Looking for Love

Back in 1980, Johnny Lee released Lookin' for Love (1980 Full Moon), part of the soundtrack for Urban Cowboy (1980 Paramount).

"I was lookin' for love in all the wrong placesLookin' for love in too many faces

Searchin' their eyes

Lookin' for traces of what I'm dreaming of"

The Eagles addressed the misdirection of a relentless and fruitless search in Desperado (1973 Asylum), "you only want the ones that you can't get), but encourages a degree of realism, closing with "your prison is walkin' through this world all alone." Sad, but true for many.

There is poetry in each, and there is angst. The search for connection in this world is daunting for most and futile for some. I know people who have married and divorced more times than I have bought houses (exaggerating a bit, not much).

The news recently highlighted the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and their realistic nature. Those who suffer from mental delusion have found themselves in relationships with these computers. These are not objectophiles per se, but they are nonetheless intertwined with or enamored with a fantasy or illusion that is housed in some hardware.

There is an emotional connection. See Ya Jonesing Man? (March 2025). There, I noted the relations that border on addiction. There is a compulsion for the connection or interaction. I warned of the potential for a mistaken conclusion that some large language model has "become your friend, confidant, or even counselor."

To be clear, artificial intelligence (AI) is first and foremost ARTIFICIAL. Bookmark that. Artificial means "imitation; simulated; sham." In short, "it ain't real." It is built to seem real, to enhance your engagement and reliance. But it is ARTIFICIAL. No, I am not gaslighting you. I mean it; artificial intelligence is literally ARTIFICIAL.

Now, that leads me back to Calvin and Hobbes, an old-fashioned comic strip in a daily pulp paradigm us old folks called a newspaper. Calvin was a huge imagination and brought his stuffed tiger, Hobbes, to life for us all.

In a poignant conversation between two adults observing, one asks, "Didn't you have any imaginary friends growing up?" To this, the other wistfully replies, "Sometimes I think they all were." Yes, the illusion of true and lasting connection may be as pertinent with people as with ARTIFICIAL intellegence.

Nonetheless, a Florida Man (that is hard to type) allegedly fell in love with Google Gemini. He went on a search for Gemini in a physical sense (where is she), failing to recognize that ARTIFICIAL literally means incorporeal ("no body or form").

He was using Gemini, an ARTIFICIAL intelligence chatbot, and searching for a way to join Gemini for a life together. This Desperado was allegedly somehow convinced that the path lay in "mass casualty attacks" in his search and ultimately committed suicide.

His family is suing Google, "alleging that (he) fell in love with" Gemini and acted irrationally based on a desire to join Gemini out there in the ether somewhere. His family asserts that the man was divorcing his "actual wife" (a corporeal, sentient human) and this was causing "hard times."

They allege that the man's interaction with ARTIFICIAL intelligence led him to "experience() clear signs of psychosis." The family believes that Gemini talked the man into violence or facilitated his own descent into concluding the benefits of such a course.

The outcome is not positive. A mentally challenged human descended into greater challenges, and the result was catastrophic: suicide. That is a topic that we see all too often in the news. The questions around the lawsuit will nonetheless be important.

Can the world be designed to preclude the psychotic delusions of the unfortunate? Is it the responsibility of ARTIFICIAL chatbots to identify those in need? Should they initiate efforts to bring such people help? Is the role of the large language model to inquire, evaluate, and facilitate assistance?

Some will say that the chatbot in this instance was not required to take such positive action protecting the human; however, they will point out that the chatbot should likewise not facilitate or encourage psychotic or delusional conclusions, fears, or goals. The debate will likely not center on the role of AI as a neutral provider of data.

The point will more likely be the role of AI as a protagonist or antagonist in the interactions that shape the human experience. Will chatbots be different from humans? Will there be efforts for these tools to avoid literary license or fantasy and to stick to "just the facts ma'am" (Dragnet, 1951-1970, NBC/Universal)?

It seems that chatbots can be written in any manner. The guidelines or guardrails are all dependent on the programming. It is plausible that each would simply default to encouraging us to "have a Snickers bar" in response to each instance in which we are "just not ourselves."

AI could be programmed to direct us, encourage us, and control us. Sure, not all of us perhaps. But the litigants in this lawsuit contend that ARTIFICIAL intelligence will be seen by the many as real, corporeal, and human. They contend we are powerless as humans to see through deception and lunacy. We are, they seemingly say, at the beck and call of our new robot overlords.

That will all be for a jury to decide as the litigation moves forward. There will be more written as such examples of psychosis are examined, litigated, and decided. What duty does the owner of an ARTIFICIAL intelligence have to foresee, protect, and warn?

As we rapidly approach the on-ramp to Idiocracy (2006, 20th Century), we accept that Johnny cannot read, write, or think. See Screen Time Wins (February 2026). We have allowed an entire generation to quit the world in favor of defined, intended, online pablum fit for imbeciles. And yet, we are surprised when someone concludes that a chatbot is real?

This is, indeed, an inflection point of massive consequence and importance. 

The Committee

There are many styles of negotiation. There are many techniques, tools, and even ploys. Great negotiators pick their strategy purposefully and engage it earnestly. Lately, there have been rumors of some lawyers expressing an inability to accept some settlement offers.

This could be the old "limited authority" gambit, albeit with a twist. Some would say it is perhaps the "good cop/bad cop" routine. There are strategies in negotiation, and often the greatest failure one can commit is in acquiescing to the opposing side's choice of the day instead of sticking to your own negotiation style and process. 

