Judges and AI

A year ago, I noted "hubbub surrounding two federal judges" and the AI craze sweeping America. See Trust but Verify (August 2025) and Just Delete It? (October 2025). One of the instances discussed there was "Judge Henry Wingate (78) of Mississippi (who) was appointed in 1985 by Ronald Reagan."

The situation then involved "a lapse in human oversight." Judge Wingate "reportedly deleted the (AI) order riddled with mistakes." A new order was then purportedly substituted for the erroneous original. Reporting then described Judge Wingate's solution to prevent future instances of AI error and hallucination would be double-checking "by a second law clerk before submission to" the judge. Would double-checking by the judge be a good alternative to that? 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an order in Jackson Fed'n of Tchrs. v. Fitch, No. 25-60496, 2026 WL 3167654 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2026), and it has attracted attention. It appears this may address the order discussed in the previous posts. This 5th Circuit decision reversed Judge Wingate and concluded that a change of trial judges was necessary.

It noted that a preliminary injunction had been entered August 18, 2025 by Judge Wingate. The court explained that review of such an injunction is by the "abuse of discretion" standard. It reminded that "grant(ing) a preliminary injunction based on incorrect legal principles '[b]y definition'" is abuse of discretion. That sentence is compelling and informative on the abuse standard of review. 

The court's description is difficult to read; the law that must be comprehended and interpreted is complex. Undoubtedly, the process that the 5th Circuit describes, the "Moody two-step process," sounds involved and factually intense. It includes a "rigorous standard" and careful weighing of competing considerations. 

In Fitch, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was entered on July 20, 2025, with "eleven individuals and organizations who had never been party to the case" named as plaintiffs. The "named ... defendants (were) two officials who were not actually sued." The court also noted other foundational flaws ("without evidence").

Then a defense "motion to clarify" led to an unexplained "seemingly corrected version" of the July 20, 2025 order. The original was "replaced" in that process rather than an amended order entered. The defense asked that this original document "be restored to the docket to keep the record whole." That request was denied. Deleting a public record from the docket is troubling. 

Following a Senatorial inquiry, "Judge Wingate admitted the errors, claiming that a law clerk had used AI to assist drafting an earlier version of the TRO that was docketed by mistake." In addition to other procedural criticism, the 5th Circuit noted that the second TRO ("backdated to July 20") "did not correct all of the errors," and one hallucinated case remained thereafter until discovered at the appellate oral argument.

The appellate court made observations about Judge Wingate's process and noted he had essentially "take(n) the plaintiffs' claims as true, with barely a glance at the arguments of the defendants." This, it characterized as "legal analysis so poor that it hardly deserves the label." 

Elsewhere, the court used the terms "laxity in observing binding authority," an analysis "completely backwards," and a situation "deeply troubling." It notes the "substantive reasoning is poor at best." The court concludes that "the order badly misunderstands" a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Reversal for reconsideration of these flaws was necessary. 

Additionally, having noted the various shortcomings and concluding to reverse, the 5th Circuit concluded that it was appropriate to exercise "an 'extraordinary' and 'rarely invoked' power” and to reassign the case to another judge on remand.

The analysis and explanation there are clear. First, the "AI-hallucinated 'facts' from (the) original TRO" and the lack of explanation in the second order, later issued with a similar TRO outcome despite then being "without the false evidence to support it." The Circuit Court also noted 

"the public esteem for the judiciary would be diminished by sending this case back to the same judge for judgment on facts and law entirely different from those upon which he supported his initial TRO"

Furthermore, it noted some judge would have to begin the analysis in Fitch anew because of the direction this opinion provides on Moody, and more. Thus, the court concluded, "'regrettably,' the waste of the tainted proceedings is 'already on the balance sheet.'” Citation omitted. 

It noted also "that an objective observer might question the impartiality of the proceedings" and "therefore might further question later proceedings run by the same judge." Perhaps that is always a potential when a judge's conclusion is reversed, and remand is appropriate? 

The analysis in Fitch is significant. The perils of artificial intelligence are illustrated. The perils of reliance on paraprofessionals, law clerks, and others are also worthy of consideration. The lawyer or judge who signs their name is responsible regardless of the source of facts or law. The review process requires personal attention.

For the judge, the order itself requires personal attention. It is, ultimately, the judge's order. This remains whether it relies on law and analysis of a party seeking an outcome, is the result of some law clerk's foundational work, or is the judge's personal research and drafting. The end product is the judge's, and neither AI nor clerk involvement changes that. 

For us all, the lesson must be that tasks may be delegated, but responsibility cannot. As important, the impact of errors may be significant in the time and effort of others. This may be in lawyers redoing research and amending filings or in judges reconsidering and issuing amended orders. In either case, open and clear correction with acknowledgement of mistakes or errors is the appropriate path. 

A Referral to The Bar

The human psyche seeks affirmation or, at a minimum, desires it. There is an innate human need for acceptance, though there are those among us who need it less for whatever reason. All that considered, embarrassment is troubling to most people, whether it is writ large or merely some social faux pas. 

These thoughts struck me with the recent rendition of Lisandrilo v. Palozzi, 2026 WL 2727559 (Fla. 4th DCA September 16, 2026). There, the language is frank and perhaps troubling. The analysis is critical and somewhat unforgiving. There is embarrassment, or at least should be.

The appellate court was asked to grant an extraordinary writ. See A Law Student and a Series of Dumb Mistakes (May 2018). The appellate court summarily denied that request and nonetheless wrote “to address counsel’s filing of what appears to be 'AI Slop.'” This was described as “gibberish” and evidenced “abuse (of) the litigation process in different ways—including churning out the convoluted, false, and frivolous arguments." That criticism will be seen by some as harsh. Others may welcome it. 

After a brief reminder that “abusive AI filing threatens the orderly administration of justice,” the court provides edification for the parties and public. It is imperative that all orders are of value to the litigants in a particular case but that they also are the fabric of the common law and inform a far wider audience. 

