Candor and Motions, Yet Again

I wrote several years ago about how lawyers can be persuasive and effective; see Candor, Omission, Persuasion (October 2021). One of the themes there was brevity balanced with necessary exposition. Another was the peril of telling a lie. Most lawyers will make a misrepresentation over the course of their career. 

That is not an indictment of their ethics or professionalism. That is simply the probability in a world of stress, facts, and litigation. Lawyers will make mistakes. That Candor post recognized that and reminded of the critical responsibility to correct those mistakes.

What of the related challenge of acquiescence? When a lawyer is asked about an objection to a motion, the lawyer may want to first see the motion. The imperative in this regard is driven by the personal conferring that is required by Rule 60Q6.115, and that

All motions shall include a statement that the movant has personally conferred or has used good-faith efforts to confer with all other parties or, if represented, their attorneys of record and shall state whether any party has an objection to the motion.

Thus, before a motion is filed, there is always a conversation between the two lawyers. Not their paralegals, their neighbors, or their friends. The lawyers ("personally") confer. It is one of the hallmarks of professionalism and an attractive part of the practice.

Would a competent lawyer "agree" to a motion they have never seen? Is that wise?

Imagine opposing counsel calls and informs they are disappointed in the lingering failure to fully provide requested documents. They cordially note that despite their esteem for you and acceptance of your assurances, their client feels that a motion to compel must be filed. What does your lack of objection signal? Most likely, it means that you are not objecting to the motion. As likely, it does not mean that you acquiesce in the accuracy of the moving party's facts, law, and argument.

In this instance, the lawyer might readily "not object" and thus clear the way for opposing counsel's filing. That attorney would then pay attention to the filings, read the motion as filed, and, if the facts, law, and argument are objectionable, file a response immediately as allowed by the rule.

Competent counsel never fails to read pleadings that are filed. They never fail to file a response to assert factual corrections, legal citations, and provide counterarguments. That is the lawyer's role and privilege. Too many forget that representing a client is a monumental privilege held by few and worthy of respect and appreciation.

But what if the motion is a "joint motion?" Would a competent lawyer agree to such a motion without seeing the document that will be filed? I would suggest not. The "joint" makes the motion an adoption, a representation of both parties. A joint statement of facts, law, and argument. The parties to a "joint" motion have "joint" responsibility for the veracity and accuracy of all the motion contains. see Candor, Omission, Persuasion (October 2021).

Competent counsel should never agree to be a party to ("joint") a motion they have never seen and read. Despite your unmeasurable esteem for opposing counsel, there is simply too much risk in adopting and agreeing to be responsible for representations you have never seen.

It is imperative that the adjudicator is presented with the truth. The adjudicator is going to rely on that motion, its representations, citations, and arguments. The lawyer who plays loosely with their responsibility and obligations will garner skepticism and distrust. The lawyer who allows their name to be associated with such practices will face similar consequences - by association - but nonetheless important.

Sure, "I must not tell lies," but as importantly, I need to be careful not to adopt and endorse the lies, or mistakes even, of others. 

'Tis but a Flesh Wound

Several years ago, the topic of air ambulances was popular at various workers' compensation events. I penned a piece on the economic conflicts, See Confusion and Disconnects in Medicine (July 2018). This included a couple of premises, such as the inherency of price irrelevance when payor and service recipient are disconnected. Also, the potential financial incentives of those making the care decision. 

The second premise focused on the decision of first responders arriving on the scene of an injury. These individuals are largely responsible for the decisions about rendering care, transporting to a hospital, and how. 

A patient might be treated and advised to follow up with a doctor or hospital on their own. If the patient needs to be transported, that might be by ambulance or by helicopter. I have often joked about preferring the helicopter because a helicopter ride is on my bucket list. 

I was convinced then, and remain so now, that such decisions are difficult for the care provider and the patient. Nonetheless, I was also convinced then that patients would not approach those decisions on a micro-economic level. That is, they would not weigh the cost-benefit factors of such a helicopter ride versus an ambulance. I cling to that belief, but recently ran across an anecdotal instance in which I am dead wrong. 

The Associated Press (AP) reported in July about a man hiking the Froze-to-Death Plateau (the name might dissuade some of us), striving for the highest peak in Montana. He "slipped and impaled himself on his trekking pole." Yes, the hiking stick went into his torso. Worse, it came out the other side. He found himself with a "44-in steel-tipped pole" through his chest, high on a mountain. The picture on AP is amazing. 

The hiker had one thing in his favor: he is a nurse with wound care experience. He performed a "self-assessment" and concluded that he might persevere without emergency services. He allegedly quipped, "tis but a flesh wound." See Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Python Pictures, 1975)(spoken by the Black Knight after King Arthur chops off his arm).

He then hiked out "about 10 miles and descended roughly 5,000 feet" with the pole stuck in his chest. His group reached the railhead and proceeded by car to the hospital. In all, it is an amazing story of fortitude and determination. Some would say it is one of amazing coincidences—how does one twist, turn, fall, and get such a stick in their torso? The mechanics of such an outcome are themselves mind-blowing.

But, to the point, the patient was in need of care. He was conscious and aware of alternatives. He was trained to know of the alternative of a helicopter. And, more curiously, he considered cost in his decision. He "conferred with his" hiking companions. And he "considered the high cost of a helicopter rescue." He did an economic analysis in the moment, with a pole poking through his chest. 

I am often wrong, admittedly. Nonetheless, I am surprised by this anecdotal instance of a patient, albeit a sophisticated and trained patient, performing an informed microeconomic analysis of the best solution to an urgency. The calm and aplomb that could lead to such analysis and the amazing outcome are impressive. 