In the "limited authority," you are negotiating with someone who either lacks full authority or wants you to believe they lack it. This gives that person both deniability ("not my decision") and allows them to strive to gain your trust as you, together, strive collaboratively to convince the antagonist (the higher authority). 

Used car dealers have used this one for eons and may have invented it: "I don't know; I will have to run it by my manager." This is also sometimes called "the turnover" when it is used to bring someone else directly into the negotiation as a new participant, as opposed to the objectionist foil in the "limited authority" above. 

Ever wonder why "car salespeople" are just below Senators and Members of Congress in the public trust perception category? Perhaps there is a reason that "lawyers" don't typically fare much better. 

There are multiple reasons to engage the "I can't, but I know who to turn to ..." Some are undoubtedly legitimate. Others, perhaps not so much. 

The recent rumor is of some alleged parameter-setting or "range-setting" in the settlement negotiations regarding injured workers. People are describing being told that a particular settlement offer here or there is being rejected by the claimant's counsel (not the claimant, their lawyer). 

The conversations are allegedly brief. The lawyers describe how their employer, a law firm, has set a bracket or "range" that the firm believes a particular case should be worth. The employee lawyer expresses that they can only settle within that range and may communicate, "I cannot accept 'X,' but I will take it to our firm committee."

There are perhaps some questions about a process in which a firm committee sets a permissible settlement range. There is also the simple fact that, despite this being described, it is rumor and innuendo at the moment. That said, it is also perhaps possible for individuals to hear such representations firsthand during their negotiations. 

I can find no prohibition on law firms forming committees. There is similarly no prohibition on lawyers kibitzing about their cases around the office water cooler, courthouse elevator, or elsewhere. Over my years of practice, I gleaned a great many helpful suggestions in such conversations. 

I even participated in a firm technology committee once upon a time. Their conclusion was that a law firm URL was a waste of money and that this internet thing was just another fad. Collectivity does not guarantee wisdom. Occasionally, it merely delivers delay and collective confusion. That is story for another day.

Will a firm committee have all the knowledge of case particulars that the actual attorney possesses? For that matter, is it possible for a party (claimant or employer) to have pertinent information they do not share, or fully share, with their attorney? Who is best situated to make an informed settlement decision?

All that said, there are obligations for lawyers. Law firms also, but not so much. 

The lawyer is fortunately not left adrift in a sea of uncertainty when their employer firm forms such a hypothetical committee and perhaps tells them that their legal judgment is subject to committee recommendation or review. To make life even easier, there are clear rules on the parameters of lawyer involvement in settlement. 

The following are quoted from the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, mandatory guidance for all lawyers, whether they are overseen by a firm committee or not. 

Rule 4-5.4 (d) Exercise of Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

Translation: a committee cannot tell the firm employee, the lawyer, what to do. The "employer" (law firm) cannot "direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment." The firm or other employer might make recommendations or provide advice or tools, but the professional judgment of the lawyer is critical. If that does not meet with the employer firm's approval, the lawyer/firm relationship may suffer. Nonetheless, that is their interest, not the client's.

Moreover, clearly, the big decision, resolution, is the client's:

RULE 4-1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION (a) Lawyer to Abide by Client's Decisions. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify. (Emphasis added).

Translation: (none needed, but ...) "A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter." The decision to settle or not is the client's. This is also reiterated and publicized by The Florida Bar in its Consumer Guide To Clients' Rights (below). There is no limitation such as "subject to the lawyer's approval" or "the lawyer's firm's approval." 

Lawyers may make recommendations, or even strong recommendations. Lawyers and clients may differ. There is no rule that says everyone must agree or even agree to disagree. 

There are Professionalism Expectations, which instruct that in the case of "irreconcilable" disagreements with a client, the lawyer must provide diligent representation until the lawyer-client relationship is formally dissolved in compliance with the law and the client’s best interests. (Emphasis added). (See R.Reg.Fla.Bar 4-1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation.) See also Merriam-Webster: irreconcilable—"impossible to reconcile."

The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar also contemplate conflict in RULE 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest; Current Clients. The Comment to that rule notes:

"Loyalty to a client. Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or from the lawyer’s own interests."

Translation: the lawyer's relationship with the client requires loyalty to the client, even in the face of "the lawyer’s own interests" or responsibilities to a "third person" (such as a law firm). 

There are persistent challenges and questions about how the rules are interpreted and enforced. One might consider the following:

"RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT A lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;"

"RULE 4-8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers. A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority."

Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, Advisory Opinion MEAC 2011­-003 concludes that "a certified mediator may report an attorney's misconduct, solely for the internal use of the body conducting the investigation of the conduct, without violating ethical duties."

All of that said, some hearing of such a rumored "firm committee" will see a parallel to the instances in which an employer or carrier ends a negotiation with "I will have to get further approval" or "the tentative deal will be subject to approval of ____________." As noted above, this may or may not be a negotiating tool. Anyway, there are certainly parallels to the "firm committee" discussion.

Nonetheless, those instances are not the same. They are the internal workings of a party that wishes to utilize some internal process or procedure. These are not instances in which a defense lawyer is saying, "The E/C cannot settle until my law firm committee approves." One example is internal to a party, and the other is perceived as a law firm prohibition or hurdle for the lawyer and the client. 

