Tech Frustration and Outburst

Harris County, Texas, surrounds Houston. It is one of the largest cities in the United States, usually about fourth on the list after New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I have been to each, and the eating in Houston is superior by at least an order of magnitude. But I digress.

A judge in Harris County drew some attention in April 2025 when confronted by technology. Who has not had such a tech challenge? Years ago, comedian W.C. Fields warned that you should "never work with children or animals." It is good advice; they can be unpredictable and unmanageable. Tech is frustrating, and more so for us older Americans. 

I have taken to likening the same to technology, by addition, "Never work with children, animals, or technology." If given the choice, pick the animals or children over the tech. I cannot count the times PowerPoint, Windows, projectors, and more have left me in a panic on stage.

But the fact is that "all mechanical things eventually fail." Who knows who said that, but I can testify to its accuracy.

The judge in Harris County, Nathan Milliron, was caught on video in April. It is not flattering. I have repeatedly cautioned that cameras are everywhere. Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). Cameras are ubiquitous, generally. Everyone knows they are in courtrooms. Even Judges know that.

This video went viral, or approached it. KPRC Houston says it depicts a "tense exchange" between the judge and a young "IT worker helping with courtroom ... technical issues." 

The tech specialist is "guiding the judge through adjustments" and "makes a light remark." Perhaps trying to lighten the mood, or to ease his own discomfort at the situation.

The judge "responds sharply, telling him not to joke and ultimately ordering him to leave the courtroom." The judge then proceeds to call "for the worker’s supervisor and express() anger over the situation."

The story reflects that there has been "concern within the legal community," but does not cite particular sources or other incidents. One local attorney felt compelled to contact the judge about the depiction. The attorney suggested:

“I hope you issued him an apology for the way you treated him. I hope you were just having a bad day and this is not your typical judicial temperament.”

That is excellent advice. Find me a judge who has never lost their temper, spoken intemperately, or lost their cool. If there are any, I do not believe they are common. Judges are not perfect; they are human. Expectations can be high, pressures mount, and lapses will happen. When they do, acknowledgement and apology can go a long way to recover the appropriate judicial demeanor and environment.

The judge's response in this setting was to summon the attorney to chambers. The judge apparently accused the communication above of being "ex parte," meaning it was made without the inclusion of other parties or attorneys. But the attorney who sent the message says he has no cases before Judge Milliron, and "does not plan to comply with (the) order" to appear before the judge.

Perhaps the order to appear, the "summons," was appropriate? Or, perhaps some will see that reaction as a continuation of the ill temper that began the situation on video? The summons date and time came and went without further mention or judicial action, as the media watched. The coverage was not overtly flattering. Social media response has been similar. 

The controversy has led to further inquiries from the media. There is mention of prior interactions between the judge and staff and a discussion of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. It is unfortunate that the interactions occurred. We must strive to control our temper. 

More importantly, when one loses their temper, the best course forward is admission, contrition, and apology. Everyone has bad days. Know that. Know you will not always meet the stress and pressure with aplomb; apologize and move on. See Don't Double Down (June 2017). 

Oradour-sur-Glane

This is a name I had never heard. A small town in the south of France. It is not easily accessible, a bit off the beaten path. I am a long-time student of history, and yet I persistently find myself learning new things. Studying history is frankly similar to studying the law. 

Years ago, I saw a poignant story of an 80th anniversary. No, not of the vaunted and celebrated landings at Normandy. Those were June 6, 1944. I previously worked through some news from the D-Day celebration. See Memorializing (June 2024). Sure, such historical discussions are a departure from the core of workers' compensation. And yet, it is about law and order and our basic humanity. 

D-Day was a shock to the National Socialists and their global plans. As unfortunate as it is, such world domination efforts have persisted throughout history. There have been imperialists, monarchists, communists, and even democracies that have perpetrated conquest and delivered human suffering. The world will always face the potential of the next violent threat. There are limited resources, and man will persistently fight to control them. 

The shock at Normandy caused the National Socialists to draw troops toward the Allied forces. On June 10, 1944, the "2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich" rolled into Oradour-sur-Glane, a small rural village north of Bordeaux. The National World War II Museum does a fine job of telling its story. The Division was battle-hardened in the east, against the Communists. It was ordered to "support German forces fighting in northern France." Its secondary mission was to "intimidate" the French and "reassert German control."

