The OJCC Academy 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with Praise

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

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

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

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

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

The praise is harder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nurses Prescribing Opioids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aging workforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

One cited explanation of remaining was simply that there is a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it. Happy beats miserable every time. 

Credentials and Influencers

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Collar Bone's Connected to ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wednesday Subpoena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

On Motions and Expectations

Lawyers can learn. I've seen 'em do it. They may resist. I am reminded of the line in Yellowbeard (Orion 1983), a pirate spoof of great import:

"If there's one thing I've learned, it's learning things never taught me nuthin'. And books is the worst."

Many a lawyer apparently shares that sentiment. There is a lot of confusion among some regarding the role of a judge. I recently reviewed a motion in which the author invited the assigned judge to open an inquiry. Not just any inquiry, mind you, but the particular inquiry the lawyer felt was compelling for their cause.

The motion was half an invitation to be an advocate and half an unfortunate display of misapprehension of the judicial role. In the lawyer's defense, they did not conceive and incubate that misapprehension on their own. They were taught inappropriate judging over years by inappropriate judges.

Judges are deciders. They are not inquisitors. The job is to decide, not to investigate. See The Sleuthing Judge (October 2017); Sleuthing Addressed Again (January 2018); Deeply Concerned (November 2019); Kumquats and Pudding (May 2024).

I have also written a fair bit about Rule 60Q6.115(4) over the years. From the era when motion hearings only occurred in "exceptional circumstances," see Motion Practice Again (April 2019). Despite that rule, there have been judges who persistently conducted such hearings regardless of what the rules said.

It is likely that some lawyers perceived such events and learned from their personal experience. They drafted and filed some pleas for relief that were incomplete or even incoherent. That is not indicia of competence. There are way too many lawyers who allow paralegals to draft motions, and these are signed and filed by lawyers who exercise far too little critical oversight.

Those lawyers likely see their efforts fail. They find themselves in hearings facing inquiry into their incoherent, incomplete, or inappropriate motions. More readily, they might just find themselves receiving a simple order of denial. That is the path that avoids the sleuthing judge. It is expedient, simple, and direct.

File an incomplete motion, get a denial. File a rambling, incoherent motion, get a denial. It could be like that iconic moment a talk show host gave away automobiles - "you get a ..." and "you get a..." etc. You get a denial, you get a denial, etc.

The denial might drive a party to sit down and draft a coherent, complete, and competent motion. That is, try another approach to achieve their end. Or it might be accepted as a defeat and explained away to the client. Few lawyers will tell their client that their desire (continuance, sanctions, discovery) was denied because the lawyer did a haphazard and incomplete job.

But the lawyer who has faced the inquisitor judge or witnessed another skewered on their words should never count on a hearing regarding their motion. Most motions will be decided without a hearing. The outcome will arrive on the basis of the motion and response. So many seem to forget the opposing party may file a response.

Sure, as a respondent, you have every right to stay silent. But if you do and don't prevail, that is not likely anyone's fault but yours. It is illogical to decline to tell your story and then fault others when they don't answer your concerns.

Draft your motion. See How do you Spell Relief (November 2016). Follow the sage legal advice of the Spice Girls and "Tell me what you want, what you really, really want." Be succinct, be direct, and be clear. Cite authority (not string cites of spiraling inarticulacy, but a case, statute, rule, or two). 

Know that despite your best effort, you may not prevail. Remember My Cousin Vinny (20th Century Fox 1992) and the lawyer's growth into competence. To this, Judge Haller says:

"That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection," immediately followed by "Overruled."

You will not always get what you want. But it is nearly certain you won't get what you don't ask and argue for. That does not mean you were wrong. But it means you move forward. Filing for rehearing to reargue the same law and facts again will not likely bring joy. Filing a motion that insults or belittles the ruling will not likely move things in your favor. Your sense of righteous injustice might make you feel better. But will it move your case or issue forward?

File the competent and complete motion first. Make your best case, tell your compelling story, and get your results. If the judge is wrong, the rehearing motion is important. But make it about the wrong, not about the reweighing. That a judge did not find your argument cogent or compelling is not grounds to reargue it again. A little louder and a little more sarcasm or vitriol will not likely win the day.

And do not count on the sleuthing judge to swoop in and take up your cause. If you want the facts of your opposition's motion or response exposed, then expose them. If you disagree, say so. But any expectation of a hearing is naive. Any expectation of the judge becoming your advocate (even if you have seen them do it before) is unsophisticated.

In the end, the lawyer can depend only on themself. Draft carefully and thoughtfully. File a complete and compelling argument. If you get a hearing, be succinct, direct, and focused. If you don't get a hearing, don't pout and prevaricate. Take the advice of Clint Eastwood: "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Heartbreak Ridge (Warner Bros. 1986). Live to fight another day. 