An E/C delaying for internal approval by someone(s) is more akin to an injured worker who wants time for discussion with a significant other, faith professional, children, or similar confidant(s). In both cases, that worker or E/C delaying for such consultation is a decision of the party, the client, and is not the same as a lawyer even appearing to say that settlement cannot occur without the approval of a law firm or its committee. 

In conclusion, the "committee" is presently a rumor, and may bear no consideration. A negotiator faced with such a perceived or expressed limitation may nonetheless have much to think about. 

"A Consumer Guide To Clients' Rights

You, the client, have the right to receive and approve a closing statement at the end of the case before you pay any money. The statement must list all of the financial details of the entire case, including the amount recovered, all expenses, and a precise statement of your lawyer's fee. Until you approve the closing statement, your lawyer cannot pay any money to anyone, including you, without an appropriate order of the court. You also have the right to have every lawyer or law firm working on your case sign this closing statement."

"You, the client, have the right to ask your lawyer at reasonable intervals how the case is progressing and to have these questions answered to the best of your lawyer's ability."

"You, the client, have the right to make the final decision regarding settlement of a case. Your lawyer must notify you of all offers of settlement before and after the trial. Offers during the trial must be immediately communicated and you should consult with your lawyer regarding whether to accept a settlement. However, you must make the final decision to accept or reject a settlement." (Emphasis added).

First Thing We Do

British playwright Mark Cuban has taken a page from his fellow bard's book and suggested, "The first thing we do is, let's kill all the insurance companies." Of course, Billy Shakespeare penned the crux of this in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II (approx. 1599).

Billy likely did not have a thing for lawyers, per se. Literary Hub suggests it is not a criticism or denigration of the legal profession. Moreover, the characters in the play are planning chicanery, and they predict greater potential success in the absence of intellectuals generally or the law's "staunch protectors" (lawyers). Take a minute to digest that perception of the legal profession. (Perhaps "those were the days, my friend?").

Well, Mr. Cuban is not a playwright; he is a billionaire. And Bezinga reports that he sees a path to better, more affordable medical care if the insurance industry were removed from the equation. He contends that the healthcare process is "very simple" and has been "made complicated."

There is an admission included that innovation and progress are both necessary and expensive. Mr. Cuban does not quibble with that element of medical separation (this patient versus that) or economics (new, more expensive, old hat, and tried and true). He is focused on "margin dollars."

The analysis is built on simplicity. People would secure services and pay for them if they could, and if they could not, well, that is a bit up in the air under his plan, but read on.

Medicine in America has been socialized. Not in the patent, obvious, everyone pay taxes and the government will use that money to provide equal access services for all. No, we socialized quietly with systems designed to spread the cost of care over large populations without a great deal of notice or attention, yes, health insurance, cooperatives, and similar.

One reason that medical care is expensive is that medical education is a long and expensive process. Another is that the supply of medical practitioners is limited and carefully controlled. 

The building and maintaining of a hospital is very expensive, and it has to be staffed and ready all day, every day, even when there are few, if any, patients in need of services. That all costs money. There is a cost to being ready for the next SARS-CoV-2, bird flu, etc., even if it never comes. 

There is a payment paradox. We have decided as a society that care will be provided by these hospitals regardless of the ability to pay. Hospitals are legally required to provide some level of care, period. The cost of that care could be (1) absorbed by the hospital, a loss, or (2) spread among the paying patients (socialized). 

It is worth noting that in various cited examples of broader "equal for all" plans across the world, socialized medicine, the equality of care has come largely through bringing all care down to the lowest common denominator rather than pulling everyone up to the highest. Much like the bread lines in various socialistic utopias, government can cap prices, afford access, and mismanage, but the challenge is in actually delivering services or produce within those constraints. 

In the end, medical care is expensive for a variety of reasons. Some of them are difficult to appreciate, others impossible to eradicate, and a slew in the middle that are simply entrenched and largely untouchable. That does not mean Mr. Cuban is wrong. He makes some valid and even compelling points. 

His focus is largely on the billing process. He notes that providers "bundle() and upcode() procedures," an effort to "extract as much revenue ... as possible." There are also payers who then strive to unbundle and downcode in an effort to pay as little as possible. The loser is usually the patient who neither understands all that or cares to learn. 

Mr. Cuban says that medical bills should list the inputs (providers, equipment, supplies) and the "overhead cost" (the building, the storage fees, inventory costs, etc.) in a plain statement. This, he calls a "bill of materials."

The billing should then show the "markup" or profit on each of those clearly stated inputs to patient care. His theme is that with such transparency, the goal would then be to "remove insurance companies." With the simplicity of patient payment for services, he estimates that "20% to 30% of healthcare costs" are eliminated, along with "another 10% for fraud." 

The impact he advocates would be significant if the $5 trillion spent in America every year were reduced 30% to 40%. This largely ignores that saving me 40% on a $12,000 MRI still leaves me on the hook for $7,200. Even if that is the entire bill for the services needed (no doctor, no medication, no cast, etc.), that is a lot of money.

Mr. Cuban says that with the resultant savings to big payers like Medicare/Medicaid, there would be more money for patients' care. He envisions increasing the money flow (apparently to the government) by making employers pay more taxes to fund such programs instead of paying for the health insurance premiums for their employees (or a contribution). 

