Death and Taxes?

We are all on a one-way trip to a known destination. This life ends for each of us. See Hopelessness and the American Middle Class (April 2017). We can strive to exercise some degree of control in the speed of our demise, but the result is ultimately a predetermined eventuality—"death and taxes," as some luminary proposed. 

Death comes for us all. That realization comes to each of us, and has been reinforced for me recently with the persistence of notifications. And there are implications, both professional, see How to Transition Cases upon the Death of Counsel (December 2014), and personal, see What is a Donor? (August 2025).

In addition, there are multiple thoughts on related topics like Who Should Live? (January 2023), and the incredible volume of people who die of avoidable circumstances like overdose, see What Worthwhile Can You do in 11.2 Minutes (December 2015). Reflecting on these and other posts, it occurs to me I have focused on death more than a few times. 

In 2010, the idea of death was humorized on The Big Bang Theory, The Cruciferous Vegetable Amplification (September 30, 2010). There, the protagonist, Sheldon, "works out that he won't live long enough to download his consciousness into a robot." That is his plan for immortality.

Sheldon considers the longevity demonstrated by his family, and predicts his own life expectancy. He explains to his friends that he must improve his diet in order to live long enough for this potential to be a reality. He refers to it as "the singularity." 

He contends that date will be in 2045, or roughly 35 years after that 2010 episode. The show was entertaining and educational. Its spinoff, Young Sheldon, actually had a guest spot by Elon Musk. That was a play on re-using rockets and is good for a laugh. 

In an odd coincidence (or not) Mr. Musk was recently asked about the potential to achieve "eternal life" through uploading our individual consciousness to a robotic vessel. This would be one step beyond the artificial intelligence "scraping" of our every thought and expression today. 

Benzinga reports that Mr. Musk sees uploading as a real potential due to the convergence of two technologies, humanoid robots and the brain implant called Neurolink. He postulates that the link could be used to "upload a digital copy of your mind—memories, thoughts, personality quirks" to a robot. If possible to a robot, why not to a simple harddrive?

Immortality. Artificial, but immortality nonetheless.

By 2045 as postulated by The Big Bank? Mr. Musk, in November 2025, postulated, "Less than 20 years from now, it may be possible." Now, there may be a coincidence in the two of them hitting a similar timeline (or Mr. Musk might be a fan of the show). But the simple prediction remains that many of today's Earth residents might be uploaded.

The idea of keeping Judge Langham around forever in a robot might unnerve more than a few of us. And there might be others whose preservation might concern us even more. Would this be limited to a single person(ality) to a single hard drive, or might a single computer house thousands of us like blog posts, documents, or recordings? 

The implications are mind-blowing. If there are thousands of us together on some drive or network, could we communicate, collaborate, or commiserate? Would we want to? Would our preferences matter?

Would that preserved "snapshot" be a permanent record of who I was at that moment? Or would it merely serve as a foundation for something different or perhaps more? Might the computer me of tomorrow be a combination of computer me of today plus new experiences, thoughts, and exposures of the computer? 

Would the uploaded "snapshot" remain static, or would it evolve and grow? If it evolves, when would it cease to be me? When do I cease to be me?

To say this is all fascinating is an understatement of epic proportions. The potentials and questions seem as infinite as the possiblities. Would we be compensated, or merely scraped like our blogs?

Kids' Chance 2025

I attended a recent meeting of the Board of Kids' Chance of Florida. This is a 501 charity that provides scholarships for the children of injured workers. There are multiple such corporations across the country, of various names, which are all affiliates of Kids Chance of America (some call them chapters as if there is some top-down restraint or control; there is not). The Kids' Chance movement should not be news to frequent readers, I have discussed it here before:

The #WCI2016 is off and Running! (August 2016)

Kids' Chance, an Organization, a Movement (November 2016)

Outstanding Florida Millennials Recognized (June 2017)

A Great day with WCCP in Bonita (June 2018)

Give Kids the World - Our Community (August 2018)

