Trust but Verify

Many attribute the phrase "trust but verify" to Ronald Reagan. It was undoubtedly stressed by him and his team during the 1980s arms negotiations that brought some respite to the nuclear threats of MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction. If you are too young to remember the Cold War, the U.S.S.R., the Berlin Wall, and such, bless you. Despite that clear example of the phrase, some attribute it to Winston Churchill and others.

The reader will likely recall some posts here that focused on artificial intelligence (AI). I have penned a couple over the years. I am pleased to have been invited to speak on AI at various conferences and have been studying it, robotics, and their impacts on the world of work for over a decade. Nonetheless, there are more prolific AI writers, one of whom I married long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

As she and I recently discussed the AI threat to legal systems, I mentioned "the judicial example" that I found so disappointing. Though she agreed, our conversation soon revealed that we were each citing the same problem, a judicial disappointment, but we clearly were not on the same page factually. I was focused on the new(er) judge in Georgia whose order was vacated by an appellate court for being fiction. See Better Look That Up (July 2025).

However, she was referencing a more recent example(s) of judicial criticism cited recently by Reuters. These instances involve federal judges "in Mississippi and New Jersey." Judge Henry Wingate of Mississippi was appointed in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Judge Julian Xavier Neals was appointed by Joseph Biden in 2021 and has been on the bench for four years.

According to Reuters, Judge Wingate entered an order "in a civil rights lawsuit." Lawyers then brought to his attention that the order "contained 'incorrect plaintiffs and defendants' and included allegations that were not in the complaint." The lawyers contend that "the decision contained a number of inaccuracies."

Judge Neals "withdrew a ruling he issued in a securities lawsuit." That order allegedly included "factual errors and ... quotes that the lawyers said were not in the cited cases." Allegedly, "the decision in three places misstated the outcomes of other lawsuits that the ruling cited." The situation was explained by one observer, noting:

1. "Research produced using artificial intelligence was included in a draft decision." And that
2. "was inadvertently placed on the public docket before a review process," and
3. "The court's chambers has a strict policy against the unauthorized use of AI to support opinions."

Reuters notes that in neither case did the lawyers make allegations about "how the apparent errors were included in ... decisions." They "did not mention AI or other possible causes for the alleged inaccuracies." 

There is a certain amount of reticence involved in correcting the judge. Every lawyer knows that, feels that, and reacts accordingly. I, for one, appreciate lawyers pointing out mistakes and errors. Rehearing is far preferable than an order reversed by an appellate court for fiction. And, rehearing is far more rapid than the time required for appellate review. 

In Better Look That Up, I noted that judges should be able to count on four things. The fourth is likely the most important (we are only human). But the corollary is as compelling. Lawyers should be able to count on judges:

1. Not to rely on what a pleading says that a statute or a case says or stands for.
2. To look at the actual statute and published opinions before ruling.
3. To be open to and introspective about motions for rehearing that cite concerns about misapprehensions or even hallucinations.

Reuters cites a law school professor who concluded that there is potential for error. His caution was clear: "These errors are going to come out if you don't pay very careful attention to the output." Errors are going to come out regardless; they will persist if we are not persistently attentive. 

AI is here. No retreat path is either practical or debatable. I am drawn in that regard to lyricist Jenna Raine:

Okay! It's not the end of the world

There's always light where it burns

Just remember the words, and it goes like this

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

And there is the critical point to which we return time and again. Certainly, lawyers are obligated to tell the truth. When a lawyer says "it is what it is," other lawyers and judges should be able to rely on that. There are ethical rules of candor, and that should be the end of it. Lawyers speak the truth.

That said, there will be mistakes made—"it is what it is."

Lawyers will use AI—"it is what it is."

Judges will use AI—"it is what it is."

"strict policies against ...use of AI" will be broken—"it is what it is."

And, in truth, "It's not the end of the world." It is potentially corrosive. It is likely distracting. It is going to be periodically embarrassing for the lazy or inattentive. I am now also confident that it will be pernicious, persistent, and at times perplexing.

The cure? It is simply "Trust but verify." Whether it is written in a pleading or an order, it should be read critically and carefully. If there is pause, concern, or question that should be raised by parties, attorneys, clerks, and judges. Those case citations should be checked. Those factual findings or allegations should be checked. Verify, verify, verify, just like Churchill's thoughts on surrender: "never, never, never."

It is not that these efforts will render perfection. It is not that rules ("strict policies against") will preclude errors. It is simply that computers allow us to make mistakes at an epic pace. They empower and enable in ways that are the truth of our modern day. Humans also make mistakes. No one can change these absolute truths. "it is what it is."

The only hope we have for minimizing their errors is in our human, patient, and careful verification. This means reviewing what is generated by staff, by lawyers, by judges, and by AI. Review and verify. 

Bias is Pernicious

The attorney opens a mediation negotiation with a superlative bloviation: "This case cannot be worth less than $1 million," or "There is no way the alleged accident or injuries are compensable." These may be posturing points, exaggerations, or mere overstatements. There is a desire in any negotiation to start in a posture from which there is room to maneuver.

The treating physician evaluates a patient and, despite the expressed intent to obtain various tests, hypothesizes, "This will not require surgery," or "Surgery is likely inevitable; it is a question of when."

The claims professional contacts counsel regarding representation. The facts and circumstances from their perspective are conveyed, including that "This report of injury is very suspicious" and "This supposedly happened on Tuesday after a holiday weekend—we know this employee engages in extreme sports and was scheduled for a trip that weekend."

The injured worker presents for medical care and provides a description of the injury, along with their current complaints. This stresses a particular anatomy because of its severity in that moment, compared to other complaints that pale in comparison and are seemingly less important. But only less so in that moment. The severe anatomy becomes the singular focus of the treater, the ancillary care providers, and the records that are created. 