The challenges in the trial court began with a party electing to disregard a judge’s Family Law visitation order. The attorney may have unsuccessfully encouraged client compliance but in filings seemingly strove to excuse non-compliance. This was followed by a “41-page … ‘Urgent Omnibus Application,’” which sought “13 forms of relief.” 

It is likely worth mentioning that the lawyer is board certified in Family Law, and has 15 years’ experience practicing. According to their firm website, the lawyer is “considered one of the top lawyers in the state of Florida.” Accolades listed there also include “a Rising Star and Super Lawyer,” a “Top Lawyer," again, “a Top Lawyer,” Legal Elite Top Lawyer,” as well as “one of the 40 Under 40 Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida.” 

As a side note, being "one of the top lawyers" may be a matter of opinion. How anyone is perceived, by self or others, may be difficult to judge, quantify, and sustain. May I just add that I am one of the top blog writers in the Milky Way Galaxy? I also have a coffee cup that certifies I am "the world's best boss." See Rule 4-7.14, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Do perceptions matter? Do they change with the passage of time and other circumstances? 

That Omnibus Application was soon followed in the trial court by an “emergency motion to vacate” the visitation order being ignored and “three separate motions in limine,” addressing testimony anticipated in a motion hearing. At that hearing, instead of addressing the “emergency motion,” the attorney apparently proceeded with the “urgent” and “omnibus” motion. It was denied, and the court adjourned with the intent to reconvene later that day to address the original issue—contempt for non-compliance, the original decision to disregard the initial order.

That hearing included respondent presenting evidence of petitioner's violation of the order. The petitioner chose not to present contrary evidence but “again tried to rely on ‘prior filings.’” In the end, the petitioner was held in contempt.

Additionally, the “petitioner filed a 33-page motion to disqualify the judge.” This “raise[d] many frivolous arguments, including arguments that are contrary to the record, and its denial led to the filing of a “61-page emergency petition (in the Fourth District that) seeks a writ of prohibition” regarding the disqualification denial and also “certiorari review of seven other rulings.”

The appellate court includes portions of that filing in an appendix to the decision and describes the filing contents with phrases like

“confusing request”

“frivolous argument”

“a string of convoluted arguments”

“abuse of procedure”

“request for certiorari relief are frivolous”

“has no precedential value and should not have been cited.”

“irrelevant”

“solely to disparage the judge”

“falsely alleges”

“does not accurately represent”

“legally insufficient”

“allegations ….contrary to the record”

“merely complain about adverse rulings”

“legal gibberish”

“bizarre”

Emphasis of “seemingly random sentences”

“bogus arguments”

“issue churning”

“unpreserved issues”

“scattershot arguments”

“spurious arguments”

“laundry list of convoluted arguments”

“an AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in some of the prose”

The opinion concludes:

“pro se litigants and lawyers can easily abuse AI to crank out extensive and confounding documents that cause delay, annoyance, and expense to the other side. Busy courts can drown in a flood of filings that are difficult to navigate.”

Citing Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2), the Fourth DCA says that counsel’s signature is representation that the pleading has been read, and “that there are good grounds to support” it, and it “is not interposed for delay.” This is akin to Rule 11. See Headnote Lawyers (August 2026), and A Positive Step (June 2026). Instead, the court concludes that the filings there were “abusive motion practice.” The court concludes that the conduct “implicates many rules of professional conduct,” mentioning:

"4-1.1 (“Competence”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-2.1 (“Adviser”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.1 (“Meritorious Claims and Contentions”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.2 (“Expediting Litigation”); and R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3 (“Candor toward the Tribunal”). Counsel’s conduct also raises ethical questions concerning billing. R.Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5 (“Fees and Costs for Legal Services”)"

The court concluded allowing the attorney ten days to show cause “without the use of AI” why sanctions should not be imposed. And why the matter should not be referred to The Florida Bar. I do not recall an instance in which a court imposed a prophylactic AI prohibition of that nature. That, in itself, is interesting. 

The court opinion is not final and not yet “released for publication.” The attorney’s response to the order to show cause certainly left the door open to provide explanation and alter the ultimate outcome. Nonetheless, the court's decision became reasonably public on blogs, websites, social media, and the news. 

The response was filed September 28, 2026. It is lengthy (over 80 pages)  and an interesting read. It explains that "it is often true that what a lawyer says in eight words could be said in two" but also notes that responding to statements may take more words than the statements, and that in this response "I chose completeness of the record over brevity." Choosing 80 pages is interesting in itself.

This response focuses initially on the court noting the previous filings' "appearance," i.e., "appears to be 'AI Slop.'” The attorney takes issue with appearance, suggesting substance is the point. The attorney then cites "The Florida Bar's advisory opinion on generative artificial intelligence," notes that "delegation" is not appropriate, and acknowledges the lawyer remains "ultimately responsible for the work product." 

The responding lawyer admirably accepts responsibility for all decisions and filings. Stated plainly, they note:

"I do not delegate the generation of a filing to artificial intelligence, to any tool, or to any other person"

"I would not trust a machine to do what I do not entrust to another human being, and I do not."

"Every word I file is a word I have read, judged, verified against its source, and adopted as my own."

Those statements should be engraved on the wall of every lawyer's office. You can use a tool, but you remain responsible. See A Fool with a Tool (January 2024). 

The responding attorney then notes that Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, 435 So. 3d 5, 5-7 (Fla. 2026), "amended this year," is focused narrowly; it "asks whether the authorities identified "exist and are accurately cited." That is narrower than an obligation to read, and that signature is an endorsement and certification. 

The responding attorney also stresses this was a pro bono case as directed by "chapter 61" (which I have not been able to locate). It is possible that this is a reference to the American Bar's Rule 6.1 on pro bono service. It may also be a reference to The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-6.1. I resorted to AI to find "chapter 61" and was disappointed. "Chapter 61," might make some suspect AI, but the response was specifically prepared “without the use of AI.” 