Fitting Good into Busy Lives (November 2018)

Injuries can Affect the Whole Family (March 2021)

Kids' Chance Challenge (May 2021)

Live In Orlando - 2021! (August 2021)

What is Different (December 2021)

Laissez Les Bons Temps Rouler! (February 2022)

Our Hope for Tomorrow (August 2022)

It Was Palpable (August 2023)

WCI 2024 is Upon Us (August 2024)

The Ambassadors of Kids' Chance (November 2024)

In Just Another Week? (November 2024), I noted my departure from the Board of Kids' Chance of Florida (KCFL). That transition has been challenging for me. You do not invest ten years of your life in something and walk away without some sentiment. In that post, I also acknowledged the founding board and their contributions. Most of them served ten years and built an amazing foundation.

In December 2025, attending the annual Board meeting as an "emeritus," I watched two more of the early Board members transition to emeritus status: Jim McConnaughhay and Kimberly H. Staats. It was an odd moment for me, and the reflection was poignant. 

Everyone knows the legend that is Jim. He has been in this community since passing the bar exam in 1913 (kidding, it was 1969). He has touched education, litigation, regulation, and legislation. He has been integral, a man who "needs no introduction." I would go on, but he will likely be perturbed that I said this much. Jim can be a bit unassuming. 

Ms. Staats works for the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). She came to KCFL as a volunteer and served as treasurer for several years. She was integral in our evolution of scholarship application processes and leadership. She spearheaded the KCFL annual care package program. An amazing idea that communicates commitment, support, and enthusiasm to these students as they pursue their futures. She is a 2007 graduate of the University of Central Florida and earned her MBA in 2018 from Lynn University. She has been at NCCI for 18 years in various roles and is currently Director of Strategy and Risk Management.  

During the recent meeting, I caught myself thinking, "Where will Kids' Chance be without these two?" What a vacuum! And as I pondered that, I began to write this post (mea culpa for typing while listening, but I have no role during meetings at this point other than sitting in the meeting, nodding periodically, and beaming with pride).

The first thing that struck me was my limiting question: "these two." I stopped and admonished myself. Kids' Chance has been blessed with engaged, enthusiastic, and effective Board members and leaders. Certainly, Kimberly Staats' transition from the presidency is somewhat jarring. 

But as I reflected, I found in my memories that I felt the same twinge of angst when Ray Neff concluded his term, then Bob Wilson, Linda Vendette, William Rogner, and Stacy Hosman. These are the community giants on whose shoulders Kids' Chance launched, grew, and soared. I would go on, but they will each likely be perturbed that I said this much. Like Jim, they can each be a bit unassuming.

With each leader, KCFL grew, evolved, and built. Each time, KCFL transitioned to new leadership with some sense of loss, but truthfully, KCFL never faltered. The purpose and the mission only strengthened, and the imperative only grew: find more kids, and award more scholarships.

With the new emeritus status of Jim and Kimberly, the Board gains two new members. 

Sean O'Connor is a defense attorney in Florida workers' compensation claims. He defends carriers, self-insureds, and municipalities. He has been with the McConnaughhay firm since 1999. He manages their Central Florida offices and is a regular speaker at educational seminars on a wide variety of workers' compensation issues. 

Julie McKenzie serves as the Corporate Accounting and Tax Manager at NCCI, bringing in over six years of experience with the company. She ensures compliance with accounting standards and tax regulations while making improvements in the organization’s accounting and tax processes. She earned a bachelor's from Notre Dame and a master's from FAU, and she is a Florida CPA.

They join the existing Board:

Tammy Boyd, President
TRISTAR Insurance Group

Jenna Sutton, Vice President
Medical Management and Re-Employment

David Cruz, Treasurer
Paradigm

Basilios Manousogiannakis, Secretary
Amerisafe

Barbara Case
State of Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims

Liz Corona
The Zenith Insurance Company

Brian Ricotta, Esq.
HR Law, P.A.