Despite being patently wrong, I nonetheless remain convinced that such an analysis and outcome are beyond the grasp of most of the rest of us, perhaps all of the rest of us. Anyone considering such a decision might want to wonder first if they have sufficient medical knowledge to make such a call? 

In the end, the disconnect between care and cost persists for the rest of us. That disconnect is driving much of what is awry in the realm of American medical care. 

Accidents and Reevaluation

Paradise is a small town nestled on the convergence of the Gulf, Alabama, and is the central point of colonial West Florida. There is much to attract here. There are sugar-white beaches, bays, bayous, and rivers. There is wildlife (including the bears who periodically accost my morning walks). But, to some, the soul of Paradise is the claim of being the home of the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels.

There is no downside to this residency. Certainly, the planes can be loud, but they are not disruptive or disturbing. I lived just off the runway at Ronald Reagan International for a time, and those flights were much more noticeable. The upside is that Paradise and Paradise Beach each enjoy an air show each year, one mid-summer and the other a "homecoming" in the late fall.

The Blues are my topic today as a reminder about how safety is integrated into the workplace and the community.

The precipitating event was labelled by WEAR TV as "Low Blue Angels flyover at Pensacola Beach sends items flying, shocks beachgoers." The story was complete with video. It described a very low pass over a crowded beach strewn with observers on hand for the practice event labeled "Breakfast with the Blues" on Wednesday, July 15.

Suffice it to say that the F/A18 Hornet passed very close to the observers. Nonetheless, many were thrilled with the experience. Some recounted adjectives, others made comparisons, and all seemed unfazed by the proximity of a low-flying precision war machine. I spent some time years ago around those involved in the F/A18 design/build, and its precision and impressiveness are unparalleled in my estimation. Beyond the quoted enthusiasts and fans, there were also some negative comments on that story.

The Blue Angels were quoted in the WEAR TV story noting, "the safety of our hometown community, spectators, and our pilots is our highest priority."

Safety is indeed an important mission of every workplace. We see the challenges of workplace injury and persistently strive for better preparation, education, and prevention. It is a core element of the world of workers' compensation.

The next day, the Blues loyalists had noted that the number 3 plane had not practiced that day, following the low flyover the day before. They started a public "free number 3" campaign, and the local news published their story. The quotes there were supportive. Some were even bombastic. The comments to that story outed the pilot by name and noted his explanation that he had miscalculated, leading to the close pass.

There were calls for grace and expressions of enthusiasm and support. There was some negativity as well. There were various opinions expressed as regards the fan demand that number 3 fly the show on Saturday. When all was said and done, the Saturday event flew without number 3. By all accounts, it was nonetheless a great show. 

The point in all this is rather simple. The man on the street is not the best situated to work an investigation. There are professionals trained for such tasks. All day, across the country, they are looking into tragedies, accidents, and near misses. None of those are pejoratives. Sometimes there is a catastrophic event; other times, mere accidents. Either can have devastating effects on workers and employers. Yes, "workers," because a tragedy can impact the injured worker's coworkers as well. 

The near miss, however, is usually a blessing. That begins, of course, with the "miss" part. It is important for safety officials to notice such events. The safety experts benefit the worker and the public with their reevaluation and study of what, when, where, and why. They analyze accidents and near misses and help the work world to adjust and improve so that there is no "next time." And they do so without the influence or input of the wide, wide world of spectators and comment pundits.

The safety expert's role is not crowd-pleasing. Their role is evaluation and prevention. All of the pundits on the sideline are not needed in the evaluation of when number 3 rejoins the flight. That is a decision for the safety experts, the leadership, and number 3 himself. None of them can be led in that regard by uninformed public sentiment. And you would not want it any other way.

Actuary Actually

In August, I strove to introduce the importance of actuarial decisions in risk assessment. That was a run-up to the National Workers' Compensation Review at WCI, where we produced Actuarial Insight and the Mysterious Process of Underwriting and Reserving. See Help Me to Help You (August 2026). The impetus for that program was largely the writing and wisdom of William Zachry.

Mr. Zachry has a long history in the workers' compensation world, and capped his career running the risk efforts at Safeway supermarkets. He knows a bit about risk, insurance, retentions, reserves, and claims. Through the summer, as his vision for the NWCR came to fruition through his efforts and those of Suzy Braden of Gallagher Bassett, another conversation started about spreading the discussion to other venues.

If you missed that one, I cannot help. The NWCR program was excellent, but not recorded for posterity. There is always the chance such a program will resurface at future WCI programs; stay tuned here for news on that front. 

Nonetheless, the next opportunity came on September 9, 2026, when WorkCompCollege presented The Point again. Bob Wilson and I (Mostly Bob) have been producing this webinar under various names for about ten years. On this episode, Actually, Actuaries! A Great Way to Improve Claims Outcomes, we brought some similar thoughts to the fore. You can watch the recording at that link.

Mr. Zachry was joined by Loren Nickel, the risk expert at Google. It was a lively and informative conversation that reemphasized some important points. I encourage watching this recording and strive to better understand the critical involvement of actuaries in the world of claims and risk. It is an imperative for those who handle or strive to settle claims (on all sides).

Mr. Nickel and Mr. Zachry are focused on the role that actuaries play, which may impact the working world through the cost of their insurance products for workers' compensation. That includes the self-insured world because those companies likewise face a risk cost of collateral that the state requires for self-insured status. So, through premiums or this collateral, there is a cost of coverage. That is integrated into the prices you pay for that company's services of products.

