps power in repetition. If you have an accusation that lacks specificity or fact, repeating it incessantly will not be as likely to persuade.

Fourth, bring data. The litigation system is about disputes. To persuade and prevail, advocates must bring proof. This will rarely be your recitation of what someone told someone that they heard from someone. If triple hearsay is all you have, use it. But be wary that triple hearsay is not likely to get you home.

Fifth, be respectful. Always. The best lawyers I have ever seen responded to resistance, anger, or confrontation with calm. One I recall was so controlled that he persistently reacted with a softer voice, a slower cadence, and increased respect. I watched him eviscerate witnesses with that approach. They never seemed to realize how he had charmed them and used them. That lawyer won frequently. Not through anger and invective, but the opposite.

What a waste of time. Jim wasted my time and his own. He expended great emotion, slung allegations (irrelevancies), and repeated suggestions and innuendo. And he accomplished nothing. Perhaps he felt better; he may have expended his anger. Hopefully, his frustration with me softened his approach and impact on his next victim.

Advocacy has been referred to as an art. Those who would make a living from their art must practice it, hone it, and master it. That can be through reason and study, or through the difficult pathway of many mistakes, failures, and hard lessons. As you move to master your art, you choose your path. Choose wisely.

Go make all the mistakes yourself. Or, learn from Jim's mistakes and save yourself some heartache.

More Meet and Greet

I envy those people who can walk into a room and suddenly know everyone there. I have never been one of those people but instead a shrinking violet. Mingling and small talk have always been a challenge. You might think that the new world of virtual interaction would appeal to me as much as it does to the young of the twenty-first century (I do use my phone as much as they use theirs). But, I view virtual as a good fallback, not a primary option. It is better than nothing, but lots of things are.

That does not make fallbacks our choice (think unsweet tea, still tea but just not the same). Go up north sometime and try ordering unsweet. They look at you like you are nuts (they only have unsweet, to them that is "tea" and they cannot fathom your confusion).

There are lots of opportunities in this world for interaction, but too many of them lately are virtual. There is an analogy to human relations. In his famous comic strip, Watterson portrays a conversation of adults surrounding Calvin and Hobbes. For the uninitiated, Hobbes is a stuffed tiger unto which Calvin projects personality and humor. One of the adults questions “Didn’t you ever have an imaginary friend?“ The other adult assures “Sometimes I think all my friends have been imaginary." Ouch.

That is reminiscent of the sentiments people have expressed about Facebook, something to the point of "if you have 150,000 Facebook friends, that is the equivalent of no friends."

Let's get back together!

Let's get in the same room (or hallway as we did at the WCI in August). The Workers' Compensation Section of The Florida Bar is pushing us to get back in person. This is good for us. This is even better for the young lawyers who are not reminiscing about the old days of social interaction. We need to meet them, mentor them, and pass this community on to them.

In-person is different. There is an efficiency, and efficacy, that comes from being in the same room. People who may be too shy to jump in in a virtual setting, reticent, because of the absence of social cues, may very well be willing to jump in when in person. They may be willing to linger, able to catch your eye, give a slight head of the nod, or other subtlety; they might initiate a conversation that they simply are not comfortable with in the virtual world.

No offense, I just rarely gain traction or knowledge from meetings generally. That said, despite my fail shyness, fatal, I do enjoy a good conversation. I really enjoy a good conversation about something I understand (a very short menu), but enjoy conversations about a vast array of topics. I enjoy human interaction. Frankly, the one thing about my job that I actually love is the opportunity to listen to people tell me their perceptions, constraints, challenges, solutions, and suggestions.

This is been a long-winded path to a simple truth. The chairs of the Worker’s Compensation section of the Florida bar made it a mission over the last 10 months to encourage this community to come together in a more interpersonal manner. It started with a roundtable luncheon in Orlando in December 2022 and proceeded to similar events in Jacksonville, Fort Myers, and Tampa. All the while, we admitted that the great east coast was being temporarily and generally deferred. That is over!

On October 4, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., Mr. Longo, myself, various judges, and others will be present at the Fort Lauderdale district office for a meet and greet. This will be an opportunity to share company, ask questions, collect information, and celebrate community.

On October 26, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. we will be at the Tallahassee district office doing the same thing.

I am so glad to see us getting into these other communities. Let's talk, let's commiserate, let's hear from you! There is no cost, no speeches, no homework. Come and gather with us and tune up your workers' compensation community connections. I will be the shy guy in the corner without a nametag.