Andrew Sabolic
Workers’ Compensation Institute (WCI)

Kristy Sands
Gallagher Bassett

Josh Schuette
Brooks Rehabilitation

Marissa Shearer
Commercial Risk Management, Inc.

Janel Stephens
Bichler & Longo, PLLC

Olivia Wilms
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Change. It happens. It is inevitable. There is some emotion every time I see KCFL in action. I have not been on the Board for a year now, and I still attend their meetings. I am motivated, perhaps inspired, by the energy, enthusiasm, and esprit de corps of this incredible group of community leaders. They are changing the world one deserving student at a time, and I admire them all. 

If you know a student who could benefit, make an anonymous referral.

The Arms Race Continues

I first posited the concept of an "arms race" in May 2024. I was early to the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and have written dozens of posts. I have returned to the optic of an "arms race" in many public settings and presentations, and it was back in this blog in Should we Pause? (January 2025), Better look that up (July 2025), and Another Arms Race (October 2025). It is beginning to rack up as many sequels as Terminator (Orion 1984).

That said, the concept was in the news recently, related to both AI and the ever elusive cybersecurity that faces us every day. Like it or not, much about each of us is out there in the ether waiting to be discovered, hijacked, or worse. 

Enter AI, which is largely designed to resist doing evil and to focus on being good. That said, there is no telling what Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and Masoud Pezeshkian have their teams cooking up. And though those three have demonstrated seriously evil proclivities, they all seem somewhat reasonable if you put them into focus by standing them next to Putin. 

The fact is that you don't need some fictitious Dr. Evil, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger, and Dr. No. Various real evil overlords have their teams working on AI, cyberbreach, theft, and more.

Fortune reported in November 2025 that Anthropic (Purveyor of Claude AI) discovered that Claude was essentially hijacked and tricked into being a hacker. That is scary enough, that AI can be tricked. But the miscreants in this example were not all that imaginative. 

They told Claude that they were a cybersecurity team testing their own defenses. They essentially "jailbroke" the program and convinced it to do things it had been told not to do. If you follow the news at all, you know various AI large language models (LLM) have been tricked, cajoled, and highjacked. 

This instance is worthy of attention not because of novelty, but severity. The cyberattack orchestrated by Anthropic allowed an attack of incredible proportions. It would have take vast amounts of time for a human team," but was simple for the AI. The "AI made thousands of requests, often multiple per second." No human team could have accomplished the breadth and intensity of this attack. 

Where is the arms race?

Anthropic responded. It has "upgraded its detection systems," implemented new tools, and is engaging with its peers to "share case studies" and "help those in industry, government, and the wider research community strengthen their own cyber defenses." 

The miscreants use their imagination. They try, test, and repeat. Their efforts are focused and persistent. Those who would resist attacks, protect data, and assure system availability and security must be as persistent or more. With each innovation, there is opportunity for the miscreants and danger for us all. 

NBC has reported North Korea stealing "$1.5 billion worth of Ethereum." The BBC has reported $2 billion was stolen by North Korea and that "regime-linked hackers who now account for around 13% of North Korea's gross domestic product (GDP)." Of course, there are challenges now in believing what you read from the BBC. Despite the BBC credibility gap, there is significant evidence that theft is occurring. 

The miscreants will not pause or retreat. The only path forward is the responsive defense building. The arms race continues. With each economic benefit we enjoy from evolving technology, we will face costs resulting from efforts to protect it. 

Tech in Safety

There has been a long and storied history of increasing workplace safety in America, coupled with the inverse decreasing frequency of workplace injury. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noted at the turn of the century that "since 1971" the progress had been significant:

"workplace fatalities have been cut by 60 percent, and occupational injury and illness rates, by 40 percent"

The trend has only continued. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the "incident rate of nonfatal injuries" in 1972 was about "10.9 cases per 100 full-time workers," and by 2018 that had decreased to "2.8 cases." That is a 74% reduction. The visual of this BLS chart speaks volumes.

Reducing workplace injury is the most critical point of workers' compensation. The best outcome is for workers to not be injured in the first instances.

