Justice Delayed?

I have written and spoken repeatedly about the challenge of being a Florida Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). There are deadlines, workload challenges, legal complexities, and more. It is not an easy job by any estimation. As I have studied adjudication and the many American systems, I long ago concluded that no judge is subject to more scrutiny and deadlines than the Florida JCC.

This stems largely from section 440.25, with time parameters for mandatory mediation, pretrial, and final hearings. The primary concerns are mediation within 130 days and trial within 210. Much can influence those, including delays in care, challenges in discovery, and more. The requirement of a trial order within 30 days is shorter, but more in the judge's control. Those timelines are exceeded periodically in a particular case, but overall, the averages are attainable.

Too few today remember the old days. In the 1990s, it was not uncommon to wait a year or more after trial. When the judge eventually ruled, it was no order. Instead, the judges sent out "ruling letters" explaining in little detail why a party prevailed. This instructed one of the parties to draft a proposed order. Some judges even instructed the non-prevailing party to collaborate in drafting an order adverse to their interests. It was a confusing time, and one in which delay was systemic, lamentable, but simply accepted.

I am reminded of timeliness each year as I prepare the OJCC Annual Report. This examines the statutory parameters above. But in the report season, I ran across a story on WSAV (Savannah) regarding a County Judge who is defending a Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint about tardiness. He is "answering questions about why he isn’t ruling on cases quickly, if at all." The first of those is troubling, but the "if at all" is disturbing.

A "10-count" complaint alleges that Judge Tom Bordeaux

"did not handle a dozen or more cases in a timely manner, cases that took years to come to a conclusion with some still outstanding due to Bordeaux’ inaction."

To his credit, the judge has acknowledged the facts. He repeatedly testified, “I dropped the ball on this one. I readily admit that." His diligence and timeliness have been called into question. More recently, that has been in this complaint, but lawyers noted that they have previously engaged with phone calls, letters, and even pleadings filed.

The judge claims that "overwhelming workload" and the pandemic contribute to his timeliness. He also explains that his rulings are detailed and therefore require significant time to prepare. He says, "That’s why one of the reasons why I write so much, a novel type order is not new, but it is wordy."

The fact is that no order requires more than 30 days to prepare, proof, and publish. I have served now for almost 25 years, and I have written hundreds of trial orders. Some of those were short, but some exceeded 100 pages. I have reviewed trial records that were thousands of pages (one stack of records exceeded thirty inches). 

Any judge can issue timely orders. The challenge is never with can or can not, but is will or will not. Timeliness is a choice. Judge Bordeaux was asked how he will rectify the delays in his work, that is "improve." He said he cannot ensure that delays will not persist, but he "can try and make it better."

Judge Bordeaux testified that more budget, more staff, and a "full-time associate judge" might help with the delays. Having someone else to do your work for you will almost always help your workload, but the other person may be as unproductive as you are.

The article concludes with his commitment to not seek another term in 2028, when he will be 74 years old. William Gladstone is credited with "Justice delayed is justice denied." Many a party in the 1990s, Florida workers' compensation learned that. There were those who waited years for a decision and often settled out of pure, unadulterated frustration.

No, the simple fact is that if workload and volume are the issue, then all judges in a system would demonstrate the same delays and disappointments. When a single judge is an outlier example, there is reason for concern. It is appropriate that the Georgia system is conducting an inquiry. 

That the orders are late matters. Why the orders are late may matter. But critically, the attorneys and the public deserve to know both the what and the why. The judge is first a public servant, and performance must be effective, efficient, and timely. 

Even the Experts

The "Godfather of AI" has been on these pages before. See X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024). That post is about the British computer scientist who has spearheaded the intelligent things movement, which is generalized with the label "artificial intelligence." Last year, he was warning that humanity was not ready for "what is coming," and frankly, that we do not understand it. Some of us are striving to.

Recently, I have posted about the economics that impact us all. See Opportunity Cost (October 2025), Utopia is not Coming (October 2025), but that is a central theme of medical care delivery, business operations, and more. See It's Simple Economics (March 2021), How will you take your profit? (February 2014).

As an aside, there is no such thing as "simple economics." The world we live in is a vastly complex conglomeration of competing interests, priorities, and influences. There are various pressures on economic activity, drivers of both supply and demand, and they are all in a matrix. This was recently illustrated by comments of the Chair of the Federal Reserve, discussing experience and indicators.

Yahoo Finance recently reran a Fortune story in which Jerome Powell discusses layoffs and the American job market. These are factors intertwined with the larger picture of monetary policy, debt, and money supply. All very heady stuff. There are varied beliefs about the Federal Reserve, the supply of money, and the national interest. I leave that to your own research and conclusions.

But Powell focused on workforce demand, layoffs, and the near-zero increase in job availability. The labor market is tight. Despite that, he noted, consumer spending is still holding up and "inflation remains elevated ... even as hiring slows." He sees a conundrum for the money supply (Fed interest rate) debate.

He says that "AI and automation are boosting output," and that means economic growth. But, with AI and robotics, this is occurring "with fewer workers, leaving the labor market softer even while GDP stays positive." So, the inflation says money should be tightened (raise interest) and the lower employment supports lower interest rates, which would stimulate spending and perhaps investment in business expansion (hiring).

This is critical because it illustrates that the expected paradigms can be changed in a fundamental way by the application of technology. Though that may seem a revelation, I would suggest the same was true in each of the four industrial revolutions (yes, your high school history teacher shortchanged you when they said there was "an" industrial revolution).

AI and robotics are currently shifting the economic curves, with increased production and diminished labor. For a simple illustration, the same expansion/contraction paradox occurred when tractors appeared on family farms. Productivity was simpler and therefore increased, and fewer farmhands were needed/hired.

But, returning to the "Godfather," Fortune reports he has "doubled down" on his premonitions regarding AI. He contends there are two ways to profit from AI, and those are selling subscriptions to those who want to use the tools and decreasing labor costs as a result of increasingly proficient and efficient workers.