The second role is in the appropriate reserving of individual claims files. Is there enough money set aside to pay the probable future expenses on a particular claim? The actuary has a role in predicting those probabilities and ensuring that risks are carefully considered.

The Point program was informative on several levels (where else can you get this kind of perspective and expertise for free?). I am no actuary (Mr. Nickel is) or a risk manager (Both Mr. Zachry and Mr. Nickel are former recipients of the RIMS Risk Manager of the Year Award). But I can tell when people have added value to a conversation.

My takeaways are rather simple. I mention them here but strongly encourage viewing the program.

First, the actuarial experts are striving to predict. They are looking at many data points, and there is no singular "fix" or "component" to effective management of risk or prediction.

Second, actuaries do not like change (who does?). They are prediction-driven, and their ability to define and predict effects may be impacted by the fact that many things change coincidentally. If the payments on a population of claims increase and there was a change in management (the TPA changed or the employer's risk manager), the actuary sees an increase (effect) but may struggle to clarify which change is contributing and how significantly.

Third, there is not enough communication in the risk/actuary relationship. When that new risk professional or new TPA (or other change) occurs, is the employer discussing that with the actuary in advance or waiting to be responsive when the actuary notices the increase in retrospect? To often, it is the latter, and the effect has already caused concern without forewarning.

Fourth, the interaction between the actuary and the risk manager has to involve trust, built through consistency, communication, and collaboration. As the actuary looks at past performance (what was spent, what was settled, etc.), they would likely have questions (more information is almost always better). Those can best be answered by the risk or claims professionals.

Finally, this relationship reinforces the conclusion that too much persists in silos. The risk department does not communicate enough with personnel/HR and information services (both internal), as well as the various providers impacting claimant care after an injury (most external). The lack of integrated and persistent access to information between all these silos frustrates the extent and pace of accessibility and analysis.

In a nutshell, the actuary will make critical decisions about the risk function. Their opinions will affect costs and the bottom line. Their perspectives will be governed and influenced by the available data (great or small). And the actuary can be an ally or adversary depending on how you choose to manage the relationship. Those who choose collaboration will likely be better served.

Watch the recording. This is critical knowledge whether you seek to manage risk, defend litigation, or maximize your injured worker's benefits or settlement. This conversation is critical, but more are needed. It is great to still be learning every day in this community. 

Inquiring Minds

We have witnessed some regrettable behavior from judges over the years. I have striven to highlight some of that here from time to time. One of the recent examples was the judge who engaged in amorous interactions in chambers during work hours. I pointed out that the judiciary's attempt to maintain anonymity was a disservice to all the other federal judges who did not display such contempt and disregard. See Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026).

That post noted that supposition and process of elimination likely identified the offender anyway. By early June 2026, the cat was fully out of the bag, and Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia was in the spotlight. Remember that the punishment imposed for the office tryst was a private reprimand, an agreement that she would not seek chief judge status, and her commitment to write apology letters to those who had to witness the sophomoric behavior.

The public reaction to the whole incident was mixed, from outrage to shrugged shoulders. Any remaining hint of anonymity disappeared when the apology letters became public. Note that the judge expressed regret for her actions and misrepresentations, but in retrospect, one of her greatest concerns was how she might word those apologies to best avoid anyone being critical about her behavior.

The American Bar Association (a private trade group to which some lawyers belong) reported in June that the "initial letters that she'd written" were featured in media reports. The letters were described as "a nonspecific three-line apology letter," perhaps fulfilling that prime directive of apology without risking real contrition or identification.

Judge Ross later provided new letters. Because they were after that media coverage, some will likely question the sincerity, but they were seemingly apologetic nonetheless. She wrote:

“My initial letter was entirely deficient, as I did not take full accountability for my actions, and I failed to give you the apology that you deserve.”

Since the story of the in-chambers dalliance broke, Representative Fuller Clay has introduced articles of impeachment. Representative Andrew Clyde has as well. Bloomberg reported that "federal judges are a privileged group," protected by the Constitution and ensconced in their own branch of government that is purportedly coequal.

All that said, the judiciary is also co-dependent. It relies on the Legislative and Executive for funding. Its processes and foundations are a mixture of inherent judicial authority and statutory constructs, all of which are subject to change through the legislative, and thus political, process.

The Bloomberg coverage laments that there are character failures in the judiciary "ranging from ethical violations to unlawful harassment to crimes." It describes the indiscreet exploits of Hon. Eleanor Ross and claims popular opinion that the discipline process is imperfect in light of the Constitutional constraints in the form of judicial independence.

Written by a former federal appellate chief judge, the Bloomberg piece is, essentially, an explanation of the purported discipline process and a defense of its efforts in the case of Judge Ross. It is an interesting read. The author concludes that federal judges who lie to their superiors are appropriately retained if they are genuinely remorseful about their lies.

Having just celebrated 250 years since declaring independence, and now achieving 243 years of nationhood without much similar hoopla, America is now a long-standing nation, with most of the world having seen significant change in foundations over the last 100 years. See Another Birthday (July 2026). 

The Federal Judicial Center keeps records of the ultimate accountability for federal judges. It notes that in this significant history, there have been very few impeachment votes (15), and fewer (8) convictions/removals. Some estimate that about 4,000 have served in the federal judiciary over those years. If that is accurate, then (8/4000) is an incredibly small percentage (.002%).

Time will tell if there is continued furor over the behavior and words of Judge Ross. Some will remain disturbed, and others' memories will fade as the next news cycle evolves. 