In each, we observe someone in the workers' compensation orchestra receiving information for the first time. Each is a "first impression." It is likely that the various individuals will compare every informational input they receive after that to their first impression or first information.

The tendency to do so is "anchor bias" and is broadly defined as a tendency to adopt conclusions and resist moving away from them as contrary indicia or evidence emerges. All of the new information gleaned over time will likely be filtered through the initial information.

This predisposition is interrelated with the "primacy effect," which causes us to assign significance to our first exposures and conclusions. Logically, we also like what we are already used to, and what we learn earliest has the most familiarity to us as we proceed through the gathering and assessment of new information. This is heightened if that initial impression/information is reiterated and reinforced.

Over time, some "facts" such as this may become more pernicious to our analysis, though each may not be a fact at all. The mere repetition of either an initial fact/statement or some contradictory fact/statement thereafter may gain prominence through Illusory Truth, the frequency of repetition (frequency), or the credentials of the person adding that new fact to the melange (Authority bias).

How we perceive or accept facts may be influenced by our personal worldview (Belief Bias), and concerns such as the Just-World Hypothesis or our tendency to more readily accept new evidence that fits our existing hypothesis (Confirmation Bias).

These are but a few. With them, we can see the potential for an attorney to pollute negotiations, for better recollections of certain facts by observers or care providers, and for our own innate tendencies to either retain or disregard data. And these are but a sampling of the challenges that we face with our own brains.

If you want to know more about predisposition, read my latest free book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). I have tried to address about 150 predispositions and to relate how they are important for attorneys, physicians, mediators, and more. 

And, join us at the WCI, where I will be on a panel with two learned psychologists of great repute. They will help work through how we can recognize and utilize predisposition and bias in our consideration of information, formation of conclusions, and evolution of disputes. 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes

August 19, 2025

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM

Grand Ballroom 8A

Cats and Dogs

The Internet is replete with websites explaining the difference between cats and dogs. Trust me, or Google it sometime. It is an interesting topic that has evolved into a broader societal comparison regarding people who are "dog people" or "cat people."

Discover Magazine returned to the topic in December 2021 with The Truth about Cat People and Dog People. It is perhaps one of the few remaining categorizations with which society remains comfortable denigrating groups based on personal preferences or paths.

The truth is that people are different

I have spoken at a fair number of conferences and seminars over the years. All told, including my efforts as a college instructor, I have delivered over 2,000 presentations over many years. As a member of a panel or solo, I have spoken to business owners, risk managers, human resource managers, claims adjusters, attorneys, doctors, nurses, brokers, consultants, safety professionals, and more. This has included audiences and conferences of various sizes, and at conferences large and small.

In the course of this, I have spoken at many of the premier workers' compensation events including the Workers' Compensation Institute, the National Disability Conference, the CompLaude program, the Florida Bar and Workers Compensation Claims Professionals Forum, The NCCI Issues Symposium, WCRI Issues and Research Conference, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons Workers' Compensation program, and a host of acronymic and state-specific programs across America.

Through those experiences, I have met a vast assortment of brilliant, motivated, inspired, and incredible people. I have also met a few who aspire to such adjectives and who may yet progress there with time. It has been an intriguing journey, and all of those people have contributed to my education, experience, and perspective.

Returning to the cats and dogs. We do not like to categorize people. We struggle against illusory superiority, assumptions, prejudices, and attributes associated with various groups. There are at least perceptions of pigeonholing, typecasting, and worse. Of course, it is still somehow acceptable in various circles to denigrate various professions and occupations with broad oversimplifications and insults.

The trend has largely passed, but it was once hip to make sport of attorneys. There are always those who find humor in physicians. There is something similar about accountants, engineers, dads, and blondes, and, in my youth, the denigration of various nationalities was in vogue. Now, somehow, we have reached an inflection point and are no longer able or willing to categorize.

There is an old lawyer joke about white mice, a laboratory, and lawyers. I have heard it told many times, in many ways. One of the punchlines about why labs use lawyers instead of mice is that "The medical researchers don’t become as emotionally attached to the attorneys." That is harsh, but it usually elicits a laugh. We like to make humor at the expense of others, and that has gotten a few into difficulties over the years.

The foundation of all of these constellations is the tendency to entertain predispositions and to stereotype large swaths of individuals based on some commonality that we are willing to label them with. That process of categorizing is both a human defense process and a convenience. Our predispositions make our day-to-day easier. We can judge the ___________ without too much analysis, thought, or introspection.

This human trend toward predisposition reliance has been studied, though not nearly exhaustively. It is a periodic topic at educational events, where speakers and panels strive to scratch the surface on the vast spectrum of potential predispositions and the myriad of potential impacts on our lives, personal and professional.

My exposures to these topics led me recently down a rabbit hole, and into an eye-opening journey. It was no Through the Looking Glass, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, 1872, but it was an eye-opener nonetheless. I expected to define the predispositions to which we are all amenable and to strive to explore how some subset of them might impact the world of workers' compensation.

Despite years of contemplating some of these predispositions and a wealth of workers' compensation exposures, I was unprepared for the result. In the end, I found a far broader population of predispositions than expected. Obviously, my bias toward them was ill-conceived or underdeveloped.

In the end, I was able to accept that each of these could potentially impact the investigation, provision, claiming, negotiating, mediating, and adjudicating of workers' compensation benefits. The recognized predispositions can be categorized, compared, and differentiated. Nonetheless, each could impact perceptions, expressions, reactions, and more.