The Psychology of Support

There are various instances of odd fandom. One thesis documents the followers of Ted Bundy and notes those attracted to "Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson," and others. This scholar characterizes the fandom as a "pattern of fascination" and notes that “crime is no longer a bar to celebrity; indeed, it is as close to a guarantee of celebrity as one can find."

My discovery of such academic insight was driven by recent examples of citizens celebrating criminal behavior.

Luigi Mantioni admitted to shooting Brian Thompson in the back on a New York street. PBS reported that he pled guilty to the killing and admitted he knew what he was doing was illegal. It noted that "he expressed no contrition (or) remorse." 

The shooter has supporters. Some even profess feelings of love for the killer. There is a feeling among some of them that killing someone in cold blood is a heroic act and that such killers are "martyr" material.

Online contributors, according to The Dallas Express, raised over $1.5 million for his defense. The fundraiser attracted about 28,000 donations. The contributions were characterized there as necessary "in pursuing justice for Mr. Mangione." The choice of words is careful. The desire is "justice," and in this phraseology, Mr. Mangione is cast as the victim. 

The Sunday Times reported in 2025 that young people's heroification has been driven or "shaped by the internet." One psychologist quoted there concludes that some young people are drawn to "extreme 'binary thinking.'" This is antithetical to "rational thinking" and is contributed to by the internet and social media. 

He explains that "spectrum thinking looks at nuance and the grey area in between." But the inverse, "binary thinking," is more prone to "black and white" and "thrives on polarity and extremes." There may thus be value in one promoting a polar perspective, and others may be drawn to that light like a moth to flame. 

The implication is that while killing is wrong or criminal, there is a tendency among some to cast their conclusion depending on who was killed. This has become a Hollywood trope, with examples such as Payback (Icon 1999), The Equalizer (Sony 2014), Death Wish (Paramount 1974), and Taken (Europacorp 2008). 

We collectively cheer for the underdog. Perhaps we reflexively cheer for the underdog. We are drawn in these cinematic examples to the protagonist, who is the sole investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. And we continue to cheer despite the growing trail of bodies they leave behind. 

But perhaps not.

Perhaps it is "all about perspective"; see A Hero? (January 2026). We all have predispositions that challenge us. In my latest book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), I have tried to overview how we may find ourselves viewing and interpreting information even without our conscious engagement.

The Hero post also may raise questions about how we associate or acclimate various people. Do we use personal touchstones in our decision-making? Do we acknowledge we are doing so?

Why do people care when one person is killed and yet cheer for the killer of another? There is the potential here to discuss Moral Disengagement. That is "a psychological and sociological concept that describes how individuals rationalize and justify immoral behaviors."

Causes or explanations for Disengagement may include "individual psychological traits," "societal influences," and perceptions of how others are reacting. That might come from the news, social media, or social associates (friends, neighbors, classmates).

There is also the chance that our reaction is driven by "in-group bias," a tendency to feel for people who are like you in some manner(s), but to feel less empathy for those who are not in such a group that drives your feelings. This is akin to tribalism, where someone favors the "us" and cares less or nothing for "them." 

Some argue that reactions are a form of "Cognitive Dissonance." This is a reaction that may cause ignorance or apathy about the actions of someone viewed or perceived as being like us or on our side of an argument or feeling. 

Dissonance comes because it is painful to accept that someone like you or affiliated with you would commit an atrocity. Their atrocity might implicate us by association, subconsciously, and so we deflect from the seriousness of their action or even blame their victim.

These same implications may drive both perceptions and reactions to a variety of alleged behavior. The allegations currently roiling Cornell University are perhaps a corollary. There is significant collective outrage and support for the victim there, and yet also those who defend the accused. Some vernacular from both camps has been abrasive. Emotions and tension persist.

There are likely deeper pools into which such analysis might delve. I am no psychologist. But the bottom line is that killing is wrong. Shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not consistent with society. Hard stop. The same is true of rape. These are lines we have decided, societally, cannot be crossed. 

And yet, there is evidence of underreporting of crimes like rape. There are at least perceptions of victim blaming. There is involvement of social media and our subconscious conclusions or reactions tinged by perception, innuendo, the media, commentators, and more. We have seen many tried in the media.

Whether one identifies with the shooter, finds some affinity for their motivation, or not, shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not American. It is not right. It is not heroic. Society's very future rests on sharing the conclusion that killing people, any people, is wrong. 