In a somewhat more difficult-to-find conclusion, the Fourth District closed its Order to Show Cause on October 21, 2026 with a referral to The Florida Bar. This concludes that the attorney "does not deny using AI but evades the issue." The court again mentions the attorney's use of a "rough transcript" and concludes the lawyer then "intentionally brought a false claim that she was mocked."

The court concluded, succinctly and critically:

"That counsel believes her practice in this case is acceptable raises many issues that the Florida Bar should consider."

That process will proceed as such matters do. Time will pass before a conclusion. The analysis and outcome will be interesting in the broad context of legal practice, AI engagement, and the discipline process. 

Regardless of that outcome, some points will remain as object lessons for all filers. First, just because AI makes it sound plausible does not mean it is persuasive, rational, or legally appropriate. Second, the filer has every obligation to read before signing, despite the potential to read the rules more narrowly. Third, signing means something and could lead to inquiry or worse. Fourth, substantively, when given your opportunity to be heard, it is advisable that you either speak or accept that your waiver has meaning.

There is also encouragement here to be brief. Every lecture on trial practice I have attended has stressed this. Litigants may have 100 points to make, but time and space are limited. There must be discretion exercised; brevity can be powerful, and the most critical points must be prioritized.

Finally, I am reminded of the former Eastern Airlines. Their slogan was catchy, and we old folks will remember "we earn our wings every day." No one cares how smooth the landing was, how courteous the crew was, or how clean the airplane was on yesterday's flight. We all want the best care, courtesy, and cleanliness on our own flight—today. 

Lawyers are no different. Every client is special. Every case or assignment is important. Every action, inaction, and discourse matters—to someone. What matters in this case, today, is what happens in this case. Reputation also matters and is built over years. Must the lawyer perform to standards completely each and every day? "Come on. You could say. It's okay. They know." My Cousin Vinny (20th Century, 1992).

The Tiffany Problem

We all suffer from the implications of predisposition or bias. I have striven to address these from the litigation perspective in Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025); Since then, I have published multiple posts focusing on the topic, see the 15 posts at the end of this one.

The simple fact is that our brains are what they are. They make judgements and arrive at conclusions. Despite the best advice of Sherlock Holmes, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data," Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), we all do it.

The "Tiffany Problem" is a great illustration of our minds at work. When we hear that name, we each have a touchstone. Upworthy notes that any of us might hear this and think of:

"the famous jewelry store, the teen singer from the 80s or the much-less-in-the-spotlight daughter of President Trump." 

Our inclination is to our familiar.

We are unlikely to think instead of the Middle Ages when we hear this "more modern name." And yet, Tiffany was a Middle Ages name. Thus, we perceive a character named Tiffany in a Middle Ages historical piece as a mistake or a problem.

We do not consciously conclude that there has been a mistake; we experience it as a reaction. It is "an instinct," and it is instilled in us because such names were not as prevalent in the reading we have done from that period. It is outside our experience and so antithetical to our personal experience.

The proponent of this "Tiffany Problem" predisposition says that people simply "know it's wrong and you can't tell them that what they know is wrong." Tiffany is an example, but there are various other words that we presume are modern and so rebel against when they are used in a historical manner.

This is entertaining, perhaps. There is a touch of novelty, some irony, and some self-discovery. The proponent of the theory has even prepared some media that is referenced in the Upworthy article. But the real point is that we are each a product of both nature and nurture. What we know is our own personal amalgamation of what we have been exposed to.

The point is that our intellect should be engaged. When something "feels off," that may be a valid conclusion worthy of our adherence. Or it may be simply a signal to us that intellectual engagement and some research is worthwhile.

As a side note, in a world where prediction models and AI large language models increasingly hold sway, we must remember they are suggesting based on what they have "seen." Their output and interpretation is subject to their algorithm, their data set, and their programmer's preferences. To some extent, they are likely governed by their own decisions, choices, and habits, just as we are.

The choice of intellectual engagement and curiosity is equally imperative, whether it is our bias or the computer's. Either way, our intellect is critical as the human in the loop in the path to gathering facts and foundations before we reach conclusions, per Mr. Holmes. 

Prior posts discussing Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025):

Unseen Influence (July 2025)
"Welcome (back) to the Real World"(August 2025)
Halfway (August 2025)
Bias is Pernicious (August 2025)
Cats and Dogs (August 2025)
Gonna be alright (August 2025)
Perspectives on Virtuality (September 2025)
A hero? (January 2026)
Dunning Kruger (January 2026)
Yes, but How? (February 2026)
Relatively Speaking (March 2026)
Drive Carefully (May 2026)
The Johari Window and Negotiation (May 2026)
The Easy Lanes (June 2026)
Tipping in Negotiation? (June 2026)

The OJCC Academy 2026

The fourth OJCC Academy was presented on October 23, 2026, in Orlando. The first was presented on May 19, 2023. That one drew such interest that we could not accommodate all the potential attendees. The steering committee elected to produce a command performance in October 2023, in Tampa. 

The timing of that encore was more conducive. The Academy programs since have all been in the fall, in Orlando. In all, more than 150 young(er) lawyers, recently joining the workers' compensation practice, have attended and benefited from this program. The list of paralegals who have benefited is similarly growing.

The 2026 outing was another rousing success. That is due to the investment of the speakers and our volunteer steering committee:

1. Hon. Natalie Cavallaro*
2. S. Rachel Givens
3. Hon. Thomas Hedler
4. Hon. Margret Kerr*
5. Lindsay Koppelman*
6. Javier Melendez*
7. Hon. John Moneyham
8. Hon. Neal Pitts*
9. Lisa Ann Thomas
10. Elizabeth Yohe

Special recognition to those who have been a part of this now for all five iterations, denoted with an asterisk. Throughout, we have added new talent and been blessed by enthusiasm and steadfast support. Among our Steering Committee emeritus are Ana Gonzalez-Fajardo and Tara Pachter. It is anticipated that more will rotate to the Emeritus status, and new members will join the committee for 2027! Email me (david.langham@doah.state.fl.us) if you are interested in participating in the committee or attending the program in 2027.