Whether she ever joins the 15 or the 8, she has brought difficulty to the judiciary. Despite the care and conclusions in the Bloomberg article, some will likely conclude that the Eleventh Circuit Council's disciplinary decision has perhaps not fully ameliorated that damage. 

A Blast from the Past

I have known some interesting lawyers over the years. There have been many to learn from and many lessons to learn. I used to drive to Daytona Beach from Jacksonville, about 100 miles, to defend workers' compensation cases.

That community was full of interesting characters. There was a blusterer whose every case was worth a fortune. I have never figured out whether he was crafty or clueless. Another was statutorily creative; I almost always had to pull out a book to understand the novelty they were injecting into a case. Those lawyers' names escape me these many years later.

But I never struggle to remember the guy with confidence and conviction. I first ran into him in a case that went surprisingly well at almost every turn. The facts kept coming up on my side, the opinions were trending in my direction, and yet the confident lawyer on the other side didn't falter or detour.

We were set for final hearing, and a new judge had recently taken the bench. Gone was the irascible Hon. Rand Hoch, who was known for being demanding, exacting, and sometimes irritable. The new judge was Hon. Tom Portuallo, the epitome of calm, patience, and persistence. His arrival in Daytona had signaled a new day in Florida workers' compensation.

Back to my case, our negotiations had stalled, though a significant amount of "risk" money was on the table. My client was anything but eager for trial; the probabilities for a defense decision in those days were rare in many venues. About a month before trial, I happened upon a rather arcane Florida Supreme Court decision that seemed to say, simply, "Dave wins." I showed it to my opposition; he was not deterred.

Finding such an authority seemed fortuitous, but I was litigating against a dean of the practice. He had been practicing for over twenty years at that point, and I was fresh to the practice. He was known for prevailing, and he was simply not going to settle.

I spent hours studying that precedent and trying to understand his angle, argument, or attack. I prepared, prepared again, and then prepared some more. He had me completely convinced that I had missed something, misread something, or that some other authority out there was going to contradict my predicted outcome.

After I won at trial, I asked him why it had reached that point. He explained that his time and money were long invested in the case by the time he saw the probable outcome. 

His client did not want to settle at all and was less eager to take "nuisance" or "risk" money. And, he patiently explained, he would likely gain multiple new clients because that client would always feel like they had been taken seriously and their lawyer fought for them. Besides, he reminded, "you never know that might not win anyway."

It was a long way to Daytona, and as the defense market shifted, I was there less frequently as that decade progressed. But I frequently looked back on that trial and the confidence it had instilled. 

It was only after his explanation that I realized my client's worldview was not that different. They wanted to be aptly represented, and had I not prevailed, they would have likely been as inspired by effort and respect. I would have gained more work from them win or lose. 

I had no further trials with that lawyer but did some mediations. I remember later learning that he had spent some time in garage bands during the 1960s, including the "Nightcrawlers." He related wisdom about people that he had gained from those experiences and once even admitted to his involvement in a "top 100 single, Little Black Egg." 

As I recall the story, he and his friends wrote that song minutes before a show, on a lark, and it was their only hit. While it is an arcane reference, the song was later covered by The Lemonheads and The Cars. 

I ran across Sylvan Wells again years later when he joined our Statewide Nominating Commission for a few years. He had long retired from practicing law and was striving to remain engaged and to give back to the community a bit. Somehow, his name came up again a few weeks ago, and it caused me to hit Google.

I was surprised to find a lengthy article about his current exploits. It describes how he made a hobby of building guitars. He related being discouraged by an instrument repair person in Orlando years ago, who told him he could not build guitars without training and an apprenticeship. Sylvan reacted as he had when practicing; he studied, invested, and built a guitar anyway.

The story notes that the adventure began with a $20.00 bet with that repairman. Sylvan was proud that he built the guitar despite that discouragement, and I can hear him say, "That $2,000 investment got me my $20.00 back." The willingness to invest in the face of long odds reminded me of that case we tried so long ago.

Sylvan has since bought the rights to an old brand that was produced from 1865 to 1911, and is making and marketing Bay State Guitars. He has built about 300 instruments, one "from a 2-by-10 from Home Depot." Some might see a parallel there also, patient investment in one case after another, amounting in time to an admirable collection.

I have not spoken to Sylvan in several years, and he has to be close to 80. Nonetheless, he is engaged in something he enjoys and has undertaken it with zeal, despite doubters and challenges. There is some suggestion that he is also teaching people to build their own guitars, a hobby gone commercial. 

There are several key messages here for young lawyers. First, there is life after legal practice, and there is room all along for outside interests. Second, there is merit in investing with your heart even when the odds seem stacked in the other side's favor. Third, figuring out what drives your opponent may be frustrating and even fruitless. Finally, there is merit in rationality and advice, but success may come instead from personal confidence and commitment.

If you are reading this, Sylvan, good for you.

Is it Just Age or a New Age?

Something changes. It is difficult to describe how life progresses. Too often, I have thought I had figured out much only to be surprised yet again. Three recent events struck me in this regard. I have lamented the passing of time; see Ever Get Old (January 2025). 

Last fall, I found the copier short of paper. A "copier" is a historical tool that some of us use to make duplicates of documents that are preserved in the form of various ink products affixed to mass-produced pulp products that result from cooking trees. It is fascinating in its own right, and I recommend gaining some experience with this so-called "paper" at some stage of your career.

The story proceeds with my loading two boxes of paper onto a hand truck and bringing it 75 feet to the copier. As I unloaded the "reams" (500 pages of "paper" wrapped in a separate paper package), a younger staff member approached and suggested that I let her stack the reams instead. She said, "Judge, you shouldn't be doing that." 

