Ignorance and Ambivalence

And I dictated this, it occurred to me what a brilliant invention it would be for someone to build a computer program that could actually recognize the words I’m using. Brilliant! The tribulations of dictating are well known and often funny. 

There was once a funny commercial that poked fun at voice recognition. Another is currently running in which the voice assistant and a GPS application confuse "the mall" for "Nepal." It is good that we can remain good-natured when tech so often is less than we are promised. Technology is neither perfect nor approaching it. 

That fallibility is perhaps what makes it most like us? 

Speaking of imperfect, there’s a frequent joke about the current state of legal practice. I wish it were fanciful, rather than descriptive. The hook is: "What is the difference between ignorance and Apathy?" You let that sit for a moment, and then the punchline resonates: "I don’t know and I don’t care." For the next gens, that is "IDK and IDC."

I have been privileged to work with some of the most brilliant minds in the country. I have had chances for interaction, discussion, and debate beyond the dreams of most. Unfortunately, there are periodic encounters with some who should instead swim in the shallow end of the pool. I am not saying they are not as smart as the best, but it is fair to say the quality of their work is not equivalent with the best. 

Nonetheless, I’ll get emails about that swipe regarding the shallow end, and perhaps I deserve it. But keep this in mind, I’m not making light of those who have diminished capacity. After all, I am discussing lawyers. These are individuals who possess the intellectual prowess to excel in high school, conquer college, and achieve success over the challenges of law school. 

Lawyers have to possess a significant degree of intellect, dedication, and persistence to reach bar membership. The education path is challenging, even today, when we hear of law schools that do not require writing, administer multiple choice tests, and even have classes where grades are not measured with either.  

Thus, I am forced in the conclusion that these are not ignorant or intellectually challenged individuals filing nonsensical, error-ridden documents. And therefore, I wonder why they cannot make a point. Why can't they cite a rule, statute, or decision? Why can't they acknowledge the suggestions of their own spell check?

In short, the quality of much that is filed recently is beyond disappointing. The volume of errors is astounding. The nature of the errors is disappointing. A lawyer who cannot distinguish "there," "their," and "they're." An attorney who cannot finish a . The many mispelings. 

The successful lawyer is representing the interests of their client. They are striving to resolve disputes in a manner that benefits the client. They have a plan, and there is purpose in each action they undertake. The successful lawyer is purposeful, methodical, articulate, and focused. They know how to use spell check. 

Step one with any lawyer action (motion, claim, defense) should be to tell the judge they should do something. If the issue is digging a hole, the lawyers first owes it to the judge to prove that they can dig. What authority does the judge have to dig (this is a great place to cite a statute, rule, or appellate decision). Every claim, defense, or motion should begin with a citation that assures the judge this place is somewhere they are permitted to dig.

Having demonstrated that they can dig here, the lawyer should next tell the judge why they should dig here. That one can does not mean one should. There are many things any human can do, but are they appropriate? Does the timing, location, or audience matter? Of course. The advocate must demonstrate why their sought action is appropriate here, in this case. 

The final step is about the moment. Why now? Even if what you advocate is an appropriate step, and this is the right place, is this the right time? What says so? Certainly, this is a question upon which a rule, statute, or prior decision might be informative or even illuminating. 

The purpose of a claim is to obtain something. The purpose of a defense is to avoid providing something. The purpose of a motion is to gain judicial involvement in your dispute. The purpose of a response is to resist or restrain that involvement. This is very basic stuff. 

Every claim, defense, motion, or response should address these points: Can the judge do this? Why should the judge do this? Why is this the right time to do this?

Unfortunately, many advocates instead focus on only one thing: "what I want." Like Morgan Wallen and Tate McRae (What I want, 2025) "That's what I want, that's what I want." You can repeat that chorus more ad nauseum than those two singing, but it still just describes desire, not persuasiveness. Saying what you want is easy. 

The lawyers who just "want," express only that, a visceral or emotional desire. They see something and they desire it. They apply no intellect to the why or how, and simply seek the "it." Their arguments and foundations are vacuous and empty. As a result, they are unpersuasive. 

There is nothing wrong, per se, with “I want." Every human has wants. But just wanting is not enough. So what? I want one million dollars, please send it. 