On June 10, the Division surrounded this little village with "somewhere between 120 and 200 soldiers." They strove to gather the inhabitants to the town center, even from farm fields in the area. The people were segregated, and "197 men were ... forced into six separate barns" and then machine-gunned down. "240 women and 205 children... were forced into the village church," into which grenades were thrown before the building was set afire. 

Essentially, the town was massacred. "Only seven people survived." A senseless and brutal massacre. Efforts to explain the actions of the German Division and its leaders have frustrated historians. Some conclude that there was no reason, but simply, Oradour was just "an unfortunate stop the Division made on the way to Normandy." 

Is Oradour special? Unique? Some would say no. There were a great many villages and municipalities destroyed by the National Socialists and the Allied response. But Oradour remains today to be viewed. Purportedly on the orders of Charles de Gaulle, the site has been "preserved, and the remains were to become a national memorial." A new village was built nearby, but the original Oradour remains today in much the same condition that it was left by the Socialists in June 1944. It is said to be "a village frozen in time." 

On May 12, 2026, I stood in that town. I experienced their memory. I reflected on the violence of the Socialists. We pause periodically in remembrance. We are reminded of the adages like "war is hell," Sherman, 1879, and "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana. 

Drive Carefully

There is an element of society that engages in not-so-appropriate activity. In that, there is too often some human tendency to believe "it cannot happen to me" or "cannot happen here." This is an optimism bias or predisposition. See Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). We all suffer from predispositions. 

That said, it can happen to any of us. That "it" is almost anything. There is deception, aggression, and worse in this world. These thoughts returned when the Associated Press (AP) ran a story some years ago about a "federal judge robbed at gunpoint at home." The idea of violence in the world is a bit easier to disregard than such a threat at home.

The experience could not have been anything but terrifying. Late one Friday night, three miscreants are alleged to have "kicked in the basement door" and started "removing items from the house." At that point, it was a simple burglary. The judge's husband then confronted the alleged miscreants, and the situation deteriorated.

They were both "held at gunpoint while they were robbed" of valuables. One was "pushed down" some stairs, resulting in injury. There was then an attempt to steal their automobile, but that ended with the miscreants spooked and fleeing the scene. The burgled/robbed couple called the police.

The AP noted somewhat stoically that "the couple is uneasy about what happened." Police noted that such an experience is "a little unnerving." And they say the art of understatement is a lost skill.

Coincidentally, on this occasion, "police in (a) neighboring" town happened to make a traffic stop when a car failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer(s) there suspected the vehicle occupants of being involved in the robbery, and a search revealed some of the stolen items in the car.

Soon thereafter, two of the three pled guilty to a string of charges, related by WLWT5. That coverage provides more detail of the miscreants following the two victims' home based on their "luxury car," and witnessing them entering their "27,000-square-foot home."

The two were sentenced to minimums of 18 and 20 years in prison. Mr. Kinney was 21 at the time and will therefore be 39 when released in 2033. Mr. Jackson, who did the pushing down the stairs, was also 21 and will be 42 when he is released in 2036. A third also pled guilty and was similarly sentenced according to WLWT5.

One wonders, perhaps, whether the three would ever have been caught if their driver had not run the stop sign.

The folks at Pew note that many crimes are never reported:

"Only about half of the violent crimes and a third of the property crimes that occur in the United States each year are reported to police."

Only a fraction of the reported crimes are "cleared":

"46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police in the U.S. were cleared."

These statistics are independently concerning. But consider that if only half the violent crimes are reported, and less than half of those are "cleared," that means about 25% of all violent crimes are "cleared."

If only a third of property crime is reported, and 19% of those are cleared, that means that 6% of all property crimes are "cleared."

Additionally, our police make about 13 million traffic stops annually, "5.2% of the driving population" (not counting accidents). There is always the chance that such a stop has broader implications, but most are primarily revenue-generating driver fines. There is, seemingly, more interest in traffic enforcement than in property crime. 

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, we have "nearly two million people behind bars" in the U.S. We spend $445 billion annually to house them. While those are significant figures, worthy of thought, the vast majority of the actual crime is apparently never cleared. 