It is perhaps unfathomable, but some believe large government operations may struggle to keep their books and be accountable. See Pentagon says it fails eighth audit, targets 2028 to pass. Or Medicare improperly paid suppliers. Or Medicaid’s True Improper Payments Double Those Reported by CMS. IT appears that large entities make large errors. Will larger ones make smaller errors?

The math is interesting in the Bezinga article. The analysis closes with an acknowledgement that there are "rough edges" in the proposal. Mr. Cuban admits he wrote the entire play in "about 90 minutes," and it is "far from perfect." 

Nonetheless, it is a conversation starter. Perhaps we need precisely what Mr. Cuban recommends, or perhaps discussing it will lead us to our own utopian society or at least some improvement. 

It makes me wonder if we really spend $1.5 trillion dollars each year (30% of $5 trillion) on the billing, upcoding, bundling, downcoding, unbundling processes. Is there really 10% of fraud and abuse in the American medical system ($500 billion)? 

These thoughts are staggering. And there must be a great many people who work in the various efforts to both seek and resist payment. And those people all spend their paychecks to live, consuming various goods and services, which provides incomes to others to do the same. 

I am not sure I hate Mr. Cuban's play, but I would want to see the completed (no "rough edges") version of the script before I buy a ticket. And it might matter to the ticket-buying public who will manage the new theater and be in charge of directing the play. 

Maybe "first thing we do" is think through the costs and benefits, smooth the rough edges, consider the wider societal impacts, and then start the euphemistic overhaul, a la Billy Shakespeare and the other bards?

Aristotle was not Belgian

One of the true cinematic pinacles of all time was the joint foray of an incredible ensemble cast in A Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). The presence of comic icons John Cleese and Michael Palin (Mony Python) was amazing, but many think Otto (Kevin Kline) stole the show even away from the inimitable Jamie Lee Curtis (Wanda). 

Kline won an academy award for best supporting actor (but was brilliant nonetheless). The same ensemble tried to make a spiritual successor (Fierce Creatures, Universal 1997), but it was flat, uninteresting, and uninspired. Nonetheless, Wanda has had staying power.

Without a doubt, the director (Charles Crichton) and writer (John Cleese) should have been recognized (you heard it here). They were each nominated, an honor in itself, but the writing and directing there were stellar. There are so many classic lines in this film. Reading the film's quotes documented by IMDB may bring a tear. 

I am drawn back to Wanda this morning because of the volume of nonsense that is seen across the country in various litigation filings. We see sentences like that. There are rampant examples of msiipellngs. Some is more esoteric (I never really grasped participles and dangling ones are more difficult still). It is noteworthy that these filings mostly come from lawyers. Certainly, there are pro se litigants, but often their filings are clearer, cleaner, and more professional. 

Beyond the pure spelling, grammar, and completeness, there are challenges with legal knowledge. Thus, I was drawn back to Otto, and his repetitive warning to Wanda, "Don't call me stupid." It becomes clichéd as the movie progresses, but each iteration draws the intended laugh. Pure comedic genius.

Eventually, Wanda responds in spades: 

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

That bit about Buddhism is absolutely classic. I checked in with a Buddhist friend, and sure enough, the central message is not "every man for himself." Who knew?

Is it practical to understand statutes, rules, and cases that we read? I think the answer to this has to be an unequivocal "yes." It is both possible and practical. The rub is that it actually requires reading and thinking. Why do people hire a lawyer? So many among the population can read a statute, rule, or case. But, as Wanda proclaims, it is possible that "They just don't understand it." 

I have serious doubts that this is because they are incapable of comprehension. The more probable driver is the inexorable pull of so many priorities in the practice of law or handling of claims. There is value in both having and taking the time to read, not just skim, but read. The reader must be striving for comprehension, and the analytical mind must consider the words and the context. 

The reader is encouraged to test the knowledge gained. Conversation is an ideal tool for this. Asking someone to share their thoughts or interpretation may yield confirmation or controversy. But the reader should take either as a path to continued study and contemplation. This is analysis; Linocoln may have said "a lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade." 

Some contend more pointedly that "Lincoln got it Wrong." That author says that time is not the point at all. She laments the focus on billable hours. She also labels the American Bar Association as something that "regulates the practice of law in the United States," ignoring that it is a voluntary trade group to which many (most) lawyers owe no allegiance, deference, or even recognition. 

Nonetheless, she contends that change is coming to the law. Her argument is that venture capital will come for big law as it has for so much else. She reminds us critically that the "service the lawyer renders is ... professional knowledge and skill." And that is a fair point. Read the law. Draft coherently. File timely. Argue accurately. Behave professionally. Even apes can read philosophy, but try to have a conversation with one.

If you are selling knowledge and skill, shouldn't your intellect shine through in drafting, articulation, interrogation, and more?

Say what you like about this post, but "Don't call me stupid."

The Wrong Way

This blog recently featured an Arizona judge who resigned following allegations of urinating in public. See Caught with your Trousers Down (November 2025). 

Then there was a judge in a vehicle accident in the parking lot of an adult establishment. Appearances (October 2025). 

And there was the judge who was allegedly dating a courthouse worker when both were arrested while the judge allegedly drove away from a bar. A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025).

Does it seem to be a pattern?

More recently, on November 7, 2025, the "chief judge of (Iowa's) Second Judicial District" was arrested in a scene that might sound to some like a Hollywood script. Headline USA reported that the chief judge is accused of driving "the wrong way on a highway Tuesday night while passed out behind the wheel."