The list of speakers is more challenging. I have combed through many documents and tried to distill an accurate list. Unfortunately, life happens, and there may be a last-minute substitution or two. 

Several Steering Committee members have spoken at all events, but there has been a conscious effort to rotate others and afford opportunities to as many as practical (I spoke at only one). Therefore, the following list is likely incomplete. I encourage you to correct me if I have overlooked someone. 

1. Neil Ambekar (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)*
2. Catharine Frances Agacinski (2023)
3. Holley Akers (2023)
4. Eduardo Almeyda (2023)
5. Hon. Wilbur Anderson (2023, 2024, 2025)
6. Amanda Annunciata (2026)
7. Hon. Brian Anthony (2023, 2024, 2025)
8. Hon. Robert Arthur (2023, 2024, 2025)
9. Courtney Collins Bahe (2023)
10. Caitlin Beyl (2023)
11. John Paul Brooks (2023)
12. Jessica Carrier (2023)
13. Andrew Bucher (2026)
14. Hon. Barbara Case (2023, 2024, 2025)
15. Natalie Cavallaro (2023, 2024)
16. Eric Christianson (2025)
17. Aime DeGuzman (2023, 2025)
18. Ken Erhlich (2024, 2025, 2026)
19. Linda Farrell (2023, 2024, 2025)
20. Angela Flynn (2026)
21. Iliana Forte (2025)
22. Lizzette Francisco (2025)
23. Amy Gartland (2025)
24. Karen Gilmartin (2023)
25. Rachel Givens (2024, 2025, 2026)
26. Ana Gonzalez-Fajardo (2023, 2024)
27. Kristen Gottfried (2023)
28. Bryan R. Greenberg (2024)
29. Hon. Erik Grindal (2026)
30. Heather Hatch (2026)
31. Hon. Thomas Hedler (2025)
32. Kenneth Hesser (2025, 2026)
33. Hon. Kimberly Hill (2024, 2026)
34. Eric Hires (2025)
35. Silvia Maria Hoeg (2023, 2024)
36. Hon. Ralph Humphries (2024)
37. Gina Jacobs (2024, 2025)
38. Jill Jacobs (2023, 2024, 2026)
39. Daniel Todd Jaffe (2023)
40. Hon. Gregory Johnsen (2026)
41. Margret Kerr (2024, 2025)
42. Lindsey Koppelman (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)
43. David Langham (2023)
44. Stacy Laskin (2025)
45. Hon. Daniel Lewis (2025)
46. Paolo Longo (2024)
47. John Lusko (2023, 2024, 2025)
48. Olga Martin (2024)
49. Ryan Michael Knight (2023)
50. Hon. Sylvia Medina Shore (2023, 2025, 2026)
51. Javier Melendez (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)
52. Celia Mendez (2026)
53. Gary Alan Miller (2023)
54. Hon. John Moneyham (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)
55. Ivan P Morales (2023)
56. Hon. Jacquelyn Newman (2024, 2025, 2026)
57. Yosue Ochoa (2025)
58. Tara Pachter (2023)
59. Hon. James Peterson (2023)
60. Hon. Neal Pitts (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)
61. Randall T. Porcher (2023)
62. Barbara Richard (2023)
63. Robert M. Rivera (2024)
64. Jesse Rowe (2026)
65. Grethel San Miguel-Callejas (2023, 2024)
66. Hon. Lourdes Sancerni (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026)
67. Howard Scheiner (2025)
68. Kelley Shoemaker (2024)
69. Hon. Megan Silver (2023)
70. Brandon Silver (2024)
71. Carolyn Slowikowski (2023)
72. Hon. Timothy Stanton (2023)
73. Lisa Thomas (2024, 2025, 2026)
74. Erin Thorne (2024)
75. Dawn Traverso (2023)
76. Hon. Jonathan Walker (2026)
77. Nisha Waranch (2024)
78. Billy Weiland (2025)
79. Hon. Jack Weiss (2026)
80. Timothy Wilson (2026)
81. Elizabeth Yohe (2025, 2026)
82. Hon. Rita Young (2023, 2024)

It is also worthy to note that the Academy is responsible for the Hon. Robert J. Dietz Emerging Professional Award. Judge Dietz was the consummate mentor. He maintained a drive for and pursuit of professionalism through years of litigation, mediation, education, and adjudication experience. It is a point of pride that we have awarded the following young(er) attorneys with this recognition based upon judicial observation and nomination:

1. Meredith McAvoy (2023)
2. Bryan Greenberg (2024)
3. Natalie Cavallaro (2025)
4. Javier Melendez (2026)

In 2025, the Steering Committee concluded that there was a parallel need for paralegal training and education. The OJCC Masterclass made its debut that year. This program has featured the following speakers:

1. Neal Ambekar (2025)
2. Hon. Barbara Case (2025)
3. Susan Berman (2026)
4. Natalie Cavallaro (2026)
5. Aime DeGuzman (2025)
6. Rachel Givens (2026)
7. Kristin Gottfried (2026)
8. Peonca Grier (2025)
9. Hon. Thomas Hedler (2025, 2026)
10. Julie Hunsaker (2025, 2026)
11. Hon. Margret Kerr (2025)
12. Javier Melendez (2026)
13. Hon. John Moneyham (2025, 2026)
14. Hon. Neal Pitts (2025)
15. Ursula Remy (2026)
16. Jesse Rowe (2026)
17. Hon. Lourdes Sancerni (2026)
18. Lisa Thomas (2026)
19. Tammy White (2025)

In all, I am grateful. First, to the Steering Committee for hours of hard work, seemingly endless planning meetings, promotion, publication, preparation, and so much more. Second, to the lawyers and paralegals who come to the program seeking development and growth. There is great value in lifelong education, and we appreciate you taking advantage of the opportunity. 