The contradiction is curious. To quote the eloquent police officer above, it is all "a little unnerving."

Extraneous and Inappropriate

A judge in Florida's Ninth Circuit is facing discipline for comments from the bench. The story has been run by The Independent, The Tampa Times, and an Orlando television station. Though the complained-of comments date to an April 2025 jury selection and a July 2025 plea hearing.

The recent news coverage was apparently stimulated by the publication of a report of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. It made for interesting reading on the various platforms.

The public comments were a broad spectrum of thoughtful reactions, agricultural advice, and borderline vulgarity. I am persistently astounded by commenters who publish insulting remarks about stories and each other.

In fairness, the complaint against the judge centered primarily on the comments in the July plea hearing. The April 2025 jury selection infraction was a simpler, and perhaps frustrated or excited, utterance—"shut up."

This is not to excuse that incident. Telling people to "shut up" is perhaps an Americanism that has become too familiar to shock or surprise. In any event, it is less offensive than threatening to have the lawyers shot, even in jest. See Shoot the Lawyers (November 2025).

The July 2025 plea hearing is the more noteworthy statement, which is driving the attention and the judicial complaint. There, "a 33-year-old Black female defendant" was to be sentenced, and her black great uncle was also present.

The judge inquired of the great uncle whether he owned land, "where I could have her work it for 30 hours," as part of a sentence. The judge expressed his own familial agricultural experiences and then inquired, "You ever chopped cotton before?" HE then explained how that phrase describes weeding.

The umbrage at the comment is crystaline in retrospect. Nonetheless, the judge has noted that he simply

"failed to consider how his comments could be interpreted in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating Black people with picking cotton."

The judge further explained that he had "spent summers as a youth working ... farm fields in Texas," and that recollection may have contributed to his comment. From the perspective of a long-time Florida driver, I cannot ever recall seeing a cotton field here, except in the panhandle.

Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly agriculture in central Florida. Anyone who has never engaged in agriculture should never doubt that the work on a farm is intense, hard, and persistent. There are many farm tasks that I would certainly see as punishment.

But the real point is not whether this or that punishment is appropriate. The point is in two parts:

1. There is some chance the judge intended the comment as light-hearted; the uncle reportedly laughed. But there is no room in judicial proceedings for humor, and increasingly no room in society. See My Way (December 2025).
2. Intent is not ever the point. Comments are interpreted by the listener, not the speaker.

Judges should focus on this and simply avoid humor attempts in proceedings. See Humor and Failure (August 2022); Laugh and the World Laughs With You (August 2019); Science or Art (November 2023); My Way (December 2025); Night Court (May 2025); Funny or Offensive (October 2022).

In Funny or Offensive (October 2022), I explore when it is seemingly acceptable for a judge to tell untoward jokes. The answer is never. And yet it is periodically experienced. Sure, one might say "she got away with it," or "it was not as bad as ________." That never worked in grade school. 

Those deflections may make the speaker feel better, but they will not change the fact that someone perceived the comments as offensive. Judges should simply stick to the business at hand. 

Of course, accept that people in legal proceedings are uncomfortable. Nonetheless, ease that with compassion, persistence, and patience. 

Leave the humor to the comedians, the public forums, and the non-judicial. No hearing is the place; the judge is not the humorist. The reception may be an illusory acceptance or a laugh, but the real result is unlikely to be reflected in the audience faced with judicial attempts at humor.

 

Assisted Suicide News

The subjects of euthanasia continue to make news. The topic is not new, but is gaining recognition. See Evolving Morality (July 2025) and Who Should Live? (January 2023). The Evolving highlights how legislators around the globe are pondering self-harm. At the outset, there is ample opportunity for self-harm in the world.

Recently, the story of Noelia Castillo, a 25-year-old, brought the realities of Spanish euthanasia to the fore. ABC7 explained an extended and involved process through which Ms. Castillo travelled to her ultimate demise. The reports suggest that the story made bigger headlines in Europe, with the BBC also picking up the story. Britain's euthanasia debate is central to Evolving Morality. That the BBC has had some credibility issues is acknowledged.