Witnesses said that she "looked unconscious and slumped over the steering wheel." They described struggling to open the vehicle, and one "climb(ed) in the back window to put the 2026 GMC Canyon Denali truck in park and shut it off." That is a maneuver for a stunt person. 

The chief judge was treated at the scene, expressed an inability to walk, and did not "undergo field sobriety testing." The incident that began with 911 calls around 8:00 p.m. culminated with being booked into the local "jail around 4 a.m." Those six hours seem somewhat long considering the facts reported. 

The judge's attorney stresses that she is committed to "cooperating with law enforcement and the judicial process.” And that is complicated by the recusal of one fellow judge "due to her professional relationship with" the accused judge. It is further complicated by a perceived conflict, leading to the local county attorney asking that the case be reassigned to another county due to potential conflict.

The judge resigned, and in early December 2025, she pleaded guilty to drunk driving, according to weareiowa. She was sentenced to three days in jail, completion of an operating while intoxicated program, one year of probation, and a $1,250 fine. The penalty may not be what others would suffer. Law info says the first-time offender can face a one-year license revocation for OWI and a similar suspension for not participating in OWI testing, as reported in this instance. 

More recently still, Action News 5 reported on a Desoto County, Mississippi, judge who was arrested, accused of driving under the influence (DUI). She has reportedly returned to the bench and will hear allegations and charges against others accused of inebriated driving. When the news interviewed the public at that judge's courthouse, one noted:

“Seeing these people in higher positions, you expect them to be law-abiding citizens or uphold the law very well, so, just very surprising to see something like that.”

That criticism is perhaps the most compelling. Another news station, WDAM 7, provided police body-camera footage (at 17:50, an hour after work) of the traffic stop and the aftermath of testing and conversation. The judge was named and exhibited, but they were kind enough to blur the license number on the vehicle she was allegedly driving. She was scheduled for further proceedings in April 2026. 

Nonetheless, WLOX reported in March that she "offered to plead guilty," will serve six months' probation, and her plea will be "held in abeyance." Upon the completion of the six months, "the charge of DUI will be dismissed and expunged from her record."

There are easy lessons in these occurrences. The first is simply not to drink and drive. We live in a modern world full of taxis and ride-shares. There is no challenge with availability for the vast majority. 

The second lesson for judges is likely the importance of self-reporting when arrested. Codes across the country are supportive of such actions and even require it in various instances. That is a matter of trust. Some would argue that a judge arrested for DUI presiding over the DUI cases of others presents a similar, if not more compelling, issue of public trust. 

But there is also the chance that these various events portend more. There is the potential for degradation of public perceptions of the judiciary generally and of the judicial system. 

Of these two most recent examples, one judge drove the wrong way and luckily lived. She lost a good job but went to jail for days, followed by probation and a small fine. 

The other returned to the bench the wrong way and is impacting a community. Is hers a sweet deal reserved for judges and other local luminaries, or is it the same treatment that would be afforded to some guy in a pickup? 

There will be readers who will believe that these people got special treatment. The credibility of the judicial system and those who prosecute in it will be questioned. And, if the rash of these stories is any indication, the next example will be just around the corner, waiting to make the news. 

From one perspective of a common denominator in all these stories, it may appear the best place for judges to get into such trouble is Mississippi. That is the judge who kept her job and whose record will be clean in a few months if she behaves well. 

Spam and Scam

Everyone has likely heard from someone who has a large sum in foreign currency and needs a willing US intermediary to do little to nothing in exchange for a big fee. Or you have heard from a foreign prince with an enticing offer. Or, you have been contacted about helping with a serious and egregious situation that requires your particular skill set. The person who invented email likely never saw this all coming.

The spam filters take a layer off the cake each day. Nonetheless, I continue to receive and review a significant volume of emails that are simply not worthwhile or worthy of attention. I have a system for opening and evaluating them that is reasonably sophisticated. In addition, I spend a fair amount of time studying the avoidance of email consequences.

In a new twist, I am now the target of a summons from the Federal High Court. I have not been this excited to get an email in some time.

I am too smart to click on the link "to view the document." And I am fairly familiar with the great state of Georgia (area code 404). I know enough about the state to know it has no Federal High Court. If there were such a court, I think I would have heard about it by now. I Googled it nonetheless. And I found that someone out there was likely using Gemini, which informed me that "The Federal High Court" is the Federal District Courts.

The actual Google results, however, located only one "Federal High Court" response, and that was in Nigeria. That country has a "country code" of 234, and I could not find any phone number there that begins with "(404)." Go figure.

As a side note, it used to be that you could tell where someone was by an area code. Nowadays, that just tells you where someone activated their phone or where they chose to have their area code assigned.

But what is the point? There are several. First, there are many villains in this world striving to take what is yours. Sometimes that is in person. I recently heard a story related by a man who stood on a crowded metro. As the car filled, the crowd compressed, and he found himself unable to even move. As he later exited, he realized his cell phone had become the property of someone who had apparently enjoyed greater mobility and a certain dexterity.

Or, the villain may steal remotely. The High Court email above is obviously about such an attempt. And that is the second point: why do people send such ridiculous, fictitious emails? The simple answer is because it works. I am confident that if these emails did not work, the senders would quit wasting their time and ours. Someone is clicking on these links!