Finally, to the firms that allowed their attorneys and paralegals this opportunity. That demonstrates an interest in that growth and education. Bravo.

* corrected 10.31.26, thanks Mr. Ambekar. 

Dealing with Praise

How often do you reflect? Ferris Beuller (Paramount 1986) noted aptly, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." The older I get, the more that resonates. At the WCI in August, I was actually flattered a few times. I don't flatter easily.

One might think that the parade of compliments is endearing and fruitful. Know this, I take public statements with a grain of salt. We all should. I do not fault people for their stated sentiments, but we all must remain aware of motivation and appearances. 

Judge Lazzara used to quote an Arabid proverb: "When the judge’s mule dies, everybody goes to the funeral; when the judge himself dies, nobody goes.” See, once the judge is dead, they are irrelevant, and can lend relevance neither to themselves nor their Equidae. 

Judge Robert Deitz used to say in a similar vein, "my jokes became 63.2% funnier the day I became a judge." See Humor and Failure (August 2022). Speaking of humor, it is a difficult tool. See Night Court (May 2025). I got some laughs from the "newer" lawyers at the OJCC Academy last week. But I am not sure I was funny. 

I often think of Judges Dietz and Lazzara when there are expressions of praise. I am usually grateful that the speaker is not chiding or criticizing; those are uncomfortable. Nonetheless, it is easier to trust in the sincerity of criticism. I deeply value the critics and the cynics. Honest critics are worth their weight in gold. 

The praise is harder.

But around the 2026 WCI, I was blessed with three interactions that I value. They occurred in private, which enhances credibility. They were delivered by those who gain no benefit from favor, nor could ever hope to from me, as their stature and prestige are far beyond anything to which I could ever aspire. 

One was complimentary of a collaboration of which I am quite proud. Over a period of years, I have been privileged to be associated with a group of dedicated, brilliant, and critical people. I have striven unsuccessfully to match their pace and mirror their dedication. I have undoubtedly failed. Nonetheless, one of them acknowledged my efforts in trying. 

Another was of the efficacy and efficiency of the Florida OJCC. This was praise of the highest and broadest degree. The speaker has the credibility that comes from national experience and exposure. They assured that Florida's adjudication system is widely and openly recognized in various conversations and distant reform exhortations. The conclusion there was that Florida is "the best." That is humbling.

To be fair, any praise for the Florida OJCC belongs to a variety of souls in this extremely small agency. The judges, mediators, clerks, and staff are the strength and the spirit. I am merely privileged to sit at the head of the table and enjoy their successes. Sure, they make errors and mistakes at times. Don't we all? But most days in most ways they are exemplary and make me look good. 

Finally, the most important of the three was by far the simplest. Delivered in the most casual of observations and carrying an unintended sense of some impending doom. This speaker simply and succinctly said, "Thank you for years of friendship. I am grateful for so many conversations." 

That one has resonated repeatedly since. It reminds me of Bob Hope (Thanks for the Memories, The Big Broadcast, 1938) or Carol Burnett (I'm so Glad we had this Time Together, The Carol Burnett Show, 1967). Yes, I am glad, and thanks. 

The fact is, "Life (does) move pretty fast." Imagine that you are being effective in sharing your gratitude with those who make your journey better. Imagine that you are not, and that you could be more succinct, straightforward, and effective. 

Pick up the phone. Call someone whom you appreciate. Let them know in a sentence or two that they are valued in your world, perspective, and belief. Believe me or don't, your days are numbered. Tell someone they matter before your chance has passed. Do it in private, be direct, and be quick. The clock is ticking whether you think so or not. 

Nurses Prescribing Opioids

I have written extensively about opioids and their impact on our society. There is a list of those posts in Could it Get Worse (June 2026). I count at least 50 posts on overdose and opioid abuse. It is not a new problem, nor even news anymore. And certainly, attention has brought progress.

In 2025, according to the CDC, there were only 69,973 overdose deaths in America. Only. That is a 14% decrease "from the 81,313 deaths estimated in 2024." Sure, progress is positive. But 69,973 is still more each year than the aggregate deaths in the decades of the Vietnam "police action." And we are well over 1 million overdose deaths in the 21st century, according to the State Health Access Data Center.

Imagine the impact. On people, families, and communities. It is as outrageous as it is tragic. And it is ongoing across the country every day.

The thoughts came again when Joan Rubinger was in the news in 2026. She is an athlete who suffered a debilitating injury and rebuilt her life as "an influential pain-relief specialist." She focused on "top-tier athletes" and their "acute and chronic injuries."

In August 2026, according to the Associated Press, the Drug Enforcement Agency alleged that Ms. Rubinger "doled out thousands of illegal prescriptions for highly addictive painkillers." They estimate that over four years, this totalled about 260,000 pills distributed "in more than 20 states."

She agreed to pay a civil settlement of $1.4 million for allegations surrounding her dispensing of "oxycodone, Percocet, and Xanax on hundreds of occasions without any legitimate medical purpose." Despite allegations that she "violat(ed) federal drug statutes and regulations 900 times," there were no criminal charges filed.

The U.S. News reported that federal prosecutors have declined to explain why no criminal charges have been filed. The allegations of her behavior, her "rules," and the specifics of avoiding detection are also detailed in that reporting. 

In the end, the DEA pursuit likely comes down to the "tip" from a pro football player's wife. The AP says that Carolina Panthers linebacker Thomas Davis' wife "alerted the agency to the nurse practitioner's activities."

The Justice Department described Ms. Rubinger's practice as "unorthodox." She allegedly "operated out of hotel rooms," kept few, if any, medical records, and worked without physician supervision. Nonetheless, the DEA says she "registered her practice" in a California orthopedic surgeon's office.