Ms. Castillo's life is difficult for most to understand. Her experiences are profound and troubling. She "struggled with psychiatric illness since she was a teenager." Her short life included two previous suicide attempts. The second, "in 2022, left her unable to use her legs and in a wheelchair." In the milieu of challenges, she was "sexually assaulted," adding to her stressors, emotions, perceptions, and conclusions.

In 2024, Ms. Castillo sought permission to exit this life through "physician-assisted suicide," which Spain had legalized and formalized in 2021. At 23 years old, this human decided she could no longer persevere. She was granted that permission by a "medical body in Catalonia."

One pauses in such a story to wonder at the level of pain, despair, or other emotions that would drive one to a self-imposed and utterly permanent outcome. It is important to remember that there are various worldviews, see Cultural Relativism (March 2026). There are differences and distinctions throughout the world.

Nonetheless, many societies cling to a prohibition on killing, such as the Sixth Commandment. Intriguingly, some academics now contend that mandate should be interpreted more narrowly as "thou shalt not murder," an interesting distinction.

Such a distinction could be meaningful when the morality of self-termination is discussed. Succinctly, "murder" is the act of a human killing another human. Definitionally, the "murder" prohibition perhaps seems inapplicable to suicide generally.

Nonetheless, those of the Catholic faith have an involved history regarding suicide. There have been perceptions and portrayals of condemning suicide. Some see those perceptions as softer, but nonetheless incompatible with faith. And, there is acknowledgement that suicide persists in modern society.

Ms. Castillo's parents are Catholic, and with legal assistance, they resisted the state-approved suicide for about two years. They first resisted the application to the Catalonia medical body when Ms. Castillo submitted her required "two requests in writing" to be assisted to die.

When that medical body granted permission, Ms. "Castillo's father appealed the Catalan body's decision, and a court in August 2024 suspended the euthanasia request while it deliberated." While those legal efforts delayed the suicide, the Spanish Supreme Court concluded in January 2026 that Ms. Castillo had the right to die.

Her family expressed disappointment in that decision. There has been significant criticism of the enabling law and the acceptance of self-termination. Ms. Castillo acknowledged her life, and family, conceding that she is a "pillar of the family," a seeming admission of the hole her absence may leave in the lives of others.

Nonetheless, she steered the conversation to her pain and suffering, and her personal decision to end it. She told the press, "The happiness of a father or a mother should not supersede the happiness of a daughter." There is the real rub, too often Rights Collide (February 2016).

The implications of this debate remain at the core of humanity and society. There are strong emotional arguments on both sides of these discussions. The bounds of such debates may be difficult to define.

There are efforts and expenditures to prevent suicide, see AI Lacks Conscience (September 2025) and the posts cited there. And yet, some cultures are concluding that the desires of the individual are paramount. This will involve issues of culture, faith, conscience, and more. 

In the end, it is difficult to conclude that there is a winner in such debates. Certainly, someone got their desired outcome while others did not. But in the death of a human, is there ever a winner? In the forced prolonging of suffering, is there ever a winner?

As I see so many struggle to live, to deal with the incurable, to strive for one more day.... I am inspired by their spirit. What horrors drive one, instead, to voluntarily cease? This will be a long and difficult debate. Ms. Castillo and her family are in my thoughts this morning. 

Everyone Gets a Trophy

We, as a society, have likely hit our nadir, though there is some chance we have further to fall before some sudden stop marks our complete demise. I have written about the decline in education and capability.

The National Literacy Institute has noted that (il)literacy is tied to "some of today's most pressing concerns." We face teacher shortages, teacher competency issues, and various other secondary education challenges. The Institute notes "21% of adults in the US are illiterate," and "54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level." Like it or not, this is largely influenced by immigrants: "34% of adults lacking literacy proficiency were born outside the US."

For thoughts on literacy, see Screen Time Wins (February 2026); It's Your Kids! (February 2026). Students are showing up to college, and they lack the basic skills of reading and writing.

The University of Florida reports that "reading for pleasure (is) in free fall." The author of the study says this is not "a small dip—it's a sustained, steady decline of about 3% per year." If you don't do something, practice, you will lose the muscle memory to do it. 

And it is not some systemic change; the drop is steeper among some demographics, which the author attributes to "disparity in reading access and habits." Notably, "women are still more likely to read." Those who exercise skills will better retain them. 