She later insisted that this was not a comment on my disappearing (disappeared?) youth and vigor but was expressing some sentiment that my time would be better spent elsewhere. Nonetheless, the well-intentioned attempt to assist me left me feeling as if age was overtaking me.

I am somewhat known for frugality (which many pronounce "cheap"). Several months after the paper event, I was working on a project, and we needed some software help. I did not relish the headache of procuring through government channels and all that entails.

My team's efforts revealed a solution, whose benefits they explained to me. They then cautioned, however, "but there is a charge." Expecting something rather significant, I asked how much. The price that had brought trepidation? About $25.00. I asked the team, only somewhat joking, "do I not look like I could spend $25.00?" They assured me it was not that, but they had been reluctant to raise this solution nonetheless.

More recently, I found myself in a retail establishment. I was leaving with a small package in my hands, and a twenty-something young lady was entering carrying more significant burdens. Despite the disparity, the youth paused to hold the door for me, insisting. I thanked her as I passed, and she replied "Have a good day, sir."

Call me a genderist, but I was raised to stand up when introduced to a lady. It has been ingrained in me to use the terms "sir" and "ma'am," to the point I sense this periodically makes people uncomfortable. And, most critically, I was always taught that a man does the lifting, carrying, door holding, etc., for a lady.

Over the course of my several decades on this planet, I have striven to live these teachings. Suddenly, I am noticing that there is a deference. Perhaps that is the equality of this modern age? Maybe there is simply a greater appreciation today for ability and participation, and the gender norms of yesteryear (holding the door, lifting the paper, etc.) are antiquated and obsolete?

Or, there is a more chilling and sinister answer: Dave is getting (or perhaps "gotten") old. I would like to think that equality and equanimity are ruling the day. I would love to view this as merely the product of a new age; I hope that there is an expanding and profound egalitarianism spreading. But, I fear the fact is that is simply "age," that I am simply getting old, and the youth both perceive that and feel sorry for me.

Call me paranoid, but I am really hoping ... what were we talking about again?

Sociology 101

There is a body of research that supports your "Facebook friends are not your real friends." The sad part of this is the degree of surprise some express when such statements are made. Forbes reported over a decade ago that Facebook users tended to have "hundreds or thousands of friends" on that platform. Nonetheless, "only a small number of those friends can be counted on during rough times."

That is old news, based on research by an Oxford University professor. He collected subjective data responses from Facebook users in the United Kingdom and defined both probabilities and groups. 

The average respondent had 150 Facebook Friends. He concluded that within that larger population, there were two "inner circles" among such "friends" groups, including those who "were dependable," about 4 (3%), and those who were engaged enough to "express sympathy during an emotional crisis," about 14 (9%).

He concluded that these numbers remained reasonably static regardless of how many "friends" the person had in their entire population. Instead of parallel larger groups, those with "unusually large networks" (populations) had simply "added more loosely defined acquaintances into their friendship circle," that is, their broad population of friends. This did not increase the size of the "dependable" or the "sympathy" groups. 

That decade-old research came as a shock to some but was unsurprising to many. For years, Facebook friends were generally seen as less connected and even mocked. Memes were prolific:

"Having a lot of Facebook friends does not mean you're popular in real life. It only means you spend way too much time on Facebook." 

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew just because we're friends on Facebook doesn't mean I'm actually your friend." 

"If you're my real friends bring up one memory of us that you'll never forget."

That last one likely says it all.

Part of this story is basic sociology. Every college student the world over should have to take one sociology class, regardless of their major of study. People are complex, intriguing, and their interactions and behavior are fascinating. We are all variously driven by emotions, chemicals, inborn characteristics (nature), and the conglomerate of our experiences (nurture).

Social media likely does not influence the nature and nurture much, though a person's thoughts on those platforms might well be influenced by friends, family, and upbringing. But chemicals could be the real issue.

We all know by now that social media is a master of addiction and chemicals. Well over a decade ago, the mental health community alerted us that social media was driven largely by dopamine and oxytocin. 

The engineers at these platforms figured out how to stimulate our nerve centers and drag the unwilling back to the platform persistently, like rats drawn to the end of a maze. They engineered the perceptions and feelings.

If any of this is coming as a surprise, you have likely been meditating on a mountaintop somewhere since about 2004.

All of this came back to me when a recent headline in my news feed proclaimed criticism for another app-based tool, Partiful (and similar). The story reports that the next generation has either lost another degree of connection, or somehow grew up in a world without it. 

The tool or practice here is the répondez s'il vous plaît, which most label RSVP, and which generally seeks your commitment to attend some event. The point is rather obvious. How many places should we set at the dinner? How many seats are available at a venue? Anyone who has ever planned an event will understand that predicting the crowd can be as difficult as providing for them.

In the olden days of yore, paper invitations were sent. These usually included a small envelope with a postage stamp affixed, in which the invitee could return a card to inform of their intention to attend the soiree. 

Don't get me wrong, the RSVP was never science. Despite their formality, every event exhibited some degree of "no-show" despite those invitees' commitments and promises. Many a lunch, dinner, and hors d'oeuvres have been discarded untouched over the years following someone's unexpected non-appearance.

But the next generation has apparently eschewed the paper and postage. They have turned to a platform called "Partiful" and others like it, according to Yahoo. The story recounts a Gen-Z party held to celebrate someone's ascendancy and success. Fifty people were invited (the "friends"), and 24 committed with a "yes" (sympathy), Eight of those showed up.