He acknowledges that this is not new, accepting that "some economists point out previous disruptive technologies." Nonetheless, he believes that the changes in labor will be "massive job replacement by AI," as that is the side of his analysis that promises the most pervasive and intensive economic opportunities. Said differently, there is more money to be made in using AI than in selling AI tools.

Therefore, Hinton perceives the current AI spending boom as driving the economy at least near term. The longer term, from his perspective, is clearly and certainly going to bring job and even profession destruction, decreased demand for human input, and AI will "replace human labor" in a variety of ways.

This is likely to start with the entry level, but is unlikely to remain there. Entry-level job openings have decreased "roughly 30%" in recent years, "since OpenAI launched ChatGPT." He sees these as socital challenges, business challenges, and human challenges.

To make the equation more complex, there are human challenges like the birthrate. See Approaches to Data (May 1028). Birthrates in many countries are dropping. There are nations that are essentially shrinking while others are growing (in comparing birth and death rates). Complicating that is the legal migration between countries and the illegal incursion over national borders.

Thus, each person will face their own challenges of employment, finance, growth, and progress/prosperity. Various vocations and engagements will fluctuate. Nations will struggle individually with shifting economics, influences, impacts, and effects. In short, the most likely answer to almost any economic question will remain "it depends."

There will be an end to jobs in the buggy whip industry. It's Just a Question of When (March 2025). There will be opportunities in the data center industry. There will be a mixture of workplace and occupation evolutions, revolutions, dissolutions, and innovations in a spectrum in between.

The economy and your place in it will likely be less predictable than your parents'. But remember, theirs was likely less predictable and stable than your grandparents. Historically, there were entire generations who persisted on a family farm or worked in a particular industry, company, or even factory.

Change is not new. Unpredictability is not novel. The pace of change is increasing. The challenges will confront us all. Expert paradigms will be reconsidered, past bedrocks will be reexamined, and assumptions will be as analyzed as new revelations. The best and brightest will no more "know" the future than the rest of us. 

Hinton says that the change is really deeper; it is about societal organization. Nonetheless, collectively and individually, outcomes will depend on attitude, engagement, and persistence. And you get to choose your own. 

Did they WARN You?

There is anecdotal evidence accumulating that the world of work may be evolving. Business Insider recently ran a series focused on people engaged in work searches. There is a focus on the tech industry, with this particular example highlighting layoffs at Microsoft. 

That said, search "news layoff" and you will find Paramount, Amazon, General Motors, and more. The fact is that layoffs are happening. To persevere, identify your strengths, remain in contact with your connections, and focus on the horizon. How is your position postured for the changes that are coming? Do you do something a computer cannot?

This is not new. People have faced financial and survival struggles since the beginning of time. See Yesterday (November 2025). People have moved from locations, industries, and occupations. There has been a singular constant in all of human industry. That it is not new is likely of little comfort, but it should be. Look at all those who persevered, succeeded, and thrived. 

The Business Insider article asserts that the publication "has heard from dozens of tech workers about how corporate strategy shifts, layoffs, and hiring slowdowns have affected their careers." The example there is a younger worker who was laid off in May 2025. He received the word by email while "on leave for a personal health issue." His described efforts since are noteworthy and admirable, yet unsuccessful.  

The employee describes extensive networking efforts on social media, various offers of assistance, multiple job interviews, and yet continued struggles. With his home lease expiring, he is contemplating relocating across the country to live with family. In a refrain not uncommon in workplace injury, the employee notes, "rent is expensive." As an aside, few workers are financially prepared for the impact of a lost-time work injury. 

Coincidentally, the CEO of Klarna was featured in Fortune recently. This article acknowledges that various CEOs are "ringing the alarm bells that artificial intelligence could threaten millions of jobs around the world." While he feels this is apparent, the Klarna CEO is accusing his peers of "sugarcoating the truth."

Acknowledging that there will be new jobs related to AI, his contention is that in the short term, there will be more jobs lost than gained. He points to Brussels, Belgium, as a dire example. He says that there, "thousands of people still work as translators, a job he says can already largely be done by AI." He argues that those jobs, and similar ones, will be among the first to disappear.

Despite challenges with AI, and the customer response to interaction with a virtual "OpenAI-powered customer service chatbot," Klarna has "slowed hiring and reduced its employee base from 7,400 to 3,000" (-60%) through the adoption of technology. The change has been reflected in earnings and the financial returns that attract investors.

Too often, in my teaching experiences, I encounter young people who perceive the purpose of business in a new-world perspective of social responsibility. They lament that companies care about making money and are perceived by the students as less interested in the needs and interests of workers.

I remind without apology: the purpose of business is to make money. The business exists to make money. Starting and running a business involves risk (blood, sweat, tears, and lots of sleepless nights). Those who do this risk their capital to create a good or service in hopes of selling it to a consumer and making a profit. Some succeed and become affluent, while others fail and lose it all. Make no mistake, the purpose and challenge of the business is to create, sell, and profit.

That often requires human engagement. People are hired to produce the good or service, to market it, distribute it, repair it, and across the board to manage others engaged in the process. Each represents a cost to the production, a cost that is included in the process. The elimination or reduction in any cost has the potential to increase the company's profit and, therefore, distribution to the owners (those whose capital is at risk in the enterprise).

Who are the capitalists that invest? They are largely me and you. We have our 401 plans, individual retirement accounts, payroll savings plans, pensions, 529 plans, and more. We are all investing in business, and we hope they are profitable, grow, and succeed. As they prosper, so does our nest egg. 

Returning to the employee, their involvement is multifaceted. Among their costs are employee payroll of course. But there are additional considerations. Each employee also represents costs for benefits offered to attract employees, such as health insurance, retirement plans, workplace enhancements (snacks, drinks, etc.), and more.

There are also a variety of non-optional costs that the government mandates, such as employer contribution taxes. While each employee pays about 7.5% of their income in FICA (social security and Medicare), the employer usually matches that. The employer pays for unemployment compensation insurance, workers' compensation, and more.