Similarly, rape is wrong. This is true in America regardless of whether one's personal culture or conclusions respect the equality of women or not. Women are equal. Rape is wrong. These are societal conclusions. Infractions like rape and killing remain wrong regardless of the perpetrator's identity. Defenses may be raised, and the law must be followed, but violence is wrong. 

Nonetheless, we have witnessed a great tendency to forget or ignore the victims. Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and more were implicated in the Me Too movement. And yet, Hollywood has strongly advocated for admitted child rapist Roman Polanski (he has been accused by others). 

Big-name stars have continued to work with him, defend him, and Hollywood even awarded him the "Best Director" Academy Award in 2002. His supporters have derided the judge and criticized the legal process, perhaps with good cause. Yet, if the process is wrong, if the judge is the problem, then there are available avenues, processes, and appeals. 

One can hold the truth that these acts are wrong and still believe any accused killer or rapist is entitled to a defense and their day in court. But drawing distinctions that some killer is a hero while another is a villain, based on the news and tweets, is a slippery slope that defies reason. As observers, we do not know the evidence in the way a judge and jury will. 

The same goes for accusers. All are entitled to access our justice system, their "day in court." They are entitled to a fair and thorough investigation of their allegations. Institutions and society owe this to both alleged victims and perpetrators. And institutional and societal dignity and respect depend on that fairness and thoroughness. 

Individually, however, we have similar responsibility. We have to challenge institutions honestly. Only we can demand fairness and thoroughness for the victims or accused. We can stand impartial, insist on impartiality, and accept that our human imperfections, personal and collective, will produce imperfect results. Despite this, we can nonetheless strive for better, if not perfect, outcomes.  

In the end, there will be outcomes with which we will individually struggle or disagree. Our emotions, feelings, and conclusions may be influenced by the coverage provided, our predispositions, and a raft of other factors. Nonetheless, wrong will remain wrong, and we should each struggle with how our predispositions influence our perceptions and conclusions. 

The Hidden Cost of Misplaced Incentives

I was honored last year to be invited to read and contribute to a paper about misalignments in workers' compensation systems. The product of that collaboration is now online for consideration, debate, and discussion: The Hidden Cost of Misplaced Incentives.

The project was intriguing and involved icons of the community. I was humbled to be momentarily in their midst: William Zachry, Dr. Steven Feinberg, and David North. 

William Zachry has 47 years of experience in risk management, including as risk manager for Safeway. Dr. Steven Feinberg brings over 50 years of medical experience in physiatry, pain management, and workers' compensation. David North has over 30 years of experience in insurance and financial services and was the President and CEO of Sedgwick for many years. To say this is a stellar collection of talent is a gross understatement.

Somehow, I was included in this collective effort that brought together over 170 years of experience in this community. The result was discussed at the National Workers' Compensation Conference in 2026 (Mr. Zachry, Dr. Feinberg, and Raja Sundaram). 

It will also be discussed at the 2026 Montana Governor's Workers' Compensation Conference in 2026 (Mr. Zachry and Mr. North). 

Despite these two platforms and opportunities, this subject deserves broader dissemination and discussion. The challenges identified and discussed need to be a reference or consideration whenever workers' compensation is discussed, particularly in analyzing ideas for change. 

This paper is important. It details how "systems are undermined" and how that produces "predictable but unintended consequences." Those are structural issues within the systems (there are about 60 systems in the U.S. that provide work injury protections and benefits). The critical question proposed for consideration is whether incentives are working as designed and expected. Then, if not, what could be the better path?

Peppered throughout the paper are discussions of process, such as how incentives were designed, intended, or not. There is also discussion of just a few predispositions that impact human decisions and perceptions. For more on predisposition, see Unseen Influence (July 2025), discussing my free book: Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025).

The Incentives paper is built on a foundation that was intended as a touchstone ("an established standard or principle by which something is judged," Cambridge Dictionary). That foundation is the "Ideal Workers' Compensation System." 

The Ideal System considers the original grand bargain, the commitments, rights, and benefits. It presupposes that systems should be true to foundational ideals. How should the workers' and employers' rights and responsibilities be identified, defined, and delimited?

There are plenty of descriptions and discussions. The key focus is the delineation and discussion of "known misplaced financial incentives. " The concrete examples are definitional, illustrative, and informative. 

Some might view the list as exhaustive (or exhausting), but there is every potential for the reader to know of others that are similar to, implicated by, or intertwined with these examples. Nonetheless, the underlying analysis remains static. How are systems, practices, traditions, and more aligned with the purpose of workers' compensation?

For some this will be a novel analysis. For others, perhaps it merely reinforces intuition, perceptions, and suspicions. It may drive debate and discussion, and the reader's conclusions may bring their own experience and  perspective to bear. Regardless, there is merit in considering this touchstone and starting conversations.