CNBC recently reported that workplace safety is being impacted by new technologies. This focuses on the avoidance of injuries as cameras evaluate workers leading to "behavioral modification and coaching." This is catching workplace errors that present risk of accident and injury. 

We have all been reminded of safety by technology. There are alerts in our vehicles that prompt seatbelt use. A reminder in a recent rental car told me to check the back seat each time I parked. There are lane-change alerts, parking assists, and much more that illustrate the tech reminders and reinforcements already present. 

The article touts results and endorsement of specific technology by one insurance carrier. That company's "three-year pilot program" demonstrated "a more than 70% reduction in workers' comp claims and a near elimination of racketeering charges." The implication is that the surveillance improves both safety per se and affects allegations more broadly. 

The safety impacts are notable. The proponents claim that "worker safety compliance" was "70% before implementation," and increased to between "97% to 100%." This is likely attributable to coaching that is noted, but is also perhaps intertwined with the knowledge that cameras are watching. Supervisors and workers alike are perhaps mindful of being observed. 

CNBC notes that the result of the pilot project has been a reduction of one company's experience modification rate (EMR). In most states, there is a set premium for workers' compensation. That is the rate at which coverage is purchased. But, just like some drivers have no tickets or accidents and others have many, employers may have different "experience" in workplace safety. 

So, if a company has an EMR of 1, then the rate it pays will be the set rate, that is rate times 1. But, as experience (accidents and injury) grows, the rate might be 1.5 and that employer is then paying 50% more for workers' compensation insurance. The pilot project company in this story dropped its EMR from .65 to .25. 

That represents a significant cost savings and will likely make the employer more competitive in bidding for work in the construction. CNBC stresses that this technology is present in non-construction industry settings. Thus, the savings are potentially important in various workplace settings. 

By the same token, the worker who seeks employment is better served to work somewhere that is amenable to safe practices. Employers that enforce safe workplace requirements and encourage safe activity are protecting the worker and, therefore, likely attract employees who value safety and protection. 

There will be those who criticize the presence of workplace surveillance. There will be thoughts raised about privacy and even productivity. Nonetheless, the BLS statistics noted above are compelling. Workers avoiding workplace injury or illness and the treatment, recover, and wage loss that can ensue are better served by safety. 

It is likely that technology will also evolve with the implementation of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). Difficult tasks such as bending and lifting may be ameliorated or eliminated by these new technologies. The study of workplace performance by the surveillance will likely be evaluated and studied by AI; this may increasingly occur in real-time, affording management the chance to stop behavior before it harms. 

 

First Amendment

I have spent many hours studying the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. It is a fascinating document full of cautions, prohibitions, and implications. Through various statutory amendments over the years, the Legislature has applied its terms to the Judges of Compensation Claims (JCC), see sections 440.442 and 440.45, Fla. Stat.

In the administrative realm, the Code might serve as the basis for a complaint against a JCC and be examined by the Division of Administrative Hearings. But, in the constitutional courts, allegations or complaints are investigated by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), a constitutionally independent commission comprised of judges appointed by judges, lawyers appointed by The Florida Bar, and laypersons appointed by the Governor. Fla. Const. Article V., section 12.

I have spoken with many who mistakenly believed the JQC to be an arm of the Florida Supreme Court. Though its constitutional authority is within Article V., its membership and function are separate from the courts, per se. Ultimately, any complaint that the JQC pursues is heard by the Supreme Court, and the independence of each is therefore critical. 

There are various complaints each year, and the published opinions periodically grace these pages. Eventually, I will perhaps finish my tome on the Code and its implications for judges. But if you are interested in the history of the code, there is a video on YouTube. The history of the Code is intriguing and strange. 

The Code, the JQC, and the implications came back to me recently when a news article hit my feed. Channel 6 South Florida noted that the JQC had concluded an "appellate court judge 'demeaned' her judicial office." That is a headline you don't readily anticipate. The allegations are about as far from Paradise as you can get while still in Florida (Miami), but are interesting nonetheless.