Superlative of Note

There are a great many superlatives. We each likely became aware of them in those terms back in high school. The ballotting was intense for such descriptions as "most likely to succeed" and "class clown" or "cutest couple." The yearbooks of yesteryear are littered with those accolades. I remember a comedian once claiming to have been voted "most likely to." That is funny. In reality, it is likely many of us were that undetermined and unpredicted in those years. 

The news recently brought us a troubling superlative "most depressed." There has been a focus on the challenges of mental health. I have touched on mental health in The Latest AMA Guides and Psychiatric Impairment (September 2014), The United States of Xanax (July 2017), Risks for Attorneys (June 2019), Here We Go Again (February 2019), and Mental Health (September 2023). It is fair to say that emotional challenges are present in workers' compensation. Some would say they are becoming more forefront. 

But, US News reported that West Virginia has the "most depressed" county in America. The coverage makes clear that depression is widespread in this country. And, there are indications that it is getting more prevalent generally. But, the thoughts as regards Logan County, West Virginia are both intriguing and troubling. 

There is discussion in that article of the weather and references to the volume of sunshine that residents experience. There are mentions of the local labor market and the challenges caused by those who destroyed the coal mining industry. Yes, with each cause celeb, there will be victors and vanquished. The economics, lack of jobs, and perhaps even isolation at least bear mention. The overall health is described in terms of the persistence and prevalence of chronic illnesses there such as diabetes and obesity. Yes, they label obesity as a disease. See Disease or Choice (March 2023). 

This country is going to have to get over the failures of models past. See The BMI Conundrum (August 2022). There is room to consider that our population includes many body styles, shapes, and forms. I myself have experienced body issues. That is real, and Madison Avenue and others have rammed that down our collective gullet for many years. See I Know Victoria's Secret (Jax, 2022). That singer provides a stinging rebuke. Know this (whoever and wherever you are), You are not alone in body issues. 

That said, of the diseases (if you buy that label) that afflict us, this fat issue is likely the easiest to attack. Get up, get out, and walk today. Do 100 steps, and 101 tomorrow. If you walk one step further each day, by the end of the month you will be out of your neighborhood. By the end of next year, you could literally be half the person you used to be. And, every walker I know brags about the peace they experience getting out and walking daily. It is renewing and calming. 

But to the depression, the numbers are staggering. "An estimated 32% of adults in Logan County, West Virginia, have been diagnosed with depression." There are vast numbers of people who have symptoms or complaints, and yet they are not eager to obtain care. There are stigmas attached, and there is resistance. Many believe they can make it back to sufficiency and balance unassisted. That reticence is troubling. A population of people who will not seek any help. Know this, whoever and wherever you are, there are many who suffer in silence. You are not alone.

Those who will accept care are nonetheless disinclined from therapy with a psychiatrist. That may be in part due to the limited population of psychiatrists available. The article is clear that there are few providers in the therapy or counseling realms in that area. They celebrate some recent expansion of capacity but lament that the community has been slow on the uptake so far. 

The corollary is as troubling. Having gotten over the impediment of declining care, many seem to be interested instead in alternative care. They want a pill. They want Mama's Little Helper (Rolling Stones, Decca, 1966). Let us all just take a pill and the world will be right. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of following doctor's orders. I have no qualms with the pharmacy business. 

But, in a similar vein to all the masses who think that drugs are a magic bullet for weight loss, there are those who think a pill is a magic bullet for mental health challenges. But, as the article mentions, there are impacts on us from weather, activity level, and more. Is it possible that getting out in the sunshine for a walk might have an ancillary benefit for those with depression? Is it possible that diet, surroundings, and personal circumstances might matter to mental health? Could someone around you benefit merely from the opportunity to be heard, that chance to vent?

Yes, I know, it is hard. It is hard to get off the couch. It is hard to be seen walking down the street. I know. I have no form (I do run more smoothly than Phoebe Buffay, but not by much). Getting up and getting out is an everyday challenge. The most avid dread it, resist it, but everyone likes finishing that walk or run. There is accomplishment, endorphins, and more. Starting is hard, but finishing is great. 

How did this country get to such a feeling of depression? Where is this weight of circumstance from? Why are so many feeling emotional symptoms and yet so resistant to seeking any care? Who convinced us that the answer to every problem lies in some chemical habit? There are so many questions and unfortunately few competent attempts at answers. Mental health is a crisis of today. It is manifesting uniquely and is insidious. What are you doing to impact it?

If you are struggling with challenges and need help, dial 988. Remember September is Awareness Month (September 2022). If you are not, look around you and see if there are people who might benefit from a kind word, a little interaction, or a quick 15-minute walk on a coffee break. If you know someone who may need more, why not take a moment to speak with them about their feelings and the raft of resources that do exist, the treatment options that surround us?