Another dichotomy, perhaps more predictable, is education-based: "People with higher education levels ... are more likely to read." The other good news in the study is that "reading with children did not change over the last 20 years." We may not read for ourselves, but we are at least reading with children. They need us more than ever. 

A Stanford professor is proposing and supporting the "science of reading." She notes that "at least 40 states" have proposed "legislation aimed at reversing the downward trend." There is also interest in teacher preparation, requirements for curricula, and "mandates to use evidence-based screeners to identify students who may need additional support."

There may be some belief that the 20th-century "every kid gets a trophy" has contributed to the decline in competitiveness, refuted by some. Nonetheless, a recent decision by the Los Angeles Marathon to award medals to those who ran 18 miles instead of 26 miles gained headlines. Why 18? Next year 17? 

Will we reach a point where I could get a marathon medal (at the outside, I might do three miles)? Technically speaking, the 18 milers have no more finished a marathon than I have. Where is my medal?

Every kid getting a trophy for finishing the (pick a sport) season is seen by some as rewarding mediocrity. The LA Marathon's decision to award those who did not even finish has been viewed a bit more harshly in some quarters. 

On the other side of the world, the Chinese culture is struggling with the opposite. China announced recently that it would "promote students' physical and mental health" with mandates that limit "excess homework," "reduce academic pressure," and promote "two hours of physical activity ... every school day." 

Might such a move help us with the bane of obesity? Many of our schools do not provide the more moderate recommendation of one hour daily "moderate to vigorous physical activity" now.  

Thus, there is some recognition of the value of exercise and activity. There is the potential of pushing academics too hard. But there is the challenge of illiterate adults and the difficulties that they could present in the world of work and democracy.

In all, there is some need for moderation. Nonetheless, we are societally yielding our futures if we accept "Johnny can't read" as a normal outcome. We can reverse that, but it will require some focus and commitment to teaching, learning, and less screen time, videos, and social media nonsense.  

Thanks for reading this, and for knowing how. 

Ineffective Assistance

In the world of workers' compensation, you never hear about ineffective assistance of counsel. It is a criminal law maxim. And yet, there are those who tell stories of lawyers who struggle with witnesses, evidence, and argument.

To be fair, you don't hear about ineffective assistance of counsel often in any context. Nonetheless, an action early this century made the news in West Florida. Despite the lack of news coverage, it is a motion often filed in criminal cases that result in a conviction. The Innocence Project says that there are some discernible patterns with them, and they say there are major categories.

"(1) lawyers who: failed to present defense witnesses; (2) failed to seek DNA testing or have serology testing done to try to exclude the client; (3) failed to object to ... or to evidence; (3); and failed to interview witnesses in preparation for trial or to cross-examine ... witnesses." Other examples were (4) "failure to investigate" and (5) "failure to present expert testimony."

The incident that made the news began with a lawyer who "tried to withdraw before trial" because his client did not pay the agreed-upon fee. When the lawyer was interviewed after, he explained that "he would have presented expert witness testimony" if he had been paid in full. Moreover, he claimed, "he gave '110 percent' to the case."

The lawyer complained that the judge was hard on his side of the case, "denying every objection he made." Criticized for calling his client to testify, he explained that "he did so to show jurors that Rolon hadn’t been coached into what to say.” The lawyer criticized the judge. That reminded me of a judge teaching a class in which a student plaintively inquired, "Why did you give me a D?" The judge/teacher replied, simply, "I did not give you anything; you earned a D." You get what you earn. There is no giving.

The order on the post-trial motion for ineffective assistance included that the lawyer "told jurors he had spent less than five minutes reviewing (his client's) testimony before putting him on the witness stand."

There was a Bar investigation, and in 2011, the lawyer was disbarred. In all, the situation provided a rare look into the perspective that can come from the bench.

Certainly, the perils of criminal law are easy to appreciate. The outcome for a criminal defendant may include loss of liberty or life. Nonetheless, the outcome of any trial can have life-altering impacts on the parties. The workers' compensation trial is no exception.

Employers may find their business interrupted by a workplace injury, employee absence(s), factual disputes involving various employees, and there are financial implications for the insured and self-insured.