The party hostess was disappointed. She had spent time, money, and emotion in preparing a party, and she counted on her "friends" to be there for her. Many readers right now are doing the math from the UK study. They are thinking that 50% (24) is a pretty solid response rate, and that 16% (8) is better than one might expect based on what we already know from the Facebook study.

Nonetheless, it is likely that we have learned from the fallacy of Facebook. The young person with the eight friends likely invited fifty real friends, not fifty Facebook hangers-on. She invited people she "met over the last 10 years ... even if we haven't talked in a while." These were real people, real relationships, though perhaps not as close as she perceived. Nonetheless, it is admittedly distressing.

The party hostess was left "questioning her friendships." Following her social media expose, she concluded that she is not alone and such no-show culture has become more common or even expected. She concluded that some RSVP as a show of support, much in the way one would "like" something or otherwise respond on social media.

There are some worthy and rather simple points. First, there are a limited number of people who you can actually count on. Not showing up at parties or living up to RSVPs. I mean, count on. I mean, come at the drop of a hat, count on. Find those few, nurture them, and keep them close. That is not to say there is anything wrong with the others, but they may or may not show up for pizza.

Second, there is room in polite society for social interaction beyond the "like," the "click," the comment, the repost, or the tag. Certainly, it would be more work. Pick up the phone (no, not to text) and make a call. Chat a bit or leave a voicemail. Make the invite personal and perhaps the recipient will take the contact more seriously. 

It is likely uninspired to use a distance tool like social media to invite and expect a personal and considered response. You use a remote tool, expect a remote and detached response. The solutions to our socialization issues are right before our eyes. 

Put down the group chat and speak to people. Listen actively and attentively. It is a radical concept, but I think it just might work. 

Headnote lawyers

Forbes recently reported its perception that various adjudicators are imposing "more severe sanctions" for filings that include hallucinated citations. The Florida Supreme Court recently adopted a rule change with the intent to address hallucinations and artificial intelligence. See A Positive Step? (June 2026).

The change in the rule is seen by some as tackling the AI challenge. Others characterize it as "curbing" hallucinations. There is merit in the new rule as it imposes the same obligation on pro se litigants that lawyers already face in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-4.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal.

Nonetheless, the new rule requires only that each person who signs a pleading certify that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

What this rule does not patently do is require that the filer actually read those legal authorities or certify that they are pertinent, relevant, and accurately characterized. I note this in A Positive Step? (June 2026) with the absurd example of citing Roe v. Wade for the proposition of federal primacy on the regulation of interstate commerce.

In June 2026, I had the opportunity to present on Artificial Intelligence. The new rule was then still proposed and very much on the audience's mind.

I deduced from the discussions that a real concern remains the "headnote lawyers." I vividly recall this cohort being described in law school so long ago. The legal world existed before the internet, databases, and algorithms. There were longstanding challenges in the process of legal research that required scrutiny of legal decisions.

Legal decisions, to some, represent value. They believe that precedent should be followed, and they refer to this spirit as "the common law." While others find this approach to law anachronistic or worse, there is a long-standing tradition in the common law throughout American history and the legal systems founded on British (or English) foundations and distributed by the colonial era.

To steer and assist the lawyer in this, publishers began summarizing and categorizing legal conclusions in court decisions. They would strive to discern the logic path and holdings of those court decisions. These perceptions and interpretations were published as an adjunct to those decisions in short snippets called "headnotes."

These are not the court's holding or even reasoning. They are what an editor somewhere feels like the point(s) of the court's interpretation are. They are reminiscent of the game of telephone, in which players pass a message around a circle by each whispering in their neighbor's ear. What starts as one thought can easily be astoundingly different after passing from person to person, interpretation to interpretation.

To make matters worse, those who write headnotes like to classify them, adding numbers. This categorization puts certain interpretations together, despite them being slightly or radically different, based on some editor's categorization or labeling. Those numbers were once published in "Digests" so that lawyers could scan pages of similar headnotes without pulling the cases.

The computer made that lazy practice more readily available. With a mouse click or two, a lawyer can look at many editors' opinions very rapidly. The path to misapprehension and misinterpretation is no longer the footpath of books it once was; it is now a veritable autobahn of no speed limit skim-surfing with all the advantages of the World Wide Web.

Thus, there has always been a challenge presented by the lazy and unwitting lawyer who cites a case from such a Digest in full-faith reliance on what some editor put in a book and assigned a number. Those unmitigated failings polluted many a pleading long before the advent of AI. AI does not enable this "Headnote Lawyer" paradigm; it merely makes it more accessible and with greater speed.

There is the real rub. The current rules do not seemingly require that someone citing an authority (case, statute, etc.) understand them, or even read them. The rules require that the authorities cited are real. Certainly, that is an advantage over IA slop or one kind, but nonetheless leaves the door wide open for the same uninformed, misapplied heanote lawyering that plagued us before.

The federal courts are utilizing Rule 11, specifically (b)(2) regarding representations:

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

Referencing that, a Mississippi federal court in Withers v. City of Aberdeen CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-218-SA-RP (06/08/26) noted

[g]enerative technology can produce words,” it cannot attach “… sincerity, truth, or responsibility to what it writes. That remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.” Mattox v. Prod. Innovations Rsch., LLC, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1343 (E.D. Okla. 2025).

Cocluding that (2) requires knowing the law, the federal judge concluded

“To state ‘the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearly has not read those nonexistent cases, which is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’”

The requirements of Rule 2.515 are not identical, but there is a similarity in (d)(2):

(B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and

Can a lawyer or pro se litigant determine that "there are good grounds" if they have not read those cited authorities?