That doctor claims to have had no role in the prescriptions or in supervising the nurse. And it appears that "many states ... require nurse practitioners in most circumstances to work under a physician’s supervision when prescribing opioids." Nonetheless, nurses in many states operate without any "legally mandated physician supervision and collaboration requirements."

With a California practice, the AP story is silent on how she managed to prescribe 260,000 pills over a period of years without someone noticing that incongruity. It is unclear whether she is licensed in one of the many states that grant full prescription autonomy to nurses.

In all, it is a cautionary tale. Certainly, we are desperately short of physicians. Physician Shortage (July 2025). They are extending care in many settings. Emergency, Acute, Urgent, and Routine (March 2026). But is there sufficient basis for allowing nurses unsupervised access to prescription pads that pass dangerous substances into the hands of patients and even "street gangs?"

Meanwhile, some will wonder how many pills one would have to prescribe in order to attract the attention of criminal prosecutors.

The aging workforce

Aging is a chore. See Is It Just Age (September 2026); Ever Get Old (January 2025). And beyond the discrete challenges, there is an absence of generational empathy. See Why have we never heard of this? (February 2024); Generational Woes (October 2024); The Time is Now (April 2022).

Succinctly, we seasoned citizens have largely been there, done that, and yet the "next" generations today are no more willing to believe us than we were to believe our own elders. Age and experience do not appear, persuade, or pervade as they might.

Bezinga recently reported that "younger workers are baffled by older coworkers." That generality is likely not a surprise. I have gotten used to the odd looks and skepticism of those who do not share my chronological challenges, 1980s music, and old-age wardrobe. 

But this article is about retirement. The "younger workers" are focused on the "finish line" that is retirement. They are dreaming of their chance to kick back and forever escape "alarms, meetings, and managers." They yearn for retirement and cannot conceive anyone avoiding it. 

Other posts over the years have noted that the American workforce is seemingly working longer. See What about Tomorrow? (November 2022); Mississippi and Significant Issues in Work Comp (April 2018); Boston Prediction Panel 2018ston Prediction Panel 2018 (March 2018).

But the Bezinga point is not that the workforce is aging, but why. It notes that coworkers are encountering "financially stable" sexagenarians who are not drawn to the retiree role. The conclusion is that work is much more enjoyable once you reach a point that "You have the choice to just leave whenever you want."

One cited explanation of remaining was simply that there is a

"HUGE difference between needing to work to be able to survive and wanting to work in order to give your life structure and purpose,"

And that may be the critical point of working. Perhaps the stress and challenge is not really in the work itself but in the economic reality that this work, now, is an imperative. As I reflect on that, I am reasonably confident that the jobs I disliked the most were those I had during difficult economic times in which mobility was constrained and my options were limited.

I have had some tough jobs (somewhere north of 25 of them) and have both loved and hated various roles. 

Broadly, there seems to be a consensus in this article that there is value in work itself. It provides structure, routine, objectives, and goals. It provides purpose, engagement, and challenges. These are values that are way beyond the day-to-day of simply needing a paycheck. They are goals of self-fulfillment and purpose. 

That would be my best advice for the younger generations. Do not spend decades in roles that do not stimulate and reward. Not financially rewarding, but holistically. Find roles that are intrinsically rewarding, fulfilling, and motivating for you personally. Don't settle for the paycheck. Don't worship the income.

Find what is rewarding and find a way to make that your path. This may involve economic diminishment; you may not make the same money being happy as you could make in misery. Nonetheless, misery, much like New York, is a terrible place to live.

Get out while you can. If you must, "close the shop, sell the house, and get a ticket for the West Coast." You can always "give them a standup routine in LA." My Life, (Billy Joel, 52nd Street, Columbia, 1978). 

Think about it. Happy beats miserable every time. 

Credentials and Influencers

There have been some fairly engaging stories of imposters over the years. See The Pretty Good Imposter (July 2026). There have been a fair few over the years who inflated their credentials, though that could be a matter of perspective.

The opposite effect is called "the imposter syndrome." The National Institutes of Health describes it as people who "attribute their success to external factors, rather than their own merit." I look around the world of workers' compensation, and I see both exemplified, or at least potentially so.

In August 2026 a news story broke about an "influencer and reality show participant." For clarity, an "influencer" is someone who makes videos to draw viewers and the revenue streams they generate. It takes the old "being the popular kid" and makes it a job. 

And "reality" television is nothing even akin to "real." Influencers can strive for their 15 minutes in some of the oddest ways. See The Collar Bone's Connected to ... (October 2026). 

 

This "influencer and reality show participant" documented her arduous participation in and graduation from Duke University Physician Assistant School. The only rub? Turns out no one at Duke has apparently ever heard of this (alleged) student.

A student who actually (apparently) attends that school posted a video in which various inconsistencies and inaccuracies were alleged in the influencer/alleged imposter's story.

Little details tripped her up. Like her name not being called at graduation. Or wearing the wrong color hood in staged graduation photos. Or not being in the class photo. Or, here is a tough one, not appearing in any records at Duke University. All of those should say "allegedly." 

Perhaps this all turns out to be a mistake or malevolence (you know, "the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate"; Shake It Off, Taylor Swift 2014). Perhaps she did attend, participate, and graduate. Perhaps in time this influencer will demonstrate that both her struggles and achievement are real. It would not be the first time that the internet sleuths got something wrong.

Or, perhaps she is an actual imposter who was searching for clicks, dopamine, oxytocin, or even money? Imposters are a thing. And that may be patent, blatant, or merely debatable. Recently, society has returned to a notable debate over the meaning of the word "lawyer." 

As to ease of process, if you spend any time scrolling, you know that there are places out there that will coordinate you receiving an honorary doctorate. They run hooks that undoubtedly draw interest. Who doesn't want to be called such an honorific? Critics abound. One concludes that

"It is about credential integrity, institutional responsibility, and what happens when academic legitimacy becomes a personal branding product."