The workers' compensation practice is small. Very few are invested in the litigation of workers' compensation claims. Among them are intellectual giants, imaginative icons, and outstanding advocates. That group, however, is small and seemingly shrinking. 

Judges across the country convey to me their amused and confused silence when seeming members of the "fail army" prognosticate and participate in the "I want." Their pontifications, musings, and wanderings are not effective. They are disappointing and disaffecting. 

The members of the fail army apparently do not see themselves in that light. Their self-perception is of exceptionalism and infinite skill. They achieve accidental success and proclaim their superiority. They fail to see that they prevailed not through exceptional skill or prowess or because they are extraordinary. They succeed because their poor performance was nonetheless some measure above the even less effective effort(s) of their opponent.

The fact is that winning any contest does not mean you are the best athlete in that sport. It means merely that you are better than your opponent in that particular game, that day. If you beat me in a foot race, you cannot claim on that sole basis to be "fast," just faster than me.

There is lamentation. Judges see poor performance, incomprehensible pleadings, and unsupported arguments, claims, and defenses. They struggle with the merits of your filings, the absence of citations (rule, statute, cases). They do their own research and struggle with the potential that your bare argument might somehow have merit., unarticulated and vague, but merit.

They issue orders you do not like. Not because your arguments lack merit, but because you chose not to be articulate, thorough, persuasive, and professional. 

Do you not know, or simply not care? Are you a professional or a candidate for the "fail army?" Is your reputation of focus, attention, and detail or of confusion, indecision, and indifference?

Be more:

1. Can the judge do as you wish (jurisdiction).
2. Should the judge do so (why here?).
3. Is this the right time (why now?).

The answers are reasonably simple. Take the time to know. Do your research, read rules, statutes, and decisional law. Ignorance is no path to success. 

Care about the outcome. If the claim, defense, or motion is worth filing, it is worth doing it right. 

The difference between ignorance and ambivalence? Does it really matter whether you failed because you don't know or because you don't care? What matters is that you failed because of either. 

Evolving Morality

There is an intriguing debate in this world regarding the sanctity of life. In the vast array of rights, we see persistent weighting and balancing between the various people and rights that strive to coexist on this planet. There are many different people, perspectives, and legalities. 

The British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, recently reported on a California man who concluded that he had reached his end. Under a reasonably recent state law, he was attended by a modern-day Dr. Kevorkian and committed suicide with the support and acceptance of his family. The story was covered by the BBC because Britain is now considering legalizing suicide. 

One cannot fault the focus of the story, a man named Wayne Hawkins. He was 80 years old when he drank "a drug-laced cup of juice and drifted off to an eternal slumber." Wayne was happily married for fifty years and the father of two. He spent his life in architecture and his spare time camping, hiking, and raising a family. 

He was diagnosed with a terminal heart condition and handed a death sentence. The physicians prognosticated that he would have less than 6 months to live. In the meantime, he would suffer pain and symptoms from other conditions, "including prostate cancer, liver failure, and sepsis." From any perspective, this was a reasonably bleak outlook.  

Wayne departed this life in compliance with California law. He planned for it, personally obtaining the cocktail of drugs in advance. The story notes that if the plan passes in Great Britain, the attending physician will be responsible for bringing the drugs to the patient. Semantics. Wayne consumed the poison with his own hand, surrounded by family. 

Wayne's was a choice. It impacted others. Not directly, he did not kill anyone else, but it affected others. This included family, friends, and those tasked with assisting him. To accomplish his death, he had to convince "the attending physician" and then "a second doctor." Those doctors may never reflect on their involvement. And yet. 

Most doctors in America recite the Hippocratic Oath. It remains a thing after centuries. Notably, it is not today as it began, and has been "rewritten often to suit the values of different cultures." It is frequently referred to almost reverently as providing doctors should "first do no harm," but those words are not included. 

It does say the physician will "benefit my patients," and "will do no harm or injustice to them." There appears some subjectivity to both benefit and harm. It is in those perspective disparities that discussion and debate persist.  

Death might be viewed as harm. There is a perspective for the terminally ill that the resulting relief of death might instead be a benefit. The Oath also commits "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked." The California law requires the patient to do the poisoning. The Oath continues "nor will I advise such a plan," and "will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." 