Thus, there is the potential that Florida courts will impose sanctions beyond the context of the new citation certification standard. Possibly, there will be an expectation for litigants and lawyers to actually read the authorities they cite, to understand them, to accurately describe their relevance to the dispute.

All that said, there is merit in a more specific reference in both of these rules to clarify the obligation beyond authenticity. The age of information dawns, and the tools are evolving. The day of the headnote lawyer, the lazy reference, and all that entails should conclude.

Full text Rule 11:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.

Full text of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration Rule 2.515

RULE 2.515. SIGNATURE AND REPRESENTATIONS TO COURT

(a) Signature Required. Every document filed or served must be signed by the attorney, unrepresented party, or other person authorized by law to file or serve the document as provided in this rule. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken by the court and the action may proceed as though the document had not been filed or served.

(b) Acts Constituting Signature.

(1) Electronically Filed Documents.

(A) Except as provided in subdivision (b)(1)(B) below, the act of filing a document constitutes the filer’s signature. The signature of each person who is not the filer must be identified as a signer within the document in one of the following ways:

(i) signature block;

(ii) by an electronic signature indicator in the by an electronic signature permitted by law and in accordance with the Florida Courts Technology Standards; or

(iii) when an attorney is filing a document on behalf of an unrepresented party, by the:

a. placement of an electronic signature indicator above the printed name of the unrepresented party on whose behalf the filing is being made and who has requested that the attorney affix the unrepresented party’s electronic signature indicator and file the document; or

b. signature of the unrepresented party in any form recognized by law on the paper document and the inclusion of that document as part of an electronically filed document or with a notice of filing containing the style of the case, the name of the document, and certificate of service.

The electronic signature indicator may be an “/s/” in front of the signer’s printed name or may be in any other form that meets with the Florida Courts Technology Standards.

(B) Notwithstanding (A) above, when an attorney files a document on behalf of an unrepresented party as permitted in subdivision (b)(1)(A)(iii) and when the filing attorney’s signature is omitted from the document, the act of filing that document does not constitute the filer’s signature.

(2) Paper Documents. A person submitting a paper document for filing under rule 2.525(c) must sign the document before submitting it, using any form of signature recognized by law. The person submitting the document becomes its filer for purposes of this rule.

(3) Served Documents. For documents served, but not contemporaneously filed, the act of serving constitutes the server’s signature and the signature of each person identified as a signer.

(c) Signature Block. A document signed under this rule must include a signature block containing the filer and each signer’s name, electronic signature indicator, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for service of court documents (if the document is filed or served electronically). If the signer is an attorney, the signature block must also include the signer’s Florida Bar number and the party the signer represents. If a signer is represented by an attorney who is also a signer, then only the attorney’s information is required.

(d) Representation to Court.

(1) Representation by Filer. By filing a document under rule 2.525, the filer represents that:

(A) the filer has complied with all rules of procedure regarding filing and service of the document;

(B) every person identified as a signer has authorized that person’s signature and the filer accepts responsibility for proving that authority if it is later disputed; and

(C) the document contains no confidential or sensitive information, or that any confidential or sensitive information has been properly protected by complying with rules 2.420 and 2.425.

(2) Representation by Signer. On filing, each signer represents that:

(A) the signer has read the document;

(B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and

(C) the document is not interposed for delay; and

(D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. The Court may, on its own motion or the motion of a party, impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.

(3) Representation by Person Serving. A person serving a document under rule 2.516 makes the same representations contained in subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2).

John Burton Passes 2026

The WCI 2026 is officially “in the can.“ I find myself reflecting on the many years I have trekked to Orlando for this annual event. I have many fond memories of nuggets, takeaways, and personal growth. I couldn’t possibly list all of those who have influenced me, supported me, paved a path, and thrown obstructions.

That last one is a little harder to value, perhaps. "He is grateful for opposition?" Yes. The roadblocks and naysayers could be viewed as negatives. But I am so grateful for them, regardless of their intent. Whether you threw the obstruction to stop me or to make me stronger is irrelevant. In the end, the character of each was not yours to decide, but mine.

On Tuesday, August 25, 2026. I learned of the passing of John Burton. Professor Burton was an economist of significant note in the world of workers' compensation. He chaired the National Commission appointed during the Nixon administration and anointed by the same statute that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1972.

Regardless of your perspective on his analyses and hypotheses, Dr. Burton was an icon in the world of Workers’ Compensation. In our modern world, it is fair to say that scholarship about this topic is thin. 

I know of only one college professor with a significant focus on it: economist Dr. Bob Hartwig. I know of only one full-time law school professor with a significant academic focus on it, Michael Duff. Historically, you might note Professor Larson at Duke (1910-1993) and his successor, Thomas Robinson. Contributors all, but a very small group of academics in a vast and complex world.  

And with the passing of Dr. Burton, the tiny group contracts. 

I have been critical of both the 1970 Commission and their 1972 report. See Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears (April 2022). That has been public and patent. The intent has never been to question the author, but some might see me throwing brickbats. 

And there were various of us hands-on citizens of workers' compensation who had our differences of opinion with Dr. Burton. I spoke with him only thrice, but frequently disagreed with his hypotheses, themes, conclusions, and writings. But we grew from his scholarship, whether we perceived his thoughts as inspirations or obstacles.

Dr. Burton was 91 years old. Even today, that is an admirable run. He withdrew to emeritus status on the Rutgers faculty in 2000, but continued to speak on workers' compensation. 