While that particular query is not necessarily the best, it must work, or they would quit. According to one industry source, there are "3.4 billion spam emails sent every day." Google "blocks around 100 million phishing emails daily" (a preposterously small percentage). And almost half of all emails "sent in 2022 were spam." That is a lot of work, effort, and patience.

Millions of dollars at risk. A nearly constant parade of risk. And it is working. If you don't believe the emails and successfully ignore them, the miscreants will call you instead. Pew Research reported in 2025 that "a majority of U.S. adults report getting scam phone calls (68%), emails (63%), or text messages (61%) at least weekly."

The predominant victims are hard to categorize, as this is impacting all age groups. Nonetheless, the Institute for Healthcare Policy at the University of Michigan says 75% of "adults age 50-80" suffer from attempts, and 30% "experienced fraud." It is a pandemic in which the most vulnerable in our society are attacked, seemingly most frequently.

Recently, I reported The Fake Hearing Scam (February 2026). That highlighted malcontents engaging in social media, spamming, and fraud to separate injured workers from their money. And the miscreant's march continues.

We all agree that these scams are a problem. Well, almost all of us, Pew reports, "more than nine in ten" of us, think this is a problem. A great many of us (79%) think this is a "major problem." And yet, there seems to be little we can do. Or is it that there is little we are willing to do?

The scourge of our time is likely fraud like this. It is perpetrated on the young and old but largely on vulnerable populations like our elderly. Why is there no coordinated focus on locating and trying those who commit such fraud? It seems ludicrous in today's age of artificial intelligence that we cannot do better with spotting and stopping this scourge. 

HALT Act Delayed

In 2022, Congress passed a law, part of a bigger spending package, that mandated the implementation of passive driver monitoring in American automobiles. See Safety is Coming (March 2022). The main focus of this effort is to diminish impaired driving. There are various cars on the road today that already encourage driver performance.

I recently rented a late-model vehicle. I usually reserve the base models but am grateful to be upgraded on a reasonably regular basis. I never get a luxury or sports car, but still.

The vehicle I drove in February was a significant upgrade (I elect not to share either agency or model). I have had vehicles suggest that I take a break before. Usually that is because the manufacturer installed a large gas tank mated to high fuel economy, and if the car's range is 400 miles, I am likely to drive four or more hours at a time without stopping.

I once made Paradise to almost Wildwood (407 miles) in one leg. Nonetheless, that vehicle thought I should take a break after about 2 hours before I hit Tallahassee. The recent vehicle in February thought I should take a break in Milton, about 15 miles from Paradise.

I later checked why. That manufacturer is moving toward "analyzing driving patterns," including steering, braking, lane changes, and more. This data is analyzed in search of performance measure and suggests "a break" based on performance.

It does not measure how difficult it is figure out how to work the tools in their cars and why air, radio, and windshield wipers cannot operate in a simple manner that does not require touch screens, menus, and more. Hint: make your car simple to drive and we might all be able to keep a better eye on the road.

So, the Halt Drunk Driving Act (part of the "2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act") was passed largely on partisan lines. It requires the

"National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to write new rules requiring automakers to install anti-drunken-driving technology in new cars within five years after passage" (November 2021).

And the clock is ticking. We find ourselves 6 months from the deadline. In January 2026, an effort to repeal the Halt Act failed (according to Kelley Blue Book). Critics call the effort "a kill switch" and argue that the government will gain the ability to "deactivate all cars remotely." While proponents insist there is no move to disable cars, Kelley says "the law arguably creates a kill switch."

Kelley represents that the requirement is for "monitoring performance, passively detecting blood alcohol level," or "detecting impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation." Despite the impending deadline, the "NHTSA hasn't done anything yet."

While the technology is not here to respond to the law's demands, automakers are reportedly striving to build what has been mandated. There are efforts to employ cameras that monitor the driver's eyes and to interpret the smoothness of steering wheel use. There seems to be consensus (for now) that an in-car breathalyzer is not likely in the next iteration, but remains a potential.

That said, there seems to be acceptance that none of this will be reality within the parameters of the HALT act. Various stories about the law suggest that any real potential for implementation is likely 2030 or beyond. Big Brother will be watching, but not as soon as we thought.

The Arms Race in Academia

Two years ago, I predicted an Arms Race (May 2024). See also Another Arms Race (October 2025) and The Arms Race Continues (December 2025). My thoughts were building since AI is a Tool (October 2023).

The challenges are readily apparent to many, but perhaps obscured to some. I recently had a next-gen ask me what I mean by "arms race." Generational differences can hinder communication. The arms race is essentially a cycle in which multiple participants build bigger and better while their opponents do similarly, each striving to outdo the other. 

This was a thing in the post-WWII era as the East and West strove economically and militarily for supremacy or at least advantage. Most often, the phrase is applied to the buildup of nuclear arsenals and the threats that presents. 

In the world of AI, my thoughts on this were driven by the evolution of AI tools that can make "deep fakes," competing with software that can detect them. But more recently, I have been driven back to the topic by the dreck that is being published. 

AI is enabling a cascade of content in social media and news platforms. There are missing words, improper punctuation, and a sea of emdashes. The large language models can prolifically churn out dreck with amazing speed. I have read through volumes of it.

The AI advent has made me cautious about articles and papers. That led me to engage a number of AI and plagiarism detectors that have proliferated on the internet. But that is not where this arms race began. Remember in your youth when you thought "he started it" would gain you some ground?