However, the "modern version" of the Oath is a little less clear on the "lethal drug," and instead focuses on the patient, "a sick human being," and the impacts of illness, both personal and familial. It stresses "that there is art to medicine as well as science." And, notably, the physician must "tread with care in matters of life and death," understand "awesome  responsibility," and "not play at God."

It is fair to say the modern Oath is less definitive than the original.  

There is a significant dignity and power in making such a choice. I have watched many suffer, endure, and eventually pass. I have known some who refused nourishment, knowing that food was sustaining them, but who recognized their choice was a departure from their pain and suffering. They did that without the assistance of any physician. There have been instances when others engaged more actively. Refusal of nourishment does not seem to raise the emotions like assisted suicide does. 

It must always be difficult watching those you love suffer. Whose call should it be regarding their end? What criteria would be engaged? How is the interest of society balanced with that of the individual? That is a persistent friction in various examples beyond this topic. One interesting perspective on this was voiced by a Canadian physician about such decisions by those with emotional challenges; it is actually titled First do no Harm.

The self-controlled end idea reportedly began in Switzerland in 1942, according to Reuters. Their process sounds quite simple, and is subject to the singular constraint that "the motive is not selfish." It is difficult to imagine engaging a standard that is more undefined and vague. It is noteworthy, however,  that the debate is not recent.

There are opponents to free will in the present British debate. They argue that when suicide is condoned in any form or setting, the practice will increase in broader populations. The limited requirement that is being legislated there, is that death is expected within 6 months. The opponents fear this will slide to 1 year, then two, and eventually, no requirement. This is perhaps a reference to Belgium's law, which is characterized as "the world's most liberal law on physician-assisted suicide." 

In Belgium, the patient must meet only two criteria. They must be in "constant and unbearable suffering - either mental or physical - and their condition is incurable." Once these are met, the patient must put in writing "I want euthanasia," and sign it. Thus, there are fewer hurdles in Belgium, but the patient is not allowed to self-administer. In Belgium, the doctor has to do the killing - with a pain narcotic followed by a barbiturate. That is an intriguing distinction, Hippocratically and without the Oath's modernity.   

Canada also makes euthanasia available to "patients with psychiatric illness who find their conditions unbearable." The Psychiatric Times reports that this is available in "Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg." There is no requirement in Canada for "a terminal condition." And if there were, some contend that is not so strenuous because "life is a terminal illness." 

According to Reuters, 10 of the United States allow suicide, as do Australia, France, Germany, and Spain (as well as the other countries mentioned above). There are various definitional and process differences, but this is an apparent trend in industrialized nations. The right of self-determination is being given some deference in its relationship with societal interest in preventing death. 

The potential for a "slippery slope" is apparent. The potential that someone may make a less-than-informed, yet utterly permanent, decision is readily apparent. The potential for people who suffer psychological stress to make spontaneous, permanent decisions in reaction to their present moment is also apparent. 

But, is legality any real measure? If someone elects suicide in this manner, there is control and precision. When one lacks this legal avenue, is there nonetheless the chance for electing suicide but in a manner that is more dangerous for others, more painful, and more subject to error or failure? 

The Telegraph reports that doctors helped more than 30,000 people die" in 2023. Will Britain join the cohort? The World Health Organization (WHO) says "every year 727,000 people take their own life" and more try unsuccessfully. They say it is the "leading cause of death among 15-29 year-olds globally." That volume, alone, is sobering. 

The WHO characterizes this as a "global phenomenon," a "serious public health problem," and one that might be addressed with a "comprehensive multisectoral suicide prevention strategy." The National Institute of Health posture is similar. And thus, there is advocacy for both restraining and enabling. 

The British continue to debate, with a focus on England and Wales, with a "separate assisted dying bill" under consideration in Scotland. The proposals strive to define, delimit, and describe. The implications seem challenging from any perspective, and the debate there will be interesting. Will its outcome be a harbinger for further evolution or debate elsewhere?

The issues will continue to challenge the involvement of medical professionals, morals, legality, and society generally. It is a topic worthy of attention and discussion. 

Note: If you’re in emotional distress, there are options available to help you. You can also contact the 988 Lifeline at any time to connect with a skilled, caring counselor and get support. Confidential support is available 24/7 for everyone in the United States and its territories. For more on this hotline see September is Awareness Month (September 2022).