The facts surround a criminal prosecution years ago and a prosecutor who progressed from that occupation to trial judge and eventually the Third District Court of Appeal (3DCA).  The story of that prosecution reads like some Hollywood thriller with allegations of conspiracy, intrigue, murder, coercion, threats, and more. The case she had prosecuted was recently returned to the trial court by the Florida Supreme Court to readdress some issues.

That led to questions about the prosecution years ago, and therefore questions for the former prosecutor, now appellate judge. It is fair to say that the circumstances of that prosecution, the challenges, tragedies, and trepidations, are all interesting in their own right; still, the intricacies of engaging this judge as a witness were a significant feature. 

The current State Attorney was on a first-name basis with the judge and texted her on her personal phone. Thereafter, there were various text messages, which ended up in the news and in the hands of the JQC. Some were focused on the mechanics of testifying, but some expressed perceptions, thoughts, or conclusions. 

The JQC conclusions here were not about the 3DCA judge's testimony in those recent court proceedings. They are not really centered on the 3DCA judge's judicial duties, as the judges of that court recused themselves when the matter returned to them. 

The conclusions are instead centered on the text messages between the 3DCA judge and the State Attorney's office. The judge contends they were private communications, on her time and on her personal phone. The JQC seems to see little pertinence to that distinction.  

The JQC Notice of Formal Charges is 22 pages and concludes with multiple charges. These include failing to observe the high standards of conduct necessary to the integrity of the judiciary, failure to demonstrate respect and compliance with the law, making comments that "might substantially interfere with a fair trial," and various concerns with impartiality, demeaning the office, interference with other judges, and the potential for disqualification.

The Judge's response is actually a motion to dismiss and for other relief. It is broad and about twice as long as the Notice. It includes extensive allegations about the JQC Notice, criticisms or rebuttals of specific paragraphs and charges, and citations to various precedents and conclusions. Among these is a challenge based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the contention that judges have the right to freedom of expression. 

Every lawyer would love to make constitutional arguments. There is a draw to the foundational and elemental role of that document in America and her judicial history. The Judge's response pulls in the thoughts of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and quotes from Justices Black, Cantero (FL), Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas (no primacy is inferred in this alphabetical listing). 

The arguments are, as to be expected, advocacy. There is much to consider in both Notice and Response/Motion. As the Court examines these allegations, it will be intriguing to explore its determinations of the applicability and pervasiveness of the First Amendment. The underlying theme of each is interesting reading. 

The outcome will potentially be of interest to all who serve under the umbrella of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in Florida and beyond. To what extent does the judge yield freedom upon taking the oath?

"Because they are Hard"

In 1962, Kennedy said

"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the lunar surface. The world changed. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "we all enjoy many benefits that resulted from the scientific investment and endeavors." Nonetheless, the role of NASA has diminished in recent years and private companies now conduct most American space launches.

From its era of engagement, the Mercury, Apollo, and shuttle programs, NASA claims credit for a variety of enhancements to our modern lives, a mere 50 years post Apollo. These range

"from solar panels to implantable heart monitors, from cancer therapy to lightweight materials, and from water‐purification systems to improved computing systems and to a global search‐and‐rescue system."

When I was a kid, they also pushed things like the advent of powdered drinks, such as Tang, dehydrated food, and more as products of the space program. That affiliation and astronaut idolization did not hurt sales of such products, but NASA did not invent them. 

For a generation of Americans, NASA is nonetheless synonymous with progress. There have been many astronauts and mission specialists who leveraged their relationship with the program into commercial success, along with the various products and processes noted above. 

This all came to mind this week when the Associated Press (AP) reported that the President has signed another executive order; this one ordering collaboration on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The project will be "called Genesis Mission" with a goal of "boost(ing) scientific discoveries." He has likened it to the moon mission, and some see a parallel in the audacious nature of that goal, time, and spirit.  