The result? I find myself now back in the armchair in Paradise. I reflect on the hours spent in study and contemplation and wonder at the experience. Unlike Alice, I am under no disillusion of reality. But I nonetheless reflect continuously on the journey.

The product of my journey is now available for free download. I encourage all who dip their toes in the world of workers' compensation to review and digest Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (Langham, 2025).

It is not a short read, but the price is right (free), and the reader might benefit from my perspective and analysis or from their own contemplation or conclusions as to where I missed the boat. 

In an effort to illuminate the topic further, I will be moderating an intriguing panel at the 2025 WCI. Come join us for some thoughts on predisposition, bias, and how it both enables and constrains our daily lives, personal and professional. 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes
August 19, 2025
9:55 AM – 10:55 AM
Grand Ballroom 8A

Come join us for a brief foray through the looking glass!

Pride and Performance

There was a time I worked in retail. That is a tough profession and has only become more so in recent decades as social media, the internet, the big-box, and more have relentlessly pursued the little mom-and-pop on the corner. Nonetheless, it was in the mom-and-pop that I did my time. I learned a great deal there, good and bad.

The world of retail is challenging. The fellow I worked for had grown up in the retail business. He was a clerk during and after high school and progressed through management and partnership to eventually sole ownership with his spouse. He had taken no shortcuts to the pinnacle on which he perched. He was successful but not the least bit pretentious. Well, he was mighty proud of his Cadillac. 

I recall several aspects of that store and its ownership.

First, it was a family affair. The husband ran the store and was there daily. His wife kept the books for the store, which included the normal bank balancing and bill paying. But she also kept "accounts," as the store offered credit to its regular customers. Many items left the store each day "on account" or "on approval." 

Such purchases were noted on paper cards and kept in an alphabetical index box. Goods could be returned, and the purchase entry merely lined through to reflect it (erasers were never used). People came in periodically and wanted to "pay my bill." Those who did not do so received a bill at the end of the month—typed on a typewriter and sent by U.S. Mail.

The owner was always at work before 08:00. He was retentive about the appearance of the premises. He would walk through the store's aisles picking up stray threads, lint, tags, or other debris. I would often find him spraying the sidewalk with a hose or shoveling ice/snow/salt. He was adamant that his sidewalks would be clear, clean, and presentable. He spoke derogatorily of neighboring stores and their appearance. 

Often, when I arrived in the morning, I would find him discomfited from his aisle walk. He would want some rack of clothes straightened, something restocked, the vacuum re-run, or a mannequin changed. He was present, interested, persistent, and proactive. His primary focus in life was the presentation, appearance, and success of that small store. 

I recall being appalled at some of the merchandise he ordered. I recall specifically a brand of trousers that was designed to be beltless. He wore them, raved about them, and sold them by the ton. He talked me into a pair once; I was not a fan. 

I thought he was pushing snake oil on the old gentlemen customers, but years later, I realized that he was meeting their desires, needs, and market point. They loved that oddity. Decades later, writing this post, I confirmed that the brand is still in business, making those beltless trousers. They seem more attractive to me now, and I am not sure why.

One of the more frustrating aspects of that job was being watched. The owners were persistently present and watching. When I would mark a pair of trousers for length, it was common for a coworker or one of the two owners to step in and check. The same was true when something was rung up at the register. They were attentive. I saw that as distrust in me, but reflecting, I came to realize it was their pride. They wanted everything to be right.

In another example, we offered free gift wrapping. Each purchase included the inquiry, "Can I wrap that for you?" The "yes" responses predictably increased in the holiday season. There was competition among the clerks (and owners) as to who could wrap most rapidly, but also whose packages looked the best. We creased the edges and added a bow; it was classy and personal in a way you cannot order from the internet.

I did not care for retail. It was monotonous and repetitious. I look back on my brief years there and wonder at the enthusiasm the owners and their managers exhibited. They found it possible to care about the appropriateness, fashion, and flair of each sale, right down to the socks. They remained engaged with each customer, day by day and year by year. 

Their customers were not destined for any catwalk or Vogue shoot. They were not models, millionaires, or moguls. They were ordinary people shopping for a classic blazer for the club, a new dress for an event, or the craziest trousers for the golf course. And those owners/managers found meaning in each sale.

The underlying theme of that experience, only realized years later through the benefits of retrospection, was pride. They cared what the store looked like, in and out. They worried about the freshness of displays, the organization of products, and the customer experience. They had pride.

That is pride in their product, profession, and appearance. They cared. As I ruminated recently on my post regarding Ignorance and Ambivalence (June 2025), I realized that they were the antithesis of IDK and IDK. Those retailers' focus was narrow: a small town, a specific merchandise category, and a specific clientele.

Their's was never a global impact. They were not influencers to millions or internet famous. But they did a job each day that they took pride in. They delivered for their clientele with humility and enthusiasm. They were inspirational and yet part of a now-extinct generation that persists only fossilized in my mind.

What would someone say of you in 40 years? Would you hope that they thought you cared and were proud of your efforts? I spoke recently to an attorney who lamented a perception that the law and lawyers have become "transactional." That is, strictly "business," or "revolving around cost and benefit." 

Certainly, every business must consider the transactional elements and analysis. Books must balance in order to remain in business. But, there seems to be too much focus on the short term, the now, and too little on the building of customer relationships, interaction, and the long run. That long run might include the community generally, future firm growth, and a thriving referral source. 

Is your day-to-day driven by pride in where you are, what you do, and how you are building the present and your future? Are you performing at your best, or at least focused on that goal? Pride and performance matter. That is worthy of consideration. 