Employers who hire workers face these expenses. In addition, employers who downsize employment also face expenses related to severance packages, advance notification regarding layoffs, and various documentation and transition expenses related to these government programs. See the WARN Act and similar. 

Each of those expenses, from the free drinks in the breakroom to the severance packages for employees, is part of the price for that company's goods or services. Each is a component of what you, the consumer, pay for what that company produces. You, the consumer, bear the expenses as they are built into the price of what is consumed in the company's effort to generate a profit for its owners (also likely you).

This will be the driver now and in the days to come. I know a physician who is followed room to room by a typist/assistant (Medical Scribe), but now there is an app for that. There are many translators, but now also many apps. There are many chatbots, customer service tools, and more that are replacing humans. This evolution is not new; see AI and the Latest (June 2023).

The threat is real, but so is the promise. There will be challenges for job seekers (there always have been). There will be disappointments and false starts (ditto). There will be winners and losers (ditto). This is not news, it is not new, and we will all find a path to the other side. Some will be more challenging; some will be more painful. But we will all find a path. 

What are you waiting for?

One of the catchiest earworms recently has been Sofia Camara and her What are you waiting for (Universal Canada, 2024). It is likely about relationships and love, as with most pop music. Despite those persistent themes, I hear different messages in lyrics, and I find her lyrics compelling:

You know you gotta give it your all

And don't be afraid if you fall

You're only livin' once, so tell me

What are you, what are you waiting for?

On one of my long morning walks recently, this streamed. At the moment, I was coincidentally ruminating on some recent conversations about being a judge. The fact is that I am getting long in the tooth, and the day approaches when someone new will need to take on my role. As I peer about me, I realize that it is true for many judges, law firm owners, and long-time practitioners.

This is nothing new. Certainly, some pursue judicial jobs in their youth; I did. Those who do may find a career on the bench, reach their 30 years, and retire. 

But many see the judicial role as a way to give back to a system in which they have long grown, evolved, and prospered. They apply after many years and often storied careers in practice. The examples are easy to spot, such as Hon. Stephen Rosen, who came to the bench in 2010, after 36 years of practice, and spent a decade on the bench before retiring. These "capstone" examples are admirable.

That said, there is merit in a bench that includes multiple perspectives, and youth is one of those. I remember when I bought into electronic filing 20 years ago. I was met with incredulity, animosity, and ridicule. Most of that did not come from my generational peers but from the last generation, some of whom were threatened, challenged, and anxious about such a foundational change.

The upshot of all of this is my periodic conversations with lawyers in both the "give back" and the career mindsets. They are interested in exploring this role, curious, and yet cautious.

One recently expressed self-doubt, essentially: "I don't know if I would be good at it." That has bothered me and was perhaps why I was ruminating on my recent walk; "what are you waiting for?"

In an old movie, All the Right Stuff (Warner Brothers, 1983), Dennis Quaid portrayed Gordon Cooper, one of America's first astronauts. The movie presents two story lines in parallel narrative: the astronauts on one and the test pilots on the other. All were young, daring, and larger than life. The astronauts got lots of press, but the test pilots also made much history; they just did it a bit more quietly.

There is a scene in the movie when a reporter asks Astronaut Cooper, "Who's the best pilot you ever saw?" There is some poignancy to the scene. Cooper is initially introspective and ponderous seeming to think, reflect, and reference Chuck Yeager, one of the test pilots. But the press was persistent, impatient, and pressing. They seemed to want a quick soundbite.

Cooper senses that he is losing the reporter's attention and reiterates the question:

"Who was the best pilot I ever saw? Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im."

Everyone in the litigation business likely has someone, similarly, that they admire, respect, and even emulate. Judges are not different. If you asked them, "Who was the best judge you ever saw?" you might get their rumination and reflection. They might start to tell you some anecdote or name a name. Or, you might get "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er).

The reader will likely be surprised that I think the second one is the best answer. Whoever has the bench at the moment, whatever their failings and faults, should honestly believe, "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er).

I do not suggest or support pomposity or hubris. I am not in favor of, or advocating for, self-delusion or conceit. But I am suggesting that there is a real path that can readily lead to the conclusion "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er). And that path is not about ignoring those you admire, respect, and emulate.

The path to honestly and accurately making that statement is simple—do not believe it. That seems a riddle, but read on. The "best judge" is the one who internally harbors self-doubt. It is the judge who learns every day and considers perspectives and perceptions carefully and intellectually.

The judge who knows in their heart that they are not yet "the best judge I ever saw" is, in fact, the person we need on the bench. They will listen carefully, ponder arduously, and struggle with arguments, interpretations, statutes, rules, and precedent. The judge who questions themself and strives each day to be better than the day before—that is the best judge I ever saw.

Back to Sofia Camara, in a nutshell:

You know you gotta give it your all

And don't be afraid if you fall

You're only livin' once, so tell me

What are you, what are you waiting for?

If you doubt yourself, I think you are exactly what is needed. Bring it, and let's perpetuate the Florida OJCC and all of its success over these last many years. I encourage you to think of this job, as I see retirements on the horizon. Whether you are young or old (for real or at heart), consider it. 

Judge Roesch used to say, "This is the best job I ever had." Judge Farrell used to say he would do this job for free. Judge Dietz had similar ruminations and thoughts. The fact is that it is hard to find any JCC that does not enjoy the work, appreciate the challenge, and welcome the role. Consider it. 

Caught with Trousers Down

I have written about some untoward judicial behavior over the years. There are those who take a Pirates of the Caribbean (Disney 2003) approach to regulations and the Code of Judicial Conduct ("the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.").

Remember the judges who had drinks, hit a strip club, spewed profanities, and ended up getting shot in a fast-food parking lot? But there have been several who made the news for allegations of drinking and driving.