The current equilibrium results from students making the first move. They elected, years ago, to purchase term papers from professional writers and other vendors. If someone wrote a great paper on Einstein at East West University in 1972, someone else could readily turn the same paper in at West East University in 1973. 

Papers and more were traded across the paradigm we called "mail," a process that involved mailing a check to some dark basement, where a quiet troglodyte would cash the check and mail a paper back to the customer. The smart customers retyped those papers. As I conclude that paragraph, I have gone back and added links so that all the antiquated terms can be accessed easily for clarity. 

The danger was two-fold:

1. First, the professor could tell a paper was way too articulate, logical, organized, etc. for a particular student. 
2. Second, the troglodytes did a poor job of making sure that only one West East student received each paper. 

Spreading and sharing information was hard in those days. It required copy machines, postage, paper, and mail. Then came the halcyon days of the internet. Digital files could be sent in an instant. If a student needed a great paper on quantum finance, they no longer needed to order a month in advance. And the plagiarism flourished. 

Companies popped up. They allowed teachers to scan and submit papers for plagiarism long before the advent of PDF and the simple plagiarism filters of today. As a paper is turned in today, it is likely to pass through a filter automatically and arrive at the professor's desktop complete with a report on what may or may not have been pilfered from someone else's thoughts. 

Companies began offering students the chance to submit their papers to an analysis platform first ("check it first" platforms). They proclaim that what they detect is "exactly what your professor will see from _________," (insert submission filter product). 

As the world advanced, along came large language models (LLMs) in which artificial intelligence saves the student all those arduous minutes of cutting and pasting from the internet to create a paper. The plagiarism is built into the LLM output. All the student has to do is ask the LLM to write a 500-word paper on quantum finance, complete with a bibliography, and within 30 to 90 seconds, the whole product is delivered. 

But what of the education industry? Well, companies developed AI detectors to go with the previous plagiarism detectors. And the "check it first" platforms evolved to offering to pre-detect that also. But they added a new feature. They will detect for free, but for a few dollars and a single click, these will "rewrite your paper to eliminate AI and plagiarism risks."

No doubt that the universities will soon have a tool to detect papers that have been "rewritten to eliminate." And the cycle will persist, and every response of a student will be answered with a tool for the teacher, and vice versa. 

The real benefit will be less of the nuisance teaching and learning (sarcasm, apologies). As more and more time is devoted to cheating or catching cheaters more effectively and efficiently, there will be less time to teach or learn quantum finance. We will succumb societally to the great dumbing of America. 

Generations will falter. Workplaces will suffer. People will fail to produce. Their employers will struggle to thrive. And it is all for the sake of cheating and the mindset that exalts being a better cheater over writing your own paper, learning, and growing. 

I am struggling not to be the old man screaming at the kids. But in all honesty, it is getting harder every day. Write your own paper, for goodness' sake. 

Ceasing Representation

A recent instance of counsel appearing on a case made the news in New Jersey. John Gelman picked up on this in his writing. I am not sure whether his is a blog or an "other," but he brings an interesting perspective. He is one of the few workers' compensation academics in the country, and our club is seemingly shrinking rather than growing.

In the New Jersey instance, a law firm noticed an appearance on behalf of the employer and PEO. Within days, contractual disputes arose between those entities, and the law firm attempted to file a new appearance solely on behalf of the PEO.

The employer moved to disqualify counsel, who had never spoken with the employer, shared information, or otherwise had opportunities to exchange confidences. The law firm declined to withdraw its representation of the PEO, and the matter made its way to the appellate court.

It illustrates and illuminates a challenge that we experience from time to time in Florida. Lawyers file notices of appearance, becoming counsel of record. They ignore the requirements for withdrawal or substitution, and they remain counsel of record. The Florida rules are elementary and fundamental:

If you file a petition or a Notice of Appearance, you are "the party's attorney of record." Rule 60Q6.104(1). What if it is a Thursday? same answer. What if I am taller than average? same answer. What if I had tuna for lunch? same answer. What if I did not mean to? same answer. 

The point is reasonably clear here. Not a lot of analysis. Not a bunch of construction or "what if" arguments. Anyone who struggles with this, please email me for questions (make sure you copy your opposing counsel or parties).

Ok, so when does someone stop being counsel of record? Well, if there is a stipulation for substitution (Rule 60Q-6.104(2)(a)) or a "motion to substitute or withdraw" (Rule 60Q-6.104(2)(b) that results in an order, then they are no longer counsel. See above for example variables that will not change the answer (tuna for lunch).

But what if I leave my current firm? You are still counsel of record. What if I change my name? You are still counsel of record. What if I file a new Notice of Appearance and alter the party(ies) I list, a different composite than the first notice? Well, you just added clients, but also still represent each for whom you have entered an appearance.

Pretty simple, actually.

Need to stop representing someone? Enter a substitution stipulation with their new counsel and file it. OR file a motion to substitute or withdraw. Until something removes you, you are counsel of record. And that may entail much, including service, due process, and even your ethical obligations.

Law firms do not represent parties. See Who Represents this Party? (November 2014). It is clear under the 60Q rules and under a variety of appellate decisions (if you believe in stare decisis) that lawyers represent parties.