Unseen Influence

I "discovered" inherent predisposition, or "bias," in much the same way as Columbus "discovered" America. Not only am I not the first to step into this topic, but I am not even close. Inherent predisposition existed long before my arrival, just as groups of humans long inhabited the North American continent.

Some perspective on that is provided in my book about Florida's economic and workers' compensation history - Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators (free to download). There are likely facts about this unique state that will surprise even the most ardent students of history. In a nutshell, however, humans migrated to North America long before Columbus "discovered" them.

Similarly, I cannot claim to have "discovered" inherent predispositions. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the study of inherent predisposition is reasonably recent. It first began to attract significant scholarly investment in the 1980s, according to Daedalus.

Coincidentally, that era also brought alternative dispute resolution to the fore in Florida—specifically, mediation. After some contemplation of the tool, Florida led the workers' compensation world to mandatory mediation in the early 1990s and has never looked back.

The 1980s also saw a litany of other imperatives, including "new Coke," interesting pop culture, iconic music, and the end of such symbols as the Berlin Wall. It was undeniably a time of great change.

It is perhaps a coincidence that the following decade brought focus on both ADR and inherent predisposition. In any event, there is a great breadth of potential to employ sound comprehension of these human inclinations in both the litigation and resolution settings.

As I have studied the breadth of predisposition, I have compiled an overview reference to illuminate these challenges. For each, I have tried to provide some analog from the perspective of three critical injury dispute perspectives: lawyer, physician, and mediator.

The result is Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025)(free to download). It has been an odyssey of introspection and study. There have been questions, curiosity, and collaboration. As noted in the acknowledgments, I have been blessed to discuss the topic with some exceptional minds, which has both facilitated analysis and suggested diverse viewpoints and considerations.

The human brain is amazing. I note in Unseen Influence that "We all struggle each day to harness the complexity and capability that have been placed at our disposal." We are indeed both blessed with capacity and capability, and yet challenged to channel and utilize this amazing brain. As we employ it, like any other tool, we seemingly give little consideration to its complexity, utility, and potential complications.

In the journey, I am convinced that I have asked myself some important questions. I am hopeful that I have provided some worthy insight. I am unequivocally certain that I have merely scratched the surface of this topic. There remains much more in predisposition that is worthy of study.

The most apparent flaw in Unseen Influence is the limited scope. From my perspective, the impacts on three specific professions were patent. As I discussed the topics during the text's development, I was driven to similar considerations for a host of professions that also touch injury litigation but that I would require significant study to fully appreciate.

In fact, my own predisposition for what was familiar to me influenced the content and perspective of Unseen Influence. Imagine that—my own bias influenced my book on bias. In the end, I concluded that striving to address the panoply of professions and potentials was beyond my present resources—particularly time. 

Rather than address more professional perspectives, I elected instead to encourage the reader to bring their individual perspective and ponder how each listed predisposition might impact their own profession. Perhaps, with feedback and engagement, more variety in occupational or vocational perspectives could be offered one day in a second edition.

This odyssey has also led to an opportunity to share some of these thoughts. At the 2025 Workers' Compensation Institute in Orlando, I will moderate a panel of exceptional intellect. I am joined by Dr. Geralyn Datz and Dr. Les Kertay for 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes

August 19, 2025

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM

Grand Ballroom 8A

There is no one better able to provide insight into the human mind. These two experts are conversational, approachable, and exceptional. An opportunity to hear either is amazing, and yet this hour will bring you both. Their team effort will provide an exceptional and perhaps even unique opportunity. 

In an exceptionally short hour, we will strive to raise consciousness regarding the propensities, perils, and amazing capabilities of our minds. This program will introduce attendees to the inherent predisposition and the variety of challenges they pose. This presentation will inform and hopefully inspire further consideration and analysis.

In fairness, at a given moment during WCI, there are a dozen outstanding presentations competing for your time and investment. With all due respect to the others, this one hour might be the very key to a more prepared and perceptive you. If you are seeking takeaways and insight, find a spot for this hour on your agenda. 

Connecticut Price Fixing

The class of medication referred to as GLP-1s is back in the news. The focus of these is primarily diabetes, but the drugs have become popular for the ancillary purpose of drug-induced weight loss. See Whoa Nelly (June 2025). The rapidly expanding use of these drugs and their market costs have created impacts on state budgets.

Various federal legislation includes Medicare negotiation of some medication prices (the Inflation Reduction Act). The same legislation more specifically impacts insulin costs in terms of patient cost sharing. Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may be affected by the One Big Beautiful law recently signed, and various states may make changes in their administration of these programs.

The discussion in Whoa Nelly provides some illustration of the cost of medication in our world generally. Those who are familiar with the world of workers' compensation will readily recognize that obesity is a potential comorbidity that requires attention in the process of treating a work injury. See Obesity yet Again (January 2023), and the posts it cites.

In response to the price of obesity drugs, various states have sought solutions, according to the Associated Press. There have been efforts to constrain patient populations, restricting the use of this diabetes medicine to diabetes patients. That is the approved use, but many seek this for the ancillary weight control benefits.

Then came the idea of simply taking the medication, using a process similar to the government taking of real property, called eminent domain. Some have perceived an increase in the breadth of eminent domain with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). This is a complex topic that pits the interests of private landowners against the interests of government.

Essentially, Kelo concluded that a government can seize private property and transfer it to a private person if there is a financial benefit to the government. Until 2005, the common use of eminent domain was to seize real estate for clear government purposes such as post offices, highways, courthouses, and similar.

A corollary to eminent domain is now being pursued by Connecticut (coincidentally the state in which Ms. Kelo lost her real property). According to Yahoo, a bill signed by Governor Lamont in July will direct attention at reducing the state's cost for "GLP-1 drugs, similar to Novo Nordisk's (NVO) Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly's (LLY) Mounjaro." Though this is being led by Connecticut, the implications are broader.