All of these are discussed and linked in Appearances (October 2025). Other recent examples of the perils of alcohol for judges are in Adjectives and Appearances (June 2024), A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025), and the posts linked there. Alcohol and inebriation can be troublesome for any professional, including lawyers, doctors, and more. But it is reasonably likely a judge facing such accusations will make the news.

One recent example involved body-cam footage. I have repeatedly suggested that we are all under near-constant surveillance. See

Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021). The judge in this recent example was allegedly caught on body-camera "urinating in the street," according to FOX 10.

This was not on some dark country road in some isolated urgency. There are a few parts of the world where finding a toilet in the dark may be a real challenge. No, the allegations are that the police happened upon "the moment the woman had just pulled up her pants, and was sitting on a bench, face to face with ... police" at 01:30.

This was allegedly a few steps from the "courthouse plaza" in which Judge Pro Tempore Kristyne Schaaf-Olson regularly presided. As the officer strove to identify the urinating lady (who apparently was also gastronomically unwell), the judge's spouse interceded with the "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" defense.

The news article includes the video, "obtained from an anonymous source," and a Google map to illustrate where the circumstances occurred.

The police apparently chose their eyes and their body cam footage over the (also public employee) spouse's protestations of innocence. The spouse ended up arrested, and the judge merely cited. This, despite the judge's clear protestations on the video emphasizing her "Judge" title. 

As an aside, stressing your job title will likely do little more than attract the press. And, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, precludes the "I'm a judge" pronouncement for personal gain or advantage. This is periodically called "playing the judge card," and it is inappropriate and indecorous. 

In the judge's defense, following the October 4, 2025, arrest, she apparently self-reported later that day (Saturday), "accepted full responsibility" and submitted a "resignation on Monday, October 6." Though the news report suggests an investigation by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct remained pending, the resignation likely divested that of jurisdiction.

The lessons here are reasonably simple. First, little good happens after midnight. Second, drinking in public may lead to decreased inhibitions, poor decisions, and untoward outcomes. Third, surveillance cameras are everywhere. Fourth, getting caught with your trousers down is embarrassing at best. Fifth, playing the judge card is a universally poor idea. Sixth, interfering with the police may lead to your arrest. 

And, finally, there are honorable paths out of errors and mistakes. The judge was appropriate in (1) self-reporting immediately, (2) resigning from office, and (3) focusing on the needs of the public and the court in the process. 

The situation is troubling, but it could be worse. More recently, the "chief judge of (Iowa's) Second Judicial District" was arrested in a scene that might sound to some like a Hollywood script. Headline USA reported that the chief judge is accused of driving "the wrong way on a highway Tuesday night while passed out behind the wheel." Urinating in the street is unsanitary, but it is less dangerous than operating a vehicle.

A Tech Example from Ancient History (the 90s)

This article is about artificial intelligence and trust. That will require some patience, as the first half deals mostly with a challenge of a bygone, analog, age. But that foundation is necessary.

Early in my career, there was a volume of injured workers who alleged entitlement to a stream of benefits defined in the workers' compensation law. Some were measured in weeks or months, but permanent total disability was a stream that extended for years. In order to place a reserve value on those cases, the lawyer had to evaluate both the probability of an award of such benefits and the present value of the stream.

Present value was a term that I came to the practice already understanding. The idea is that the "cost" of paying someone $400 today is different than the cost of paying them $400 in 20 years. If I agree to pay you $400 tomorrow, that costs me $400. but if I am to pay you $400 on October 1, 2045, I can invest some money today and it will earn interest for years before I have to pay you that money.

It is important, therefore, to know the interest rate. And that is somewhat unpredictable. Sure, there are financial vehicles that may provide that predictability. A good example would be a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. The day I wrote this post, that rate was 6%. The Internet told me that to make that payment in 30 years, I would need to invest "approximately $121.91 today."

That is the "present value" of that single $400 payment in the future. This seems relatively simple. However, if that $400 is one of a series of payments over the lifetime of an injured worker, then we also need to know the investment necessary for the $400 payment before that, and the one after that, and all the others.

Added to this complexity, the amount due for permanent total disability to a Florida injured worker is not constant ($400), but will usually increase annually. That increase is not always true, because certain maximum constraints might apply. Those constraints for this year are known, but can only be guessed at for tomorrow and for October 2045.

Therefore, as a young lawyer, I was faced with a series of challenging calculations, and there was great debate in the practice as to the appropriate assumptions (interest rate, life expectancy, and maximum rates) that had to be agreed upon. Then, various repetitive calculations would lead you to a present value of the benefit stream.

Under the statute, in some years, the interest rate was stated, 4% or 8%. Obviously, if you can earn 8% on the money, less is needed than if you can earn only 4%. For that example of $400 on October 1, 2045, according to Claude.ai, that difference means either

At 4% interest: PV = $400 / (1.04)^20.06 = $400 / 2.208 = $181.16

At 6% interest: PV = $400 / (1.06)^20.06 = $400 / 3.281 = $121.91

At 8% interest: PV = $400 / (1.08)^20.06 = $400 / 4.953 = $80.76

The reader will likely be asking what this has to do with artificial intelligence, but the foregoing quotes are illustrative. AI calculated those values almost instantly. Because they are relatively simple (one payment, fixed value, and known term), we could do so long-hand.

As an aside, some will find it curious that a statute would mandate the rate used in such a calculation. That represented a legislative conclusion that such rates were available to the injured worker so that they could invest their settlement and earn that return over time, replacing the actual value that would have been paid in periodic benefits, had the case not been settled.

Suffice it to say that calculating and predicting such a present value was tedious. It was slightly less so with a handy program like Lotus 123, Quattro Pro, or Excel. The spreadsheet made replication of discrete calculations far simpler and faster. Keep in mind that those tools were not intuitive; we spent many hours learning to use them.

But then came the entrepreneurs. By the early 1990s, several of them were marketing calculator programs (think of it like an "app"). Those programs did the math for you. There were inputs for known facts such as the worker's average weekly wage, the date of accident, the birth date (for life expectancy), and the interest rate. Those plug-ins resulted in a straightforward prediction of present value.