The impact on the injured worker is as easy to see. The complaints and claims are related to injury, symptoms, pains, and even dysfunction, impairment, and disability. The outcome of such a trial can have profound impacts on the life and livelihood of the worker.

For either party, the challenges of Florida's workers' compensation statute, procedural rules, and evidence code can present a variety of hurdles, imperatives, and demands. The trial can present the unexpected, the contrary, and errors. Trials are stressful, and outcomes can be difficult.

Despite that periodic disappointment, the lawyer's best tool is readily available. Its employment is no guarantee, but there are no such guarantees in a trial.

The lawyer cannot control everything. We are reminded that "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). But the trial will often go to the most prepared, the lawyer most familiar with the facts, the arguments, and the law. Despite all else, the lawyer can choose to be the most prepared. That does not make it easy, but the path is at least clear.

I tell my students all the time: "You cannot choose to be the smartest, prettiest, funniest, or a slew of other superlatives, but you can always choose to be the hardest working." Effort matters, and it shows. 

Out in California

A California judge will resign after pleading guilty to a felony mail fraud charge for allegedly hiring a physician convicted of health care fraud to prepare medical records to submit to the state’s workers’ compensation program, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

According to Ballotpedia, Israel Claustro was elected January 3, 2013, In the primary ... after the general election was cancelled." He was a judge of "the Superior Court of Orange County,_which appears to be California's court of general jurisdiction. Judge Claustro presided in Orange County, home of Anaheim, Irvine, and more. The job paid almost $180,000.

In fairness, Mr. Claustro was not a judge at the time of his felony; he "was an Orange County prosecutor at the time." He operated Liberty Medical Group, "despite being neither a physician nor a medical professional as required under California law." The company, Liberty, employed physicians to provide patient care.

The U.S. Attorney says that one "of Liberty’s employees was Dr. Kevin Tien Do, 60," and that he was previously convicted of fraud. That conviction led to "suspension from California’s workers’ compensation program." Nonetheless, Dr. Do was paid "more than $300,000" to prepare "medical evaluations, medical record reviews, and med-legal reports after Do’s suspension."

The secrecy of this action was preserved by "listing other doctors’ names on the billing forms and reports," concealing Dr. Do's involvement. The impact of the "known" falsity, according to the U.S. Attorney, was about $38,670, which was "paid to Liberty" as a result of the various "fraudulent submitted reports. The overall payments to Liberty were "hundreds of thousands of dollars."

In March 2026, the California Commission on Judicial Performance concluded its disciplinary proceeding against "former Judge Claustro." It concluded that his guilt of a felony "constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." The Commission noted that despite his conviction, he "failed to promptly report to the commission when he was charged."

Mr. Castro agreed, therefore, to a "censure and bar." 

Censure is a public notice of "improper conduct," akin to a public reprimand. The "bar" is a "lifetime bar on future judicial service," according to Metropolitan News. The lessons are worth consideration. Behavior before taking the bench is actionable. Pleading guilty to crimes is a first step, but reporting to the qualifications authorities is also imperative. Finally, at least in California, the authority to impose discipline survives a resignation from the bench.

The Pre Law Club Debate

In April 2026, I traveled to Panama City to attend the Florida State University First Amendment Debate featuring professor Denise Harle and attorney Michel Stone. The experience was intellectually intriguing and encouraging from several perspectives.

My primary encouragement came in the form of attendance. The Florida State University campus at Panama City cannot be described as large. It is led by Dean Randy Hanna, and his commitment to legal studies is patent. 

An assortment of local attorneys, faculty, and others attended. But I was more struck by the various Pre-Law Club attendees. They were not only present but had obviously devoted time and effort to planning and executing this event. I was also struck by the approximately 50 high school students in attendance.

I struggle to believe that a high school student is more prepared for the Constitution today than I was so many years ago. Nonetheless, they were present, respectful, and at least receptive. Among their number, undoubtedly, there are a few who will eventually pursue law as a career. Feeding the curiosity and interest of the next generation is our obligation. 

Following a cordial introductory lunch, we transitioned to a large lecture hall for the debate. During the lunch introductions, I was encouraged by the variety of Pre-Law students, and the engagement of Florida State leadership. The school was obviously engaged with these young people on a personal level, and the familiarity was evidence of their past collaborations. 