The Connecticut bill will result in the state "petition(ing) the US Health and Human Services Department (HHS)" to essentially seize the property rights of medication manufacturers. While this is similar to eminent domain, it is statutory, "a section in the US Patent Code, 28 US 1498."

The effect would be for the federal government to "claim ownership of the patent(s)" for various medications. This would allow the government to determine and control the price of what it consumes. Instead of paying a "market price" to obtain these medications, or negotiating its own price, it would dictate the price charged by manufacturers.

If the current owners of those patents elect not to produce at the established price(s), then the government would "contract with generic manufacturers to produce a version of the drugs in exchange for royalties" that the government deems fair.

The implications of this are broad. In one perspective, the cost of medications might be broadly impacted. This example of significant medication cost might lead to similar government involvement in a broader spectrum of medication. Those who invest in the research and development of remedies may be less inclined if they perceive a greater potential for government seizure and moderated profits.

In another perspective, the financial impact of GLP-1s might decrease markedly. The budgetary relief on government might be mirrored for health insurers and other consumers, affording less sacrifice in other spending.

Some may see the potential for less focus on healthy diet and exercise if the GLP-1s become inexpensively available. In short, why eat right and care for the body when a cheap, simple, pharmaceutical path is available?

What of the potential for liability? GLP-1s have been researched and developed since 1984. The first Food and Drug Administration approvals came in 2005, and yet the popularity has been more recent still. As broader populations use these substances, is there potential for as yet undiscovered side-effects or other detriments?

Some will see this employment of section 1498 as a government overreach. Others will see it as a necessity. The discussions and perspectives will be intriguing as the coming months bring broader debate of the Connecticut proposal.

Oh my god, just stop

An interesting headline in May caught my attention. It is hard to tell what an “indeterminate leave of absence” is. That is an odd statement in any employment setting, generally, but more so for a judge. That first story was short on facts as to why, but provided guidance on how the community would be served in the meantime. 

The story detailed that the judge was admitted to The Florida Bar in 2009 and “gained election to the Circuit Court in 2020, running unopposed." According to The Florida Bar, she earned her Jurisprudence Doctor from Barry University School of Law. My first thought of "indeterminate" was illness (I'm old), but her relative youth made that seem less likely. When you reach my age, it seems that peers are dying with increasing frequency. But I digress.  

The reported matter remained a curiosity. About a month later, a June 2025 headline noted that the judge had resigned from the $196,898-per-year job. The resignation was submitted (dated April 29), which essentially created a three-month paid absence, as it was effective July 1, 2025. I suspect there are challenges in any transition between vocations. 

That second story detailed a writ of prohibition proceeding and various orders of the Florida 6th DCA in the fall of 2024. Though the news report seems to suggest a potential connection to the resignation, that is conjecture. The report regarding the Sixth DCA is nonetheless worthy of discussion.

For more on extraordinary writs, see A Law Student and a Series of Dumb Mistakes (May 2018). These writs are fundamentally tools for asking a court to affect some other court, elected official, or agency's process, action, or inaction.

That writ focused on a custody case with troubling facts. A mother “traveled to an apartment (with her infant daughter and a toddler son) … in a car containing drugs and guns.” The mother and her boyfriend “knew (this) was unsafe because they had been warned they would be killed if they went there.” 

That ended in tragedy; a shootout resulted, and the toddler died in his car seat. One must feel sorrow for the toddler, and the impact on his infant sister is profound. Custody of the infant was given to her father, and the mother sought to change that, to regain custody, in proceedings before the now-resigned judge. The state instead sought an “involuntary petition for termination of parental rights.”

Death, drugs, weapons, shootings—there is plenty in the reporting to trouble the reader. 

Nonetheless, ten or more issues here are of interest to all judges.

First, the judge told the parties, “She wanted to discuss a case plan instead of setting a hearing on (the) termination of parental rights.” A decision-maker holding “conferences” is curious to some. They see adjudicators instead as hearing arguments and making decisions. There are undoubtedly times when some conference is of use, but motions are worthy of hearing and decisions. 

Second, the judge later voiced settlement suggestions: “I’m still confused as to why you haven’t made any kind of offer to this woman.” The decisions of settlement offers and responses are the parties' and should be of no moment to an adjudicator. Such statements can be seen as coercive and inappropriate. Then, disregarding the termination petition, the judge heard the mother’s motion to modify custody to return the infant. 

Third, a legal constraint, a statute requiring a “home study” in custody determinations, was raised. The judge adjourned so the mother’s counsel could research. Such a delay is common and consistent with both due process and deciding cases on their merits. But, the judge also allegedly suggested to the mother that a motion to dismiss, if filed, would be heard when the case reconvened. Some might see that as the umpire departing the objective arbiter role to be a coach?

Fourth, “the next day,” a motion to dismiss was heard over the state’s objection. The judge allegedly commented on the case, saying to the state:

“ it does not look like a great case for you guys.”

“ I’m just not seeing it. I don’t know how you are going to get there.”

“ it bothers me that she is still away from her child.”

“I can’t see a path to a victory for you.”

Reaching conclusions and making decisions should be a task undertaken after the evidence and argument is heard (fifth?).

After the hearing, the judge did not dismiss but modified the custody and ordered the infant returned to the mother. Such decisions have to be difficult; weighing a child's best interest must be excruciating. 

Sixth, the state sought to renew its objection because the statute requires a “home study.” Acknowledging the law, the judge reportedly said:

“And you know what I said? I said appeal it. I’m going to do it anyway because it’s wrong. It’s just wrong. And I’m just not going to abide by it. I get that statute says that. I fully understand it. But what is right to be done here is to return this child to her mother.”