Unfortunately, each of the programs tended to yield different results from identical input data. Sometimes those distinctions were markedly different, and consistently so. One program tended to predict a higher value, another usually a lower. There were then arguments as to what assumptions were input, and what assumptions the program made about other variables, such as the predicted maximum compensation rate in future years that might limit the overall value stream.

The fact that programs yielded different outcomes sewed the seeds of distrust. Despite having a program at my disposal, I still spent hours manually calculating the present value of future benefit streams in order to advise clients and strategize about reserves and appropriate settlement values.

We tried the various calculator programs. We test-drove them, compared results, and did the manual work as an acid test. In time, we gained comfort. Not so much in the absolute inviolability of a particular program's output, but in our faith that this or that program produced results that were or were not reasonably valid based on our acid test manual calculations.

We came in time to believe one program or another was the most likely to be close to the correct number. This did not alleviate the arguments. The attorneys who represented injured workers tended to prefer the output that was predictably highest, and many defense attorneys preferred the lowest output. Others were more academically focused, but everyone had a preference.

The point of this post about artificial intelligence is that we all became more efficient. For a period, when those programs first appeared, we did both manual and computer calculations (with spreadsheets). Then we did both manual and spreadsheet and automated program calculations. The amount of time invested actually increased initially.

The increase was driven by our persistent engagement of the "old way," and the additional time for the spreadsheet or then the automated program. But, in a short time, we came to have faith in the automated. Then we stopped doing the spreadsheets. Eventually, we stopped doing the manual calculation.

Eventually, we became accepting of the output of one of the automated programs. Then, we were producing a present value in five minutes that had taken us a full day of work and patience.

We were more efficient. We were faster. And we delivered a better service to our clients at a greater value. Some attorneys still billed their clients for 8 hours of hard math and assumptions, despite working only 10 minutes. Others of us, instead, were honest and billed the 10 minutes. That is a discussion for another day. 

The point here, however, is that we "tried and then we trusted." The technology initially cost us efficiency. We invested 10 hours in that eight-hour task, and the client was used to paying for eight. They did not understand why the cost would increase, and therefore, we tended to eat the extra time and bill the eight hours.

But as our proficiency grew, our confidence grew, and we gained faith in the technology. We became more efficient, with more hours in our day, because we could do eight hours' work in 10 minutes. The tech eventually resulted in efficiency, but first, we had to try before we could trust.

The example is only one, but it illustrates the challenge of artificial intelligence (AI). We may reach a day when blind reliance is appropriate for many AI outputs. But it is not this day. Today, we verify every AI output (does the picture it created have people with six fingers? Is the case law it cites real?).

In the short run, there will be increased work caused by AI. Over time, we may come to be more reliant, trustful, and confident. But that is not today. We can fear it and ignore it. But if you do, know that others in your profession are engaging it, leveraging it, and learning when and how to trust it.

The tool is new and novel. The challenge of evolving technology is not in the least. With all technology, there will be doubt, verification, and trust cycles. For more on cycles, see Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024). You must make decisions about your faith, trust, and process. You must grow with or without it and persist in a world that is constantly changing. Get used to that.

Know that there will be few, if any, perfect solutions. Know that tomorrow's innovation will always surpass today's. Know that this evolutionary process is cyclical and scary, and inevitable. And then, get back to work doing your best to adapt and verify, and adopt. It is a challenge, but that is life.

Yesterday

In 1965, The Beatles intoned, "Yesterday, All my troubles seemed so far away" (Yesterday, EMI 1965). Indeed, our view on challenges might be influenced by our perspective, looking forward or back.

I have rarely related the history that led to the potential of me; I am inherently and deeply private. Nonetheless, here goes. I have deep roots in Indiana agriculture, dating from its frontier era. I likewise have decades of roots in Mississippi, dating to its manifest destiny homestead era. How do people from such a distance meet in the mid-20th century? In the absence of technology, vacation travel, and other modern wonders, the answer is migration. 

I descend from a line of Mississippi farmers who homesteaded, built cabins, and lived off the land. My grandfather was a sharecropper who traded a promised portion of his harvest for the seasonal use of someone else's bottomland. He borrowed to plant and prayed to harvest sufficiently to both share and repay. He came from a level of poverty that I can scarcely imagine. 

There came some years tougher than others, whether from drought or flood. Sometimes the expected harvest simply did not come. It was an era in which manufacturing jobs in Mississippi were few and far between. Legend has it that some Mississippians would not have eaten in those days but for the WPA and its Sardis Dam project, but that is another story. I have heard it recounted so many times—imagine building the (then) largest land dam in the world with picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows.

It was a time when war was beginning in Europe, threatening beyond, and America was still recovering from the first "war to end all wars." We might readily agree that there was uncertainty, challenge, and even angst. 

There came an opportunity for work. A man in a stake truck drove through Mississippi and promised work picking produce in Missouri. As it had been a tough crop year, my grandfather rode north without the accoutrements of a seat, seatbelt, air conditioning, and more. He picked until the crop concluded. There soon followed an opportunity for similar agricultural work in Indiana, and he rode east in another truck in continued pursuit of a living. 

When that Indiana crop concluded, he answered a handbill for factory work. A now infamous company was producing rock wool insulation at a factory in Alexandria, Indiana. Through grace or luck, perhaps fate, he was hired and began a career there. That lasted thirty years. I periodically look at the watch he was presented with at retirement, and I reflect. 

Thus, my Mississippi heritage resulted from people unable to earn a living in one (or more) place, and itinerant progression in search of more. More opportunity, more money, more stability. The journey soon enough brought my father to Indiana and to the opportunity for college, a first in that family. 

Agriculture, fertile land, and homesteading brought my mother's ancestors to rural Indiana. Success and sustenance kept them there, though the particular locations changed, as did crops, livestock, and other details. Not the first in her family to attend a university, she was nonetheless the first female member I can find who did so. 