There is merit in that. Even in the arena of earned degrees, there are those who look down on the EdD, the Doctor of Education degree. Some see it as having less academic rigor; there are PhD holders who bristle when an EdD is referred to as "doctor." To be sure, they display similar disdain when a JD, Juris Doctor, is afforded that honorific. See I'm a Doctor Too? (April 2023). I have known an M.D. or two who are somewhat dismissive of the PhD.  

Regardless, there seems a huge chasm between criticism of your earned doctorate of any tenor and one that can be obtained through a donation or recognition. An intriguing example was a professor accused of presenting his employer "with a (master's) degree from an online 'diploma mill.'" See Ardis v. Pensacola State College, 128 So.3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Nonetheless, even a purchased PhD (or any degree) is likely slightly superior to merely telling people you completed a program that has never heard of you. 

On the non-attending "Duke" influencer front, I am wondering how one could hope to escape discovery. Certainly, if you make it a point to publicize your life, someone will eventually ask questions that are uncomfortable. Some friend of a friend will notice incongruities, ask questions, or make a TikTok video. 

But, as to the real credentials, know that use can matter. 

I have had this come up time and again over the years. Each semester, and I am currently teaching my 68th semester class, I am asked, "What do we call you?" or they simply default to "professor." I persistently decline the title because I know that it can chafe the academics. I don't decline it through some imposter syndrome, but out of respect for the PhDs and other tenure holders' sensitivity, fragility, and feelings. 

Remember in 2007 when Senator Obama "referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor?" Critics noted that those in academia see a significant "distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not." I have never had tenure. I am simply a guy who has been around the block enough times, made enough errors, that I might teach you something. 

Thus, in the spirit of Dr. Venkman, reminding Dr. Stantz and Dr. Spengler, "Boys, you're scaring the straights, okay?" I always tell my students to call me "judge" or "Dave." See You Can Call me Dave (July 2021). I have no need for honorifics or compliments, real or otherwise. I see no value in stealing valor, or even "borrowing it," for that matter.

In the end, I would suggest that there remains merit in academic endeavors. Over decades of instructing, I have tried to deliver value to my students. They are striving to build their foundations and enhance their career prospects. They are seeking knowledge and growth. I am humbled to be part of that journey. Shouldn't that be enough?

Students each need to realize that their hard work matters. Luck and chance can play a role: "chance favors the prepared mind." See Find a Path (October 2020). But you can always work on the "prepared mind" part. And you should. 

Never hesitate to recognize and value your credentials; avoid feeling the "imposter." Never buy or borrow a credential you did not earn. This is true of buying a PhD or some "best of," "super," or similar accolade. Know that there are accolades for sale, and that they come with "fancy-looking seals and badges." That does not make them real or make you popular.

But if you value your experience(s) and present your value frankly, you can both believe in yourself and, rationally, ask others to do so also. Do your own work. Avoid shortcuts like AI-generated slop. Be proud of actual achievements.

And be proud of your personal output regardless of any flaws or who might disagree. I interact with many on social media. I value them, whether I agree with them or not. You can always learn from those who hold different values or beliefs. You can grow through engagement. For lawyers, this opportunity arises with every filing you receive. Read critically; ponder carefully.

Your work is yours. Your conclusions are yours. And their inherent value is not dependent upon a credential or someone's acceptance. That said, despite the value you bring, know that acceptance or persuasion may ultimately be dependent on such evidence of your credentials. Be real. 

You should make sure your credentials are what you think they are and that they have real value. 

The Collar Bone's Connected to ...

There are times when the national headlines require the use of reference tools. In May 2026, "clavicular became one of the biggest talking points online after clips of this Miami courtroom hearing."  Of course, 'clavicular' refers to the clavicle, or collarbone. The innocent reader might be forgiven for wondering what court hearing could draw such attention to the collarbone.

Another headline read that "Clavicular gets brutally mogged by studly Florida judge." That one might draw attention. As much for the repeated clavicle reference, but more for the "mogged." Those in the older (my) generation might misread such a headline a smidge too quickly and see "mugged." 

That comes from the simple fact that no one in our age cohort would recognize what being "mogged" means. Thank goodness for the Internet!

The story is actually about some guy named Braden Peters. He is an "influencer" and likes to be called Collar Bone for short. The New York Post labels him a "looksmaxxer," without defining the term (Internet). 

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which admittedly has had its own credibility challenges, says that Looksmaxxing "present(s) a dangerous view of male beauty"; there is a focus on self-improvement and "becoming the most attractive one can possibly look." Who is not guilty of trying to be attractive? Certainly, I have never been successful.

The "mogging" term has been used to mean "when someone is outperformed." This definition is from National Public Radio (NPR). It is described as a "phrase born out of far-right internet forums." The NPR article coincidentally mentions Collar Bone and informs us that the origin of "mogging" is from "AMOG" or "alpha male of the group." Thus "mog" and the potential to be "shown up by another more masculine male" - that is "Mogged."

The inferences here are plentiful. Collar Bone was in court facing charges for "shooting at what appeared to be a dead alligator in the Florida Everglades." The Post noted that, while answering the charges, the "biggest threat in the room came in the form of a studly 'framemogging' judge."

The result was internet fame for the judge. Collar Bone's followers and critics alike apparently reacted on social media. Posts were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The facts, circumstances, and law surrounding an alleged shooting in the Everglades took a backseat to discussion of who is most attractive, "alpha," or "mogged."

In a classic scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off (Paramount, 1986), a restaurant employee sizes up Ferris and his friends with an interesting assessment: "I weep for the future." I cannot get that quote out of my head as I write this. 

No, it is not Collar Bone. The challenge we face is a societal attraction to the unimportant, irrelevant, and distracting. Who out-mogged who? Davero?!? 

Why shoot at an alligator? Particularly if it was a dead alligator? Why tell someone that you did? Is society really that interested? Would they be if an old, ugly guy like me did the same?