Judges have a duty to follow the law. That said, a law can be subject to review by courts. They might be unconstitutional, conflict with other statutes, or otherwise require study and consideration. But "it's just wrong" is not seemingly at that level. 

Seventh, the state sought to disqualify the judge, alleging

“the judge’s statements demonstrat(e) she had pre-judged the evidence and that she would not abide by controlling statutes,”

The judge denied the motion, and the state petitioned the 6th DCA for the prohibition. That court "stayed" the trial proceedings. That is a court order that means “stop.” When the court or tribunal above you says "stop," what do you do?" Emeline sings “And I'm like, ‘Oh my god, just stop’" (Everything I’m not, 2023). Good advice—when the court says "stop," then "Oh my god, just stop."

For whatever reason, the trial judge did not stop. The judge “the same day … entered an order striking … witnesses.” (Eighth?).

The next day, the judge “convened an evidentiary hearing … (on the mother’s motion) to further strike … witnesses.” The state objected, but proceedings persisted." (Ninth?)

The story says that “the judge interrogated DCF (the state's lawyer) counsel for almost an hour about DCF’s investigation of the case and preparation of its witnesses for trial, allowing Y.B.’s (the mother's) counsel to freely interject comments on DCF’s answers.” Judges are listeners, adjudicators, not inquisitors. See Sleuthing Addressed Again (January 2018)(Tenth?). 

Judges should maintain order in any hearing, which is not usually "allowing ... to freely interject." This extended beyond the judge taking a side noted above, as it looks like the mother's attorney and the judge ganged up on the opposing party (DCF)(Eleventh?)

There are many reasons to question counsel. Was a document filed? When was some fact known or disclosed? Was a document served? What efforts were made to produce the witness here? How do I spell that? And many more.

However, beyond questioning counsel, reportedly, “The judge also called one of DCF’s trial witnesses to the witness stand, placed her under oath, and conducted her own examination of the witness.”  (Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth? at least)

With significant speed,

“the Sixth DCA on Nov. 13 granted the petition, disqualifying (the judge) from any further proceedings in the case and quashing all orders she had entered after the show cause order.”

The DCA noted judicial comments regarding prejudging and the statute. It also noted a “knowing violation of this Court’s stay.”

These ten or more lessons are reasonably patent. Judges are not advocates. Lawyers advocate; mediators facilitate; judges decide. Judges follow the law. Although that may be challenging when statutes and appellate decisions conflict, no conflict was noted here. Judges follow orders from appellate courts.

As Train put it, we obey the appellate court “even when I know you’re wrong” (Drops of Jupiter, Columbia 2001). The review and correction of appellate decisions are for other appellate courts, legislatures, and others. It is not relevant whether the trial judge finds appellate decisions correct or not. They are the law. The role of a trial judge is not to ignore what appellate courts say. 

I’ve noted Paul Harvey frequently. It is possible there is more to this story. Nonetheless, there are multiple concerns worth every judge's consideration. Remain impartial; this is not your case. Follow the law; you weren’t elected or appointed to make law. Obey the appellate court; they are doing their job, so do yours.

A judge inclined to coach, interrogate, collaborate with a party, coax (coerce?) a settlement, or ignore statutes or appellate courts might simply think of Emeline. On the topic of agreeing with appellate decisions, perhaps simply, instead, just think of Train. There is much to consider in the reported facts, and there may be some Paul Harvey out there. But in the end, some reasonably simple conclusions. Remember Emeline ("just stop"), Train (“even when"), and their sound lyrical advice. 

Make Your Point

I recently read a well-drafted motion that made excellent points regarding a dispute. The opposing party had filed a response that was equally competent and equanimous. It was a rewarding experience because, too often recently, we have heard stories of ill-conceived and poorly drafted motions. Seemingly, the idea of a response has turned to exception rather than the rule. The rule is 60Q6.115, for the record. 

The recent experience drew me back to Paul Harvey (1918-2009), a radio personality in the old days. In that age, it was common for people to transmit electromagnetic waves through the air from "transmitters" and to receive them on "receivers." We called the process "radio," and with it, it was possible to listen to news, music, or ball games in your car or as you walked, almost anywhere. And, this was done without an application, smartphone, or other modern technology. 

The essential memory of Paul Harvey is the manner in which he would hook the listener. He reported the news for decades but was most famous for his stories about some "famous person." As the Independent reported, he would tell some story about them but would "not reveal the celebrity's name until the very last sentence." Then, after the "big reveal," he would deadpan

"Now you know ... the rest ... of the story."

The Harvey analogy has been used in this blog before. There is a list of prior posts at the bottom of the page. But he immediately came back to me in the recent motion/response experience. 

The motion in this instance made for a hook. It cited authority for the relief sought. It was complete with various facts and descriptions. It painted a picture that was compelling and persuasive. In that, it was what a motion should be. After reading it, the merit of the movant's position was apparent, patent even. 

The opposing party had filed a response. Many times, I have suggested the merits of a response. Failing to file one leaves the very real probability that the judge will decide the motion, having heard only one side of the story. There are always two sides—if there are not, then there is no dispute and no need for the motion. 

The response was similarly informative. But it noted additional facts and circumstances. Though the motion was factually true, it was selective. There were additional facts unexpressed by the movant. The elaboration of the response provided "the rest ... of the story." 

Some lessons from the example:

1. If you do not file a response, the judge will never know "the rest ... of the story."
2. It is unlikely that the movant will include all facts in their motion - more likely, they will include only those that support their desires.
3. If the judge knows one side of the story, the outcome may be predictable.
4. If you are not going to tell your side, why object to the motion?