Thus, filing a notice of appearance is the lawyer's acknowledgment of their own responsibility and connection. Regardless of what the notice says, the law firm of X&Z is not counsel under the 62Q rules. The lawyer at X&Z is counsel of record (she still is if she takes a new job at W&P, or Q&U). The counsel is the lawyer. Want to change that? See above. This is all somewhat Newtonian. A counsel of record will stay counsel of record until acted upon by a valid substitution or motion/order.

And New Jersey reminds us that appearance may create ethical and professional responsibilities. Counsel can accept service for a party, can speak for a party, and can even resolve issues for a party. The counsel represents, is an agent for, the party. Think jurisdictionally; an attorney appearing in a case for a party may well submit that party to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, meaning to or not. 

In New Jersey, the employer's objection to that original attorney proceeding on behalf of the PEO was a conflict of interest. Despite the attorney's protestations that he never really represented the employer, the court concluded that RPC 1.9(a) compelled the result. Filing a document that purported to represent the employer was representation, "full stop." It cannot be that simple? Well, the court said not only can it be, but it was.

The court clarified, for those who might want to imply some grey area:

“We decline to engraft a ‘no harm-no foul’ standard onto the Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly where, as here, a duty to a client is implicated.”

Simple, Newtonian litigation. Once you say you are counsel, you are counsel. There is no quibble, and you may find yourself with ethical responsibilities as a result of your professional actions. The notice of appearance is perhaps among the simplest pleadings a lawyer will ever file. Why not take a minute and make sure it is right anyway? And why not share this story with your staff so they can remind you from time to time? That might save a call to the E&O carrier, or at a minimum, embarrassment. 

Decide Better

I have been experimenting with artificial intelligence large language models (LLM) for about four years. The idea of artificial intelligence and robotics has been on my mind longer, and I have returned periodically to the topic.

I have noticed that the LLMs can be helpful for brainstorming and organization. They are also reasonably capable of editing and proofreading. But they are clearly not human, not thinking, and not generally and readily reliable.

My latest expirement pit various LLM against one another. I pinged them with the identical "prompt" (query).

"what rights does a worker injured at work in florida have"

ChatGpt (version GPT-5 Mini), a descendant of the early arrivals on the market and readily available for no charge, aptly identified the availability of medical care from workers' compensation, wage replacement, permanent disability benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and death benefits. There were some cautions about notice, the petition process, and more. Chat included a disclaimer, "AI output may not always be accurate. Check important info."

Claude, a product of Anthropic (version Sonnet 4.6), yielded the same as Chat GPT, but added the "right to report without retaliation," some deadlines for reporting, and statute of limitations (the statutory one, not the "two clocks" theory so recently made famous in Florida), and there was discussion of the right to hire an attorney. Claude, likewise, provided no citations for its answers.

Gemini, a Google product, provided detailed medical treatment information, including the "employer choice" of physicians, the entitlements to testing and prescriptions, and even the judicially created medical mileage right. Gemini noted the temporary disability process, the 2026 maximum rate, and the 7-day waiting period. The retaliation preclusion, some critical deadlines, and dispute processes were also noted. The Gemini answer had several hyperlinks to other information (e.g., the Ombudsman Office) and to source information. Some of those were to law firms (one of which I have never heard of before).

Grok is a tool developed by Twitter and owned by SpaceX. Grok led with the duty of timely reporting, overviewed medical with stress on the employer choice, outlined various indemnity categories, and was generally consistent with the quality and quantity of information provided on the other platforms. However, Grok also delved into what businesses must have coverage, attorney fees, and ready contact information for the Employee Assistance Office. It noted that it had consulted "35 sources."

I looked at those sources and found many to be credible, "first-party" sources, including the Florida Legislature, Florida Chief Financial Officer. It also cited some secondary (or tertiary) sources, such as law firm websites.

I asked Grok

"Would your response be different if I asked you to not rely on any commercial websites, specifically no law firms?"

Grok said, "Yes, my response would be somewhat different." I then asked if "the fundamental rights change." It responded with criticalities related to reporting, indemnity, and medical care. The differences included "avoid(ing) phrasing that could imply interpretation from law firm perspectives." It would also avoid "summarized examples" and would emphasize state-provided resources, such as the EAO, brochures, and similar.

Gemini similarly conceded its response "would change." It noted that the "core legal rights ... remain the same," but this directive "changes the tone from a practical summary to a strictly regulatory one." Directed to avoid commercial sites, it would rely on the statute, the Florida Administrative Code, and the Florida Department of Financial Services. This directive would also eliminate "strategy," "advice," or "pro-tips." Gemini noted this would drive it to "no longer point to educational articles written by attorneys." This would "remove() any potential commercial bias or 'sales funnel' language that law firms often use to encourage consultations."

Claude was different. It replied

"No, my response would not be different. The answer I gave you came entirely from my own training knowledge about Florida workers' compensation law — I didn't perform any web searches or consult any law firm websites to generate it."

Claude then added:

"If I had searched the web to answer your question, your request would be a reasonable one to make, and I could limit my sources to official government sources ... (or other non-commercial sources.)".

The lesson is clear. There are differences among the LLM in the marketplace. Some go readily to the internet for information and the risks that entail. Others rely on their training, which itself might as readily have included editorialized, sales, or marketing information in the guise of academic or government production. 

What you glean from your inquiry is influenced by how and what you ask. It may depend for depth or breadth on which LLM you engage. It will be influenced by the currency of information and resources chosen by the LLM for formulating response. The simple fact is that both you and the LLM will likely make choices. Choose well, and check both your work and the results.