College brought the meeting that led to me. Not the first in my family to earn a college degree, I am the first in my line to earn a doctorate. There is little in this history that might be mistaken for privilege or advantage. There is much that reflects hardship, hard work, perseverance, and patience.

Over a long career arc starting in my teens, I have engaged in something close to 25 jobs. This all came back to me with a recent news story about stability and convenience. Fortune noted that a majority of "white collar" workers over 50 (Millennials, born 1981-1996)(Generation X 1965-1980)(Boomers 1946-1964) declined to consider relocation when they lost employment.

Their work environment evolved, and when that impacted them, they elected geographic stability over potential opportunity. In other words, they accepted work that was local over work that required relocation, despite that work perhaps offering other advantages in monetary and career terms.

The context is an evolving workplace that reemphasizes in-person as the virtual opportunities diminish. See Heigh Ho? (January 2025); Perspectives on Virtuality (September 2025). And, in this context, the conclusion is that Generation Z (born 1997-2012) is more likely to elect relocation in reaction to loss of employment, while the older workers are less so. 

The Millennial resistance is attributed to family ties in some location, the challenges of selling and buying a home, and perceptions that surround the economics of that. But the third explanation is more confounding - the "lost promises of the boomer generation." This is about perceptions of increased instability in "white collar" work.

This older cohort, over 50, views opportunity with a measure of skepticism. They perceive the potential or probability that a major decision, relocation, and promising new position may, in fact, produce only a short-term respite from unemployment. Their longevity doubts about the new position may hinder their enthusiasm about relocating for it.

This will potentially intersect with the declining opportunities for virtual work, any general decline in workforce participation (think COVID-19), and any diminishing flow of new college graduates resulting from declining birth rates, perceived general market conditions, or artificial intelligence impacts.

In a real sense, there is likely to be a persistent market demand for experienced and able "white collar" workers in the coming years. The demand will be measured and weighed against geographic location limitations and the relative faith and confidence of those workers offered new opportunities as the working world shifts and adjusts.

Will they get on the stake-truck? Will they seek less lucrative local alternatives?

The short answer is a consensus of doubt. Anyone who claims to know where the current turmoil leads or where the next turmoil begins is likely guessing (at best). But undoubtedly, Business will be constrained to considering the challenges, worker motivations and concerns, and business necessities in broad contexts in order to meet demands and facilitate success in an evolving world.

This will be an increasingly rare concern for Boomers (the last of whom will reach 67 years old (Social Security age) in 2031). Many of the Boomers have already landed or are "committed" to the field already (field in sight, gear down, cleared to land).

The first of the Generation X retirement will be 2032, and Social Security is projected to be in financial difficulty about then. Will that cohort be short-sheeted with an increased retirement age as the Boomers were in 1983, albeit with much less notice? Will the potential for such doubts encourage or discourage any offers that involve relocation for workers in those populations?

In a word, the challenge is "certainty," or perhaps even "predictability." In the workplace, it is possible that the environment would benefit from some measure of both as the economy evolves and workers face difficult education and occupation choices and challenges.

That said, are today's challenges actually different than those faced by a poor sharecropper exiting a depression into a second war to end all wars, in an evolving environment of mechanization and industrialization? One might find it difficult to describe either as "more" or "less" challenging, daunting, or disconcerting. 

There are many who quickly perceive "privilege," but that appearance may perhaps conceal work, risk, and effort. As we lament our challenges, let us not forget that yesterday was perhaps as difficult as today, and tomorrow may be more difficult still. There will be opportunity, risk, and choices. That is not new. 

I thought it was a prank

I recently had a great conversation with Les Shute. He is a go-to leader in the world of artificial intelligence. My perception has been that he is part of a very small slice of the world that has both interest and appreciation for the implications of AI.

He corrected me, sharing his perspective that he is part of a much larger group than I perceive, but admitted that there is an exceedingly small intersection of that group and the workers' compensation community. In other words, he is part of the very small group of AI experts in our little corner of the world.

Mr. Schute is invited to speak at conferences regarding AI, and I have been fortunate in his patience and persistence in explaining various elements to me. The fact is that AI moves with alacrity and stealth. It is evolving in various ways, organic and calculated, patent and latent. We might debate the use of "evolving," more on that below. 

We are in the midst of changes in the broadest context. AI is being integrated into every aspect of our world. See The Trough of Disillusionment (December 2024). It has already become ubiquitous, and yet its influence is growing. 

Every time I speak with Horace Middlemier* about anything, he immediately asks, "Shall we see what AI thinks?" Every aspect of Horace's intellectual life has become infected with at least the specter of AI. But for some, more than a specter, it has become a singular focus that is as much a distraction as help. You can pick condiments for your burger without seeing what AI thinks. 

That inclination toward ubiquity will be fed by the ease of AI access. Mr. Shute caught me flat-footed when he invited me to interact with chatbots that he uses in his day-to-day and in presentations. I touched on this in Steering Wheels or Paranoia (October 2025), and delivered some compliments. I was genuinely impressed with the bots and the conversational nature of the interaction.

I asked the bot some probing questions, though I was unprepared for the opportunity. I initially thought that it might be a prank, but there were soon signs that my dialogist was a machine. For one, there was a persistent tendency to be deferential and conciliatory. When I disagreed at one point, it apologized for having expressed a contrary conclusion. 

I described that experience to Bob Wilson and he immediately invited me to join him on a video call and to speak with his chatbots. I was struck by the similarities but also with the differences. I perceive that the "personalities" of these tools have likely been influenced by the predilections, emotions, and personalities of their creators. 

As the world rapidly adopts these tools, there will be evolution. In my conversations with the chatbots, I have learned that they are verbal (and optical) manifestations, and they are speaking the same output that you could harvest in a written response to a prompt fed to an large language model (LLM). The chatbots are dependent upon the language, context, and content on which they were trained. 