Is the "Paul Harvey" important? In the instance described here, it was critical. I would suggest that this is true, to some degree at least, in every dispute. If the respondent does not answer the arguments of the movant, the outcome will likely favor the movant. The impetus for action is predictable and perhaps even imperative, unless the motion is incomplete, incomprehensible, or dissonant. Even then, the response is a good idea. 

The very role of advocate compels you to make arguments. The success of your client depends on your success. Succeeding requires both your intellect and attention. See Ignorance and Ambivalence (July 2025). Failing to file a responsive pleading and failing to provide the "Paul Harvey" is inappropriate and ineffective. 

Make your point. You can never count on others to make it for you. 

Had I known the "Paul Harvey" (June 2014)

Parties must Protect their Due Process (February 2015)

Drug Formularies Back in the News (April 2015)

Drug Formularies Back in the News (May 2015)

Candor to the Tribunal and Misrepresentation (April 2018)

Legend Jack Langdon Passes (June 2019)

Another Physician Conviction (May 2021)

Damage Calculation (April 2023)

Lest We Forget (August 2023)

Social Media May not be Your Friend

I hope you lose a case. Not some expected or understandable shortfall or close call. I hope you lose one that you really believe in. I hope that it impacts you.

This is not to offend or hurt. This is not to be taken as a criticism or discouragement. This is a reality of the potential to fail, which is ever-present. Failure happens, even to the very best. 

The main hope is that you have a case in which you believe that strongly, about which you can exhibit emotion, and in which you find the strength to invest yourself. That commitment and conviction evidence worthy lawyering and zealous representation. That is admirable.

Enthusiasm, commitment, and passion are consummate attributes for lawyers.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day, there is a fair chance that any lawyer may be incorrect, that some expected proof may fail, some witnesses may not be as persuasive as expected, and more. Losing is always more emotional when you have really invested, believed, and committed.

Despite your foundational core belief and your passion, your case may not hold water the way you wish or perceive it. The fact is that much of lawyering is interpreting evidence, building a narrative, and making arguments. 

Like it or not, some lawyers are better at this than others. And the fact is that sometimes lawyers do not prevail (someone loses every argument, and so there is always a chance for loss).

These thoughts came to mind when reading the recent Florida Supreme Court decision disciplining two lawyers who were disappointed when they did not prevail. They took umbrage, offense, and then took to the internet to express their disappointment and more. Their decisions resulted in each being suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.

The two represented a plaintiff in 2021, alleging civil rights of a doctor "terminated ... from (a) residency program due to discrimination based on race, national origin, and disability" and "retaliation."

After the plaintiff presented his side of the case, the trial judge granted a directed verdict on the "national origin and disability" claims but "reserved ruling on ... discrimination based on race and retaliation." Directed verdict means "that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion." 

The view from the bench is likely to be different than the view from counsel's table. The dispassionate, neutral arbiter will not be on one side. They are not an advocate, but an observer. Their neutrality may frustrate the impassioned lawyers or their clients. Directed verdicts happen every day across the country. What appears debatable or even crystal clear to an advocate sometimes does not pass muster with a judge. 

Because the trial judge "reserved ruling, the issues of "discrimination based on race and retaliation" went to the jury, which returned a substantial verdict for the plaintiff. That has to be a great feeling for the advocate. Striving to convince a person (the judge) is a challenge, but convincing a committee (the jury) is perhaps more difficult still. 

After the verdict, the trial judge ruled on the previously reserved motion for directed verdict and concluded that the plaintiff "failed to prove a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on race." This directed verdict voided the substantial jury verdict. The two lawyers disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion. 

Make no mistake, that happens. Lawyers are frequently displeased with judges' decisions. Disappointment is a natural reaction. The potential solution to displeasure or frustration is found in the appellate process. The lawyer or party who perceives judicial error can file an appeal and ask other judges to review their grievances. 

An appellate court can change the decisions of the trial judge. Trust me, it happens every day all across America. Trial judges are no more perfect than anyone else. Mistakes happen. All judges are human, the law can be complex, and errors will be made despite the most valiant efforts, dedication, and study. This is perhaps less likely when judges collaborate, as is common in appeals.

It appears that the lawyers here did exactly that, Case No. 5D2021-1490. In 2022, the Florida Fifth District Court affirmed the trial judge. The collaborative appellate process did not alter the trial judge's grant of directed verdict. 

In addition, however, one of the plaintiff's lawyers took to social media after the trial judge's decision and "reposted" comments made there by her brother, "who handles social media for the (lawyer's) firm." These included "a picture of (the) judge," allegations that the judge "stole justice," and that "we need to hold him accountable."

The posts suggested that the judge "needs to be investigated," that "the court system is a sham," and referenced the Dred Scott decision (though inadvertently misspelling it). There were references to the judge's race, and a hashtag that included "#removejudge" along with the judge's name.

The other plaintiff's lawyer "participated in a couple of online interviews where he made several statements regarding the ... case, (the) Judge ..., and the judiciary." This included allegations that the judge "was racially biased," "exceeded his authority," and that this decision "was a theft ... to the community."

This second plaintiff's lawyer commented on the race of the judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and expressed his perceptions about the Court's treatment of "civil rights cases as though they are a waste of time."

In deciding the complaint against these two lawyers, the Supreme Court noted that following the interviews and social media posts, the trial judge "was harassed and received death threats," necessitating staffing of "additional security for his protection at the courthouse and at home."

The Court concluded that the two lawyers'

"statements were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, with no objectively reasonable factual basis, and impugned the qualifications and integrity of (the trial) Judge ... and the judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeal."