Many in the Worker’s Compensation world prognosticated regarding his age. He was old enough to chair the Commission in 1973, and yet was still making public appearances in the 21st-century. If you knew nothing else about the man, his longevity, energy, and persistent motivation should remain inspiring.

Changing gears for a moment, I found myself inadvertently in a pertinent conversation Tuesday morning at the WCI. It was with a shy and reserved individual whom I therefore elect not to identify. Let us just say I spoke with Horace Middlemier* at great length.

Horace was focused on his “love” of the Worker’s Compensation community, the WCI conference, and the various people to which it exposes (Horace loves to love and to say "love," "love it," and "love you."). 

Our conversation kept returning to these people and this community, and the inexplicable ignorance of our greatest strength (people seem oblivious to the great value of our people and their interactions). The humans involved in workers' compensation across America are invariably cordial, collegial, and committed to community.

Certainly, there’s intellect, imagination, and collectivity here. Any group of people can be inspired, clever, and appear engaged. Being engaged is much harder to feign, and doing so persistently is impractical or worse. I have watched this community long enough to accept its sincerity. 

But Horace's critical point was not in the "what," but in the "how." His sense of wonder and admiration was not simply in the practice, the business, or the people. His global enchantment was in the amazing interwoven and continuous cloth that each of these various threads contributes to the overall whole. 

Horace questioned passionately, “Where else does this exist?” He meant the interaction. He was describing the breadth of obvious, sincere friendships. His focus was the sincerity, commitment, and obvious passion that exist for this mission and each other. Indeed, where else does this exist? A question that should make us all grateful to be in this space. 

I have struggled over the years to capture my emotions that attach to this community. Though I work daily with words and strive to one day become a great communicator, I struggle to describe the depth and breadth of community in which we find ourselves.

I conclude that Horace's characterization is both accurate and astute. This community is, in fact, the combination of a tremendous volume of extremely diverse threads woven together in sometimes curious and unexpected ways. We are become a fabric, or more aptly a quilt.

And then we turn ourselves to the analysis of what type of quilt has been thus constructed. And doing so we must avoid the hubris of believing that any one of us sees or comprehends the entirety of this tapestry. 

At best, in a moment that is a career, you may have contributed some small influence on the appearance of one square of the vast quilt. Invest a career, and you will likely not understand all the contributors or even the challenges. I spoke with Jim McConnaughay this year, and he related learning recently about new facts and issues. He has been in this community for over 50 years. 

And if you gaze upon the community, the whole quilt, from the vantage of your square, it may have a particular appearance or appeal to you. Nonetheless, you must contemplate and comprehend that others standing upon their square, or sharing the square of some other contributor, may gain an utterly different perspective. This is broad, deep, and complex no matter how straightforward your own square might be or seem. 

Different. Not better. Different. Not right or wrong. Different. Perspectives can be different. 

As I reflect upon my conversations with Dr. Burton, I am reminded of our coincidence and contradiction. He was no more a lawyer than I am an economist. We therefore often viewed the world and this segment differently and had diverse perspectives on topics from causation to compensation. I might have the same perspective differences with any of you reading this.

Dr. Burton was no more qualified than anyone to examine and opine. Yet, he was no less so. No less so than a doctor, nurse, chiropractor, claims manager, risk manager, business owner, attorney, or employee. Every perspective has the gravitas to commentate. Many lack the time, the platform, or the inclination. 

In the end, our world is diminished by Dr. Burton's passing. By no means because he was right, but by all means because he was engaged, interested, and honest in his perspective. I disagreed with him often. I hope that I did so respectfully of his absolute right to his opinion. 

I respected that he truly felt as he said. I need not agree with it to value it. I frankly don’t need to even understand it. Understanding concepts like economics, law, psychology, medicine, and more comes at great cost. It must be studied, contemplated, tested, and tempered. Professor Burton did that. He was an honest scholar and a dedicated student of our world of workers' compensation. 

Yesterday morning, as I rode west from WCI 2026, trying to outrun the sunrise, I reflected on so many of you about whom I would say the exact same thing. Whether you’ve given me succor or adversity, intentionally or obliviously, thank you for bringing your energies, talents, and perspectives to this community in a conversation. 

I decide how to view your perspective, praise, roadblock, or brickbat. I decide to resort to angst or analysis. I decide to persevere or cower. Not based on your intent, but on my willingness to listen, analyze, and agree or disagree. That is, disagree without being disagreeable. We can all have our own perspective, approach, and conclusions. See Perspective and Respect (August 2016). Let us do so with dignity and mutual respect. 

Dr. Burton and I were none of the following: friends, allies, antagonists, or enemies. We were each students, teachers, and analysts. I do not pretend to hold myself up as a peer. Possibly, John Burton had no peers. But I do believe, passionately, that he was academically honest in his approach, analyses, and conclusions. That does not mean I agree with him, but I do believe he was sincere and appropriate in his approach and study. In the end, is there a better compliment on a life well lived?

We should all be so honest and open, regardless of our perspective(s) and beliefs. We should remember that as we disagree, we all nonetheless remain part of a community, a critically important community. That is true whether we can recognize and appreciate our personal scope, role, or contribution(s) or not. 

Rest in peace, Dr. Burton. Thanks for the memories, the analyses, the conclusions, and the questions. Thanks for the rigor, the discipline, and the impact you had on this community. 

Rest in peace indeed. May the wind always be at your back. 

*Horace Middlemier is a figment, a foil, an "everyman." He is a recurrent character in my posts about a world in which some seek exposure, and others prefer obscurity. The name is oft used when I lack permission to identify by name.