That said, there will be those who do not see the parallel. The moon is a rather patent and persistent part of our life. A goal directed at it, leveraging it, is a bit more easily visualized than AI. 

Essentially, however, this executive order is a government buy-in for AI. The resources and expertise already in government service will "combine efforts with tech companies and universities to convert government data into scientific discoveries." 

The fact is, the government already has a great volume of computing capacity. More is on the way. See Singularity (March 2025). But while we wait on the quantum chips and the astounding predicted increase in speed and capacity, the government already has some of the fastest and most agile computers available. 

The government has been a longtime investor. There are literally thousands of college professors who have subsisted and thrived on the revenue streams of government grants. They have premises, processes, equipment, time, and more; much of that, you already paid for. 

This order sets the agenda for collaboration between free market innovators (who may have or want government contracts), government resources (already working and building), and academic intellect (that has enjoyed the flow of tax and grant dollars). This may not be the combination "most likely to" develop the next "it" game or app, but it may be the ideal collaboration for building a foundation for the developers to construct the next big thing(s). 

The focus will be on solving "engineering, energy and national security problems, including streamlining the nation’s electric grid." The point will be identifying challenges and collaborating to work us through, over, or around them. This could impact a variety of endeavors, industries, and interests.

Like the space program effect in the 1960s, this could see the advent of new technology to fill needs, the adaptation of existing technology, or more imaginative implementation or deployment of existing devices, products, or processes.

There is anticipation that tech in general, and AI specifically, will drive the evolution of the U.S. economy. This will bring direct change in the evolution and deployment of AI. However, there will be leverage impacts in a spectrum of industries, vocations, and professions.

Some will say that comparing the present to the challenge of the space program is an embellishment. However, if anything, AI and robotics will be a much bigger revolution than any we have seen. The impacts of today and tomorrow will literally dwarf the space program and its impacts.

We will do it "not because they are easy" or hard, but because the collective motivation of market capitalism demands and rewards efficiency and efficacy. AI and robotics will deliver both in volumes and impact never seen before. And you will have the choice to sit on the curb and watch this parade, or to get up and join in. 

Shoot the Lawyers?

Most people believe that Billy Shakespeare did not care much for lawyers. In Henry VI (1590), a butcher utters the phrase “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Many have used the phrase to infer the author's distaste, but scholars contend this is actually

"a complicated phrase that (somehow always) refers to the importance of maintaining a fair rule of law that protects the people."

You can read Henry VI yourself and make your own assessments of the statement, the butcher character, and Shakespeare's intended message. There is much in the world of literature, and whether Billy wrote this one or not, Henry VI is a good read.

Back in 2023 a Judge in rural Florida (Wakula County) was honored by the American Judges Association for "judicial courage," and in the same news release, he was recognized as honored by the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) as the 2022 Trial Judge of the Year. This is impressive, only more so for a judge on the bench since 2020.

Fast forward a couple of years, and in 2025, the same judge "recuses himself (and) apologizes" following comments in a proceeding. There, apparently, two siblings were litigating ("feuding") about their mother's estate. The judge reportedly told "lawyers in his courtroom ... that he wanted the deputy to 'pull his gun and shoot' them" (the lawyers). No reference was apparently made to Billy or Henry.

This is not the first judge to be frustrated with litigants or lawyers. One had a "feud" with an attorney's office. See What did I just Say? (January 2019). Another had the public defender handcuffed. Judge Handcuffs Attorney (August 2016). And yet another challenged a lawyer to a fight. See A Recap and Result of the Judicial Viral Video of 2014 (January 2016). Yes, there have been a few irritated or aggravated judges over the years. 

A summary of the most recent incident, provided by The Florida Bar News, said that the judge's apology for his comments was "rare," and that he "recused himself from several cases" after his comments. The story misstates that the lawyers "asked ... (the judge) to recuse himself." Though it is too often referred to as "recusal," when such a request is made, it is legally a motion for "disqualification." 

Don't feel bad if you cannot remember the distinction between those. Many judges of extensive tenure either cannot understand the distinction or simply choose to ignore it. 