Professor Harle has recently been involved in founding the Florida First Amendment Clinic. This brings clinical experiences for students to engage in actual advocacy and litigation while in law school. Her brief overview was inspiring. Her enthusiasm and academic perspective on the First Amendment were both encouraging and refreshing. 

Nonetheless, there was some pre-debate debate on the topic. What students and guests saw was the reality that there can be disagreement and yet discourse. There was a sharing of perspectives and differences, disagreement without disagreeableness. That is healthy, and the cordial engagement was refreshing. 

So often in the world today, individuals cite the First Amendment as protecting their right to both speak their mind and suppress the views of others. Nothing could be more anathema. The First provides protection for most but not all speech. There is no “freedom to cancel” clause. Nonetheless, there are even those who are opposed to the protections of the First Amendment. 

I was particularly struck by the courage of one student who jumped into the pre-debate, noting something to the effect of people not needing to be so rapidly triggered or offended. He was many years younger than those who started that particular point, entered the fray professionally and courteously, and demonstrated class and intellect. 

Michel Stone is a local Panama City attorney. He is involved in representing a variety of clients but harkens back to early constitutional experience in criminal defense around Panama City. He has been significantly involved in the defense of murder and other serious felonies. His depth of experience was patent. 

Chiles v. Salazar was the obvious focus of the main debate. Nonetheless, the conversation strayed periodically into more fundamental discussions of constitutional law. Mr. Stone's initial statement was to the effect of “we have been lured here under false pretenses,“ suggesting that Salazar is not a First Amendment decision in any instance, but a "police powers" discussion. 

Salazar is a recent 8-to-1 decision of the United States Supreme Court. Someone would argue that numeric is as close to unanimous as the present Court is likely to come. The case focuses on a Colorado statute precluding licensed counselors from providing “conversion therapy“ to minors.

Professor Harle’s perspective was focused more precisely on the First Amendment issue, specifically the freedom of expression. 

Mr. Stone made multiple arguments in favor of a ban on “conversion therapy.” His focus was less upon the First Amendment and more upon the detriment he perceives of “conversion therapy." In this, he argues that there is persistent, if not consistent, governmental authority under the auspices of “police power" to protect the public from legislatively perceived harm. He quoted a volume of statistics that he believes demonstrates the potential or probability for damage from "conversion therapy."

In a somewhat unscientific manner, his comments perhaps suggested that correlation is the equivalent of causation. See Disparity and Evolution (August 2024). One of his primary examples was the prevalence of suicidal ideation or attempt in those who have attempted conversion therapy compared with those who have not. This blurred distinction between correlation and causation was questioned by several attendees.

Unfortunately, the time for this discussion was too short. As I age, that seems to be increasingly true. I wanted to hear more. Where did the speakers not venture? A fundamental that I stress to my students is that there are a variety of rights with which we are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution and American jurisprudence recognize many of these, and as yet omit others. 

Unfortunately, they are not inherently congruous. Your rights to enjoy your property may, in fact, interfere with my rights to substantive liberty. Similarly, your rights to freedom of expression or association may, in fact, impede upon my rights similarly. See 

Fundamental Rights (April 2019). 

There is no absolutly clear outcome in so many of these conflicts between and among individual rights and societal powers. There are balances and compromises. 

Thus, we periodically see divergent voices on some boulevards throughout the country, separated by the thin blue line that somehow keeps our discourse (usually) civil. There is strong disagreement at times. There is the right to speak, and yet the government has the power to keep both (all) sides in such a discourse safe from each other, and from the public generally (some views are not so popular). 

I was particularly grateful for the leadership of the Florida State university pre-law club. Their advisor, Professor Lucy Hoover has obviously devoted much time to the development and growth. Dean Randy Hannah has an obvious interest in the club and delivers support, engagement, and encouragement. Associate Dean Irvin Clark has likewise been engaged since the club began. Their involvement and familiarity with the students are patent as they enter a room of students who all readily greet them as you would old friends. 

All of that said, the success of this future lawyer launch platform is so demonstrably due to the efforts of Judge John Mooneyham. He has been the students' community resource, their reference, and their advisor since the club began about four years ago. I am proud of all of these Boomers who are striving to deliver something to the next generation. 