Those chatbots will adapt as we proceed based on the language, syntax, slang, and emotion of conversations in which they engage. They will be learning from your call to customer service, focused on your stated desires, unspoken concerns, and even personal misinformation. They will learn, as humans have, to discern what is really needed or wanted despite the human caller's inability to precisely articulate it. 

In short order, these chatbots will become increasingly difficult to distinguish from real persons. That will benefit the customer service element and lead to lost jobs. See Did They Warn You (November 2025). 

I recently received some hate mail from a company with which I have done business for years. They did not intend hate; they had merely drafted an incompetently misworded letter. As I strove to deal with their misfeasance, I discovered that no one in authority there would engage. Those employees, I was assured, were "not customer facing." 

Instead, I faced a parade of clerks with officious titles, each as unhelpful, inept, and conciliatory as the last. This company will undoubtedly evolve quickly to chatbots, as their intent is to frustrate communication, blunt criticism, and strive for placation over service. Poetically, they are a "service" company that has utterly lost sight of both the service and its delivery. They will persist with advertising, jingles, slogans, and superficiality. And they will do so because it is largely sufficient in the eyes of their customers.

But, this presents serious threats of misplaced trust in more personal arenas. See Steering Wheels or Paranoia (October 2025). As we become increasingly comfortable in their business deployment, humans will need to guard against complacency in their use in more personal settings. 

For more on my AI and tech musings, there is a complete list on my website.

*Horace Middlemier is not a real person but a literary foil and tool. Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is unintended, coincidental, and happenstance.  

Professionalism While Studying Professionalism

The 2025 OJCC Academy in Orlando was another monumental success. There is great value in this annual program that has now touched more than 100 young(er) workers' compensation attorneys. Why is this such a critical program? In short, it is professionalism and personal growth.

The Academy offers insight into professionalism, evidence, procedure, document preparation, and mediation, as well as interaction, networking, and mentoring opportunities. It is a live program that is presented free of charge to the attendees at the Orlando district office.

I reflected this year on professionalism as I considered the attendance on October 24. The registration opens for this program each spring, and word spreads rapidly. We have never struggled to find attorneys interested in attending. The interest is so significant that we often have to stop confirming applicants and start a "stand by list."

Those are all positive signs that the program is efficacious and useful. But, each year we have produced this program, we have experienced "no shows." That is to be expected and is not in itself troubling. There will always be instances when life gets in the way of the best-laid plans. Illness, family, and urgency will be a part of everyone's life.

This year, because of the no-shows in the past, we made contact with the registrants the week before. We were grateful to have some advise us of their changed circumstances and inability. But we did not hear back from all. The morning of the program, we had a few who were still expected, but who did not appear. 

What is troubling, with the program's and community's focus on professionalism, is the no-shows that do not send an email or make a phone call to notify that they will not attend. Each year, we have attorneys who do not contact us, either in advance or retrospectively, to explain. They simply do not appear.

Much planning and preparation go into the program. There is food and beverages to order, name tags to personalize, printed material to produce, and more. Much sweat and tears are invested. The entire process has an underlying theme of building community and engagement. The Academy committee is focused on so much "what," and there is emphasis on being prepared for the "how many."

And there is that standby list. Attorneys are waiting, hoping, and yet we cannot confirm due to our space.  Those who no-show hold a place they do not use. 

Whether it is a reservation for dinner, a continuing education seminar, or lunch with a friend, it is appropriate to notify someone that you will not attend. If you persistently stand up friends or family for lunches, you may find yourself invited less frequently. If you no-show for restaurant reservations, you may find it harder to make them. And if you do not appear at professional gatherings, you may be seen as unprofessional.

That is somewhat self-contradictory, failing to appear as promised at a professionalism program? There is a paradox in that. The program is designed to enhance professionalism, and yet some fail to appear without even the courtesy of an email notification. That is admittedly troubling. 

Nonetheless, this post is to express our gratitude and congratulations to all who attended. And to thank the team responsible for producing the program and its success: Judges Thomas Hedler, Margret Kerr, John Moneyham, Neal Pitts, mediator Lisa Thomas, attorneys Natalie Cavallaro, Rachel Givens, Lindsay Koppleman, Javier Melendez Santiago, and Elizabeth Yohe.

For months, this group meets, discusses, and plans. They adjust curricula, they evaluate and vet speakers, and they go above and beyond to make the Academy all it can be for the leaders of tomorrow. We are grateful to them all and congratulate them on another stellar rendition of the OJCC Academy. See you next year?

Just Delete It?

In August 2025, I noted the hubbub surrounding two federal judges in Trust but Verify (August 2025). These instances involve federal judges "in Mississippi and New Jersey." Judge Henry Wingate (78) of Mississippi was appointed in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Judge Julian Xavier Neals (60) was appointed by Joseph Biden in 2021 and has been on the bench for four years. What do the two share? Well, neither one is part of the tech-savy generation "alpha" or "z." Judge Neals is Generation X and Judge Wingate is a Baby Boomer, but an early Boomer. They each made the news for artificial intelligence and its implications.

Repetition of one critical point is necessary in every post—you cannot trust artificial intelligence. It is a boon, a powerful tool, and it should be used. As time passes, it will become ubiquitous and will be more commonly used and relied upon. I was shocked on a recent AI presentation when the sponsor deployed an impromptu poll, "Are you using AI?" and the results did not support universal commitment to the technology. That will change. That said, more than half of the poll respondents admitted to currently using it.

More recently, reports noted that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee inquired about the circumstances surrounding Judges Neals and Wingate. Both federal judges explained that the "error-ridden" "decisions ... did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued." Simply stated, there was trust there, but insufficient verify.

Judge Neals explained that "a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure." Judge Wingate similarly placed responsibility on "a law clerk ... (who) used Perplexity 'as a foundational drafting assistant.'" There is no explanation in the news report regarding why an intern or a law clerk was releasing decisions in any event, or how that would occur without the review and agreement of the judge.