If you have never been to Wakulla County, it is south of Tallahassee, Florida. If it were not idyllic enough, there is a town there actually called "Panacea." What could be more comely than that? That said, what would drive a judge in such a nice place to such frustration, agitation, or exasperation?

There is stress in litigation. Lawyers know it, parties show it, and too many are too quick to forget that it impacts the judiciary as well. Stress is not uniform in its depth or import, but it is universal in litigation. The very definition of litigation is disagreement. The rules of The Florida Bar (Rule 4-1.3, and Preamble) justify "zeal" and "zealousness." The lawyers each come to win.  Their individual drive creates pressure.

Everyone involved is experiencing pressures in the litigation, and whether you want to admit it or not, we all experience stress in our day-to-day. That is, as they say, what it is. There are deadlines, there are trips, and even falls, mistakes, misstatements, and challenges. To paraphrase an old saw: "dying is easy, litigation is hard." 

Stress affects us all. We are all human. This exemplary judge has stumbled. Exemplary? Note that the judge has published articles in various publications such as the Wakulla News, Tallahassee Reports, and Capitol Outlook. His biography in those lists him as "a bestselling author and public speaker. He serves as the Circuit Judge for Wakulla County, Florida." 

Exemplary indeed. This is a public servant. An exemplar. And yet, on a given day with various stresses, he said an untoward and unfortunate thing. He then regrouped, led with an apology (always a good start), and afforded the affected parties relief through recusal (another good move). You will trip periodically; follow his example.

No, we shan't "kill all the lawyers," or threaten them, cuff them, or challenge them to fights. We shall, instead, maintain our best composure, take breaks when needed, and strive to be our best while recognizing we are human, imperfect, and challenged. We will make every effort to be cordial, correct, and consistent.

Despite that, we will fail periodically, no matter how good we are or how hard we try. Let us each strive then to remediate, and grant us the individual strength to grant ourselves grace to accept our humanity, to get up, and to begin again. The parties and lawyers deserve that, and the rest of us both expect and respect that. 

Let's not "kill all the lawyers," and let's not beat ourselves up for being human. 

A Slow Process

In Then Arrested (January 2021), I noted former attorney Bradley Douglas. He had been the focus of earlier complaints that were discussed in A Disciplined Attorney and Repercussions (September 2018). The approximately three-year delay between disbarment and arrest was reasonably apparent.

In that instance, the Florida Supreme Court had granted Mr. Douglas' "petition for disciplinary revocation" in SC18-709 on June 7, 2018. The petition itself describes the charges that were then pending. Essentially, these were each instances in which a workers' compensation case settled and the resulting funds were not paid to the injured worker.

After those various Florida Bar complaints in 2018, Mr. Douglas was disbarred within the year. It was almost three years later that criminal charges were brought, as noted in Then Arrested.

I noted there that the described situation "would be lamentable and troublesome if it were isolated." And that post then documents other instances of allegations of people taking others' money.

In August 2022, I returned to the topic of a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation (August 2022). This instance involved Gus Vincent Soto, who had practiced in workers' compensation as long as I can remember (admitted to The Florida Bar in 1984). He had been Board Certified since 1991. He was known in the community as a bright attorney.

Mr. Soto had then been issued a "Petition for Contempt" for failing to respond to Bar inquiries. A subpoena had been issued on December 9, 2021, and the Bar petitioned for contempt in late February 2022. The Supreme Court granted that on May 16, 2022, and suspended Mr. Soto from practicing law.

Mr. Soto filed a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation rapidly, dated April 19, 2022. This noted multiple pending cases before a bar Greivance Committee, and more in the Bar investigative process.

Mr. Soto's petition agreed to an audit of his accounts, to provide a sworn financial statement to the Bar, and to "eliminate all indicia of petitioner's status as an attorney on:

on social media, telephone listings, stationery, checks, business cards, office signs, or any other indicia of his status as an attorney, whatsoever, as soon as reasonably possible and circumstances would permit. Petitioner will no longer hold himself out as a licensed attorney.