And the next generation is pretty impressive. The following club members/officers provided overview of the Salazar opinion, introduction of speakers, and more. They shined and delivered both intellect and community engagement. 

Lindsey Dey

Alex Kinchen

Tyler Zheng

Jennifer Giraldo

Cathy Buller

Nicholas Cooley

Florian Riemer

I spend a fair amount of space here advocating for mentorship, support for the next generation, and efforts directed at their success. See Starfish (February 2022). We may not pull all of these club members into the legal profession. But if we manage to help one or two on their professional quests, then it is worth all the effort.

Kudos to Florida State University Panama City, the individuals who made the great debate possible, and all the interested and engaged who took the time to both attend and engage the challenge of peacefully and intellectually discussing differing viewpoints. 

First Principles

There will be lively discussion today at the Workers' Compensation Forum. I am honored to be on a panel led by Ya'Sheaka Williams, Esq. and including Gloria Garcia, Esq., and Hon. Jacqueline Newman. They call it "Current Trends," and it is always interesting. 

One of my foci this morning will be "First Principles" as recently discussed by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R8, No. 6D2023-1482, 2026 WL 785140 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026).

At first blush, the workers' compensation community should first say "what does the 6th have to do with us?" or even "this is not a comp case." Both would be apt. Both might be a bit short of the mark.

The court notes that there is some perception that various District Courts have wandered over the years. It notes this regarding the perceived need for attorney fee hearings. The court makes the point that an old workers' compensation case from the Florida Supreme Court suggested a hearingless procedure long ago. Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987). I have cited it often.

The Sixth District certifies that it disagrees with the decisions of the other five Districts, 37 such decisions. That is an amazing outcome. This new District Court has concluded that these others have been misguided many times. And it suggests that an old workers' compensation case is a great guide forward for the law regarding how attorney fees are determined.

To do so, the court draws back to "First Principles." This is not an attack on the idea of stare decisis, though some perceive it as such. It is a return to the fundamental process of examining the law, be it statute, rule, etc., that lies at the foundation of prior court decisions. It is not that we cannot follow precedent but that we must question the foundations of such decisional law.

Having done so, the Sixth District concludes that

"Sixty-two years ago, the Second District invented a requirement for trial courts to receive expert testimony before granting an award of attorneys’ fees."

"Invented" may be a bit strong? Nonetheless, having so concluded, the Sixth departed from layers of precedent and made a decision based on the law or the absence of it. The court thus departs from long-established decisional law that has heretofore been consistent across the state.

In this, some in the workers' compensation community may see some parallel to Estes v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 1D2025-0079, 2026 WL 796496 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 23, 2026). There, the First District concluded:

"Our duty, however, is to faithfully apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the enacted text."

In doing so, the First District receded from several of its own cases interpreting the section 440.19 statute of limitations. It did so openly. It said that when there is an issue as to the efficacy of the foundation in prior decisions, then

“[t]he proper question becomes whether there is a valid reason why not to recede from that precedent.”

The Estes decision does not mention First Principles, but the logic may seem similar to some observers.

What decisional law in Florida workers' compensation might be subject to such arguments? There are several that jump to mind:

• Why does the evidence code apply in workers' compensation? 
• Why are repetitive trauma injuries considered under an accident/disease hybrid? 
• Why can an issue be barred if claims for it are dismissed voluntarily twice? 
• Why must a worker show an exceptional exertion to demonstrate the compensability of a heart attack? 
• Why are statutory provisions of "arising out of" subject to interpretation? 
• Why is medical mileage a benefit in Florida workers' compensation? 

These are discussion points. There are appellate decisions on each. They are perhaps interesting, and some would suggest that other corners of the law might be as readily discussed. The point is that Judges of Compensation Claims are bound to follow precedent. Nonetheless, there is some potential that appellate courts will elect not to, either in rejecting the logic of their peers or revisiting their own decisions.

Nonetheless, there is some likelihood that litigants will increasingly raise arguments that contradict prior precedent. They will perhaps strive to see the law change in their circumstance based on a new look at the underlying statute or rule. That is advocacy and is the root of effective lawyering.

It is an intriguing time to be in this practice and to hear the perspectives of the many intellectual and engaged professionals that inhabit this space.