Some will believe that all case decisions are made by judges. That should be a fair and reasonable assumption. Judges are elected and appointed to make difficult decisions. The news article seems to suggest that in at least these two courts, decisions are made and published by interns and clerks. Delegation is one thing, but responsibility is another. No decision is issued by the OJCC except by a judge. Perhaps that is true more broadly (most tribunals), or perhaps our judges are somehow an exception?

Some will take my thoughts as criticism. Certainly, others have been more direct in their thoughts regarding the Judges, their decisions, and their deflection onto staff. See Admit the Obvious, Above the Law. Nonetheless, my thoughts are not a criticism of judges or courts. That said, lessons can be learned by all whenever any of us makes an error. 

Federal judges are governed by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. This is arranged in canons, as are the various state codes that have been periodically discussed here. Canon 2(A) reads:

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Canon 3(a)(5)

(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

There is no provision that suggests that law clerks and interns should dispose of the business of the court. 

There is the potential that decisions being published by clerks and interns could impact "public confidence" in courts and their decisions. As has been frequently emphasized, these Codes preclude not only impropriety but also the "appearance of impropriety." The commentary to Canon 2 includes: "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety."

Judge Wingate concluded that the failure in his chambers "was a lapse in human oversight." That is, a failure in the "verify" element of the Trust but Verify suggestion. Judge "Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process." Potentially, this means interns in that chamber are no longer issuing decisions.

Judge Wingate, caught in the wake of this mistake, reportedly deleted "the order (that) was riddled with mistakes" from the case docket, published a new order, and backdated that new order to the date of the original hallucinated one, according to News from the States. Does deleting the error make it go away?

Each judge asserts that they have instituted new processes to assure the errors will not be repeated. According to the Magnolia Tribune, Judge Wingate's solution is simple. Now, he assures, 

all draft opinions, orders, and memorandum decisions undergo a mandatory, independent review by a second law clerk before submission to me.

Does this mean that the previously published decisions were, in fact, submitted to Judge Wingate before publication? If so, responsibility for the hallucinations rests with the judge. 

Would any tribunal, anywhere, excuse a lawyer who signs a document full of hallucinations on the premise that "my paralegal" or "my associate" wrote this and I just signed it? I am dubious regarding the efficacy of such an excuse.  

What does "verify" mean? There has been seeming confusion about that in the world of workers' compensation. I have striven to deliver suggestions in A Tool Kit (October 2025) and Simple Steps (October 2025). There are various methods that will help you to ensure the absence of hallucinations in your filings.

What does "verify" not mean? Well, that you had one paralegal, clerk, or intern check the work of another paralegal, clerk, or intern is not likely compatible with your personal professional responsibility. 

Similarly, knowing that AI hallucinates, would you ask a second AI (that hallucinates) to verify the output of your primary AI? Doubtful anyone would view that as a rational process. 

No, in the end, the signatory (judge, lawyer, engineer, doctor) is responsible. They can perhaps delegate some of the work, but it is their job to do the verification and verifying. In these two instances, as in all occasions where some staff, associate, or partner does work, it all comes down to the person who signed the final document. The buck must stop there. 

The Nancy Reagan method is most effective ("just say 'no'"), meaning just don't use AI. I highly recommend this one regarding legal research, writing, and pleading. Use AI to check grammar, spelling, or similar. Do not trust it to do your work for you.  

Second, there is the Ronald Reagan method, "Trust but Verify," which means the person who is hired to do the work (judge, lawyer, engineer, etc.) may delegate but must remain personally responsible. 

Finally, there is the laissez-faire method in which this new and proven unreliable technology is engaged and trusted without question, as are clerks, interns, paralegals, and more. I cannot recommend that last one, but the decision is up to you. 

The person signing the document makes the decision. Appropriately so. It is their name that will be on the line. See Do You Care About Reputation (June 2023). The lawyer, doctor, engineer, judge, or other person who signs the document is responsible. This will remain whether you claim your dog ate your homework or your paralegal, intern, or clerk made mistakes in judgment or process.

The paralegal, clerk, intern, associate, partner, etc., will not be the one whose reputation is impacted, impugned, or ruined. Review the Reuters article. What are the names of the clerk and intern in these chambers? They are not identified. Various searches for their identities have come up short. In this instance, it appears that the judges instead will be the ones impacted. That said, the names of clerks and interns may eventually surface. 

It will persistently be the lawyer, doctor, engineer, or judge who is embarrassed or liable for errors. The implications may be an "error-ridden decision" published by an intern, a hallucination-filled pleading filed by a paralegal, or a set of structural plans completed and mailed by an engineering intern. The result will likely be similar in each instance: embarrassment, ridicule, or worse. 

Will the world remember the name (or even ever know the name) of the paralegal, clerk, or intern? Unlikely. Various queries have failed to identify either the clerk or intern by name here. Will those called upon to review the results take pity on, or commiserate with, the judge, engineer, or lawyer who seeks to cast blame on their staff, team, or contributors? As unlikely. In the end, the world will look to the professional to be right, diligent, and thoughtful in the process for which they are paid.

It is entirely possible that the world will hold those people to a standard that it would not hold itself. Will judges who fail to supervise be empathetic towards lawyers appearing before them who have similarly failed to supervise their staff?

Will it take a bridge collapsing through unchecked math? Will it take a lawsuit dismissal? Will it take a lawyer disbarred, a judge impeached, or an engineer stripped of a license? What must happen before professionals take the challenges and shortcomings of AI-produced material seriously and check the work on which they are placing their name?

It is encouraging that each of these judges has implemented plans to prevent these errors from recurring. Every lawyer, engineer, accountant, doctor, etc. should take heed of the potential AI embarrassment to themself, their office, and their professions. A sound AI policy is critical. And no, having some other clerk or AI check someone else's (or some other AI's) work is not a policy. 

You can delegate tasks, but not responsibilities. When you get caught, deleting it will not make it go away. Deleting it will just make for more questions.