On June 16, 2022, The Florida Supreme Court granted the petition, case number SC22-505. The main distinction between this petition and Mr. Douglas' was that Mr. Douglas left open the option of later reapplying to be an attorney again. Mr. Soto did not, and the Court therefore noted "his revocation is permanent."

The Court's order says Mr. Soto "shall pay restitution" of $396,931 to various individuals. The story faded into history. More than three years later, WCTV Tallahassee reported recently, "Disbarred Tallahassee attorney arrested for allegedly stealing worker’s comp check from client." It has been well over three years since the June 2022 disbarment and restitution order.

The story proceeds to say that Mr. Soto was "arrested for allegedly stealing from one of his clients." This instance identifies a "$45,000 workers' compensation settlement," and an allegation that the client's name was "forged" on a settlement check in 2021. Allegedly, this client inquired about the funds recently, "not knowing that (Mr.) Soto had been disbarred in 2022." 

The WCTV story mentions the accusations "of not paying nearly $400,000 to five other clients." It is not clear, however, whether those funds have now all been repaid as the Court ordered, or whether those allegations are included in the current criminal allegations. It is also not clear whether efforts have been made to remove public references and social media suggesting Mr. Soto is an attorney. 

Today, a simple internet search returned multiple news references to Mr. Soto's challenges described above. But, it also returned multiple references to Mr. Soto's law practice without any notation of its closure. Only one, Avvo, noted a suggestion of questions: "this lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2023." No mention of disbarment or no longer being licensed.

(See images below, printed November 23, 2025, from Avvo, Findlaw, Google, Jacobs and Whitehall, Law Call, Lawayer.com, Lawyer Legion, lawyer.com, lawyers.com, LinkedIn, Martindale Hubbell, and even the Yellow Pages).

In fact, Martindale Hubbell describes Mr. Soto as "distinguished" in its listing. The "distinguished" icon in his listing says "2025." Martindale has been discussed here before, see Reproval for AV-Preeminent Lawyer (December 2023). 

The point of all of this is rather simple. If you settle your workers' compensation case, you should receive the funds reasonably quickly. When you get the money, you should receive a document that describes how much you are getting and what was kept by the law firm (fees and expenses). This "Closing Statement" is your right, according to The Florida Bar publication A Consumer Guide to Clients' Rights.

It is also important to remember that what is reflected on the internet may not be accurate or current. It is possible that an internet search will return information that is dated, incomplete, or simply not true. This is true of websites and social media platforms. This inaccuracy may be true even if a former attorney is ordered to remove such information. 

Some such references may be easier for an ex-lawyer to address than others. With some, removal may be as easy as a few clicks. Others, perhaps, require more time and dedication. Should it matter whether the ex-lawyer sought such a listing in the first instance? Some allege that listing on some of these "directories" occurs without request or even permission. Nonetheless, cancelling your LinkedIn, Twitter, and similar accounts is easy and quick. 

This internet caution is not limited to law firms or even to the internet. The customer should be wary of all advertisements. An ancient Latin caution, "caveat emptor," means "let the buyer beware" and is good advice in any commercial transaction. It is very good advice in situations that may involve the person you hire holding your rights in their hands and perhaps holding tens of thousands of dollars of your money.

When you hire an attorney, you should have clear communication of expectations (the goal or goals). Ask the attorney to predict the timeline (when) the necessary efforts (how), and follow up periodically. The lawyer should keep you informed, but you should also make efforts to stay in contact. If you move, get a new phone number, or change email addresses, you should tell your lawyer. 

If the lawyer will not return calls after several attempts, you may want to visit their office, send them an email, or write a letter. No, you do not jump to such actions after your first call is not immediately returned. People have calendar commitments and multiple responsibilities. Be patient. But do not forget your relationship with the lawyer; don't be too forgiving. After multiple unsuccessful attempts, you may decide it is time to contact The Florida Bar for advice. 

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.