Is it the 15 minutes of fame promised us all by the great and prescient (not) Andy Warhol (speaking of irrelevance, a painting of a soup can? But I digress).

Coincidentally, here in Paradise, a young person is charged with "damaging thousands of dollars' worth of items in two separate Airbnb rentals." The allegation is that she did so by urinating on these items. The actions were allegedly recorded on video and posted "on an adult content website," according to NBC6.

This was described by the Paradise police as "a young lady ... making money in a very unusual way." Unusual? "Lady?" The folks here who rented the despoiled premises have "removed (her) ... from our platform." She is not welcome as a renter (well, at least using her own name; maybe she needs a new pseudonym like Collar Bone?).

The Guardian recently questioned Are we living in a golden age of stupidity? I am certain that there is room for discussion, but the author makes some valid arguments (without mentioning Collar Bone, "mogging," or the "pee for publicity" person).

The Guardian article suggests that computers are not making us smarter. It concludes that there are "psychological and cognitive costs" to our present and that we are all subject to their potential. This remains true whether we are the user who is influenced or the direct or indirect victim of some influencer's bravado and recklessness (imagine you are the next guest in the pee pee person's AirBNB).

The cost of the destroyed property will be borne by someone. The waste of time associated with deep discussions of who "mogged" who will be borne by someone. A court's time is being invested in criminal charges stemming from "influencing." The distraction that is astounding. Seemingly, the vast, deep wasteland of the Internet and social media will persist, evolve, and perhaps envelop us all.

Is that the fault of the Collar Bone, the pee-person, or those who idolize or follow them? Maybe this is "Don't hate the playa" (Rythm King, 1999). Can you really hate the influencer when their vacuity is so apparently appealing to the masses? Or are we "haters" just jealous we have not figured out how to leverage the half-wit masses ourselves?

It is a troubling time in which we live. And there is a good chance that we are polluting the next generation with all this so-called "content."

The Wednesday Subpoena

Imagine the outrage. How would an attorney react if they received notice of a hearing to occur in two or three days' time? The notice arrives without the precursor or courtesy of even a phone call to see if the attorney is available for the selected date and time. As I have posited this potential, I have gotten near-universal confirmation that this would be ill-received.

One lawyer I proposed it to said this would be "an outrage." Another proclaimed simply, "patently unprofessional." I only found one lawyer willing to take up for such an action, with "well, if it was a real emergency and could not be addressed any other way."

Professionalism. The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court are professionalism advocates. In the course of my tenure in the bar, much has been invested in the pursuit of professionalism. It has been spoken of, written of, and even canonized. We have Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We have Professionalism Expectations. We have a dedicated Center for Professionalism.

But a significant portion of the membership (32%) "identified lack of professionalism as the biggest problem facing lawyers today." As a result, the Supreme Court adopted professionalism continuing education requirements in 2023.

Yes, it is a problem. It is a focus. And it is oft-discussed.

Does any attorney want to receive the unilateral notice for an appearance in two days? The answer is simple and short—No. Equivocation is unnecessary—No.

But what of the attorney who drops that subpoena on some witness they want for their trial? Does the attorney contact the witness in advance and discuss? Or does the attorney send the sheriff to their home or office on some random Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday with a subpoena that says, "Be in court Monday?"

I am not discussing a "party," someone who has an interest in that dispute. Someone who has lived with that dispute and its evolution. This regards a witness who has no such interest, who is being summoned, under threat of potential contempt, to appear in a courtroom on two days' notice.

And, to magnify the imposition, what if that subpoena says the witness must travel hundreds of miles from their home to appear in that courtroom? Is there an attorney reading this that would not be perturbed and upset to be summoned hundreds of miles to a hearing on two days' notice under potential penalty of contempt?

No.

So, understanding that they would not be pleased with such an imposition, why would an attorney make such a demand of a witness in their case?

An attorney shall be a professional. This means (the numbered paragraphs are all quotes from the Professionalism Expectations):

1. embracing a commitment to serve others;
2. enhancing the legal system’s reputation
3. accepting responsibility for one’s own professional conduct
4. Candor and civility must be used in all oral and written communications
5. A lawyer should not make scheduling decisions that limit opposing counsel’s opportunity to prepare or respond.
6. A lawyer should abstain from rude, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior
7. A lawyer should be civil and courteous in all situations
8. A lawyer should not impose arbitrary or unreasonable deadlines on others.
9. A lawyer should avoid last-minute cancellations of hearings, depositions, meetings, and other proceedings.

Believe me or don't (sarcasm is hard to resist at times), there are a fair number of people who do not hold favorable views of lawyers. Sure, we rank better than "car salespeople and U.S. lawmakers," but is that a worthy aspiration?

How does a short-notice, "come 400 miles in two days for a trial that does not involve you or risk contempt of court" subpoena promote a favorable perception by the witness (who is the public)? Does this drive respect for the legal system or scorn? How is that courteous? How is it not rude and disrespectful? How could that be seen as non-arbitrary, not disruptive?

The result of such actions is likely to be a motion. Either another party or the witness is likely to file an objection. The witness may have no knowledge of the legal system or access to an attorney of their own on two days' notice. What disadvantage does that effect on them? What is the impact of the lawyer's failure to plan and demanding communication?

That motion then gets added to the burden of the assigned judge. The judge likely has a fair workload to deal with. Despite this, the objection or motion must be added to the list. The assigned judge is asked to consider whether to enforce that subpoena served with two days' notice to compel a witness to travel 400 miles to appear in some distant town on the following Monday.

This post is intended to drive introspection and seek comments. Please write to me (david.langham@doah.state.fl.us) with any argument or explanation that supports the described behavior, discourtesy, and disrespect towards the witness, the other parties, and the adjudicator.

And if we revert to the simplicity of the Golden Rule, would you hold the same opinion if you were the target of the subpoena rather than the issuer?