The Court acknowledged the lawyers' argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment and cited a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1871, which explained that lawyers voluntarily accept some speech limitations, "abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct." 

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized limited constraints or restrictions on speech by lawyers, which "serve a compelling state interest and do not violate the First Amendment." Despite our passion, commitment, or zeal, our expression may be limited by our commitments to the law. There are burdens that come with the privilege of practicing law, and all would do well to remember them. 

Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court concluded these two lawyers violated Rules 4-8.2(a), 3-4.3, and the Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar. One of the lawyers also violated Rule 4-8.4(d), "prohibit(ing) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Each was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days. In doing so, the Court noted various similar instances in which shorter and longer suspensions were imposed. Those overviews regarding various potential punishments are perhaps among the most illuminating elements of discipline cases, and afford lawyers significant guidance regarding their actions.

The lessons here are patent. Passion, commitment, and advocacy are important and admirable. However, public disparagement or impugning of a judge or court is both unwise and inappropriate.

There will be cases in which you will invest and believe. I opened with that above, and suggested that you would lose some of those cases. That will not be easy, but it means something. First, you took a case to trial that you believed in, that's a positive. Second, that you care enough to be disappointed, deeply, is another positive. Though such a loss hurts, I hope you experience it. 

The lawyer's stock in trade is advocacy, which may include an outcome today in adherence to present law or past decisions, but might as easily involve arguments for novel interpretations or applications, that is, a change in the law. Both are worthy. 

There is nothing untoward or inappropriate in arguing the law is wrong. There is no harm in arguing that injustice has occurred. That is what courts, trial and appellate, are for. Make the argument, invest, but know that you may not prevail. Half the parties and lawyers in any case will not prevail. Sometimes none of them get what they really wanted or hoped for. 

When the lawyer does not prevail at trial, the path for relief lies with the appellate court. Disappointment with an appellate outcome is as practical a potential, and can lead to seeking review by a higher court, legislative discussions regarding changes to the law, and other advocacy. Advocating for change and evolution is the lawyer's mandate. Great lawyers advocate every day. 

There is no reason one cannot likewise argue a judge has acted inappropriately. That is also what appellate courts are for. Their existence recognizes that trial judges, in the day-to-day, may not always get it right. 

Disappointment or disagreement with an outcome may also warrant a complaint regarding a judge. The law provides for such complaints, defines processes, and affords a path to address perceptions or allegations. There is an appropriate manner to express concerns about a judge. 

Thus, there are paths for criticism of both outcomes and judges. There are paths to review for both. There are laws, rules, and appropriate processes. 

However, there is peril in public discourse. There was a time when that peril may have been primarily in comments to the press, but it is now a different age. 

Today, there is equal or greater peril in social media. There, lawyers may engage in endorsements of the expressions of others with "likes," comments, and more. Today, lawyers and firms actively produce social media content, and some is likely produced by non-lawyers who may lack the acumen, training, and experience with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 

John Q. Public may rage behind a keyboard. Everyone has likely seen a social media post or two that was inappropriate, outrageous, or even defamatory. See Keyboard Attacks (October 2024). But John is not a lawyer, subject to the constraints that privilege brings. 

Nonetheless, lawyers should pay careful attention to what is being published using their name or firm name, and their social media. Lawyers are responsible for the actions and words of the non-lawyers who work for them. Lawyers should remain conscious of both the nature and implications of their own social media posts, endorsements, or adoptions.

In this age, the whole world lies at your fingertips. What you say matters, and may garner attention or challenges you neither anticipated nor desired. 

I hope you lose a case you really believe in. I hope that it impacts you. I hope you pursue the appeal, invest, and advocate. No, not because losing is good, but because you will learn much about yourself in the process, and you will be appropriately pursuing your belief. However, do it through the processes afforded, without maligning or impugning anyone, the court system, or the administration of justice. 

An aside from this case worth mentioning is the two lawyers' complaint that they were not permitted to make the trial judge testify during the Bar's prosecution of the disciplinary case against them. The Supreme Court found no error and noted

"The referee correctly rejected the highly improper attempt to require a judge to provide testimony regarding the basis for a judicial decision or other judicial acts. Judges 'cannot be subjected to such . . . scrutiny' 'regarding the process by which [they] reached the conclusions of [their] order[s]' because '[s]uch an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility.'”

There, the Supreme Court has "recognized the general rule that 'judges cannot be compelled to testify as to matters concerning their judicial duties,' and ... "that inquiring into a 'judge’s thought process' is impermissible."

An acquaintance once told me that they gave their child important advice about the modern world: "Social media may not be your friend." That is good advice. Perhaps posting is inevitable or irresistible, and reaction is commonplace, but sleep on that post before you make it. Sleep on that email before you hit "send." And remember that lawyers are held to a standard that John Q. Public is not. Think about what a thirty-day suspension from practicing would cost. 

Indeed Sancho Panza

There is a fine proverb noting "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1605). So many years ago, this was the expression used by the loyal Sancho Panza to explain, essentially, that it the actual experience that provides the proof of outcome. 

Courtesy ChatGPT

Conjecture aside, it is difficult to argue with. Of course, the point can be made that any outcome is anecdotal, transient, or unreliable. An outcome is not always definitive proof of more than the incident that is directly involved. This is why researchers and scientists repeat tests, attempt alternative inquiries, and argue about cause and effect. One result does not usually make an irrefutable conclusion. 

Thus, there is perhaps some support for the threat of artificial intelligence in the recent Your Brain on ChatGPT, a 206-page study published in June 2025. The outcomes and predicates are both fascinating. 

In a fit of "confirmation bias," I might remind you that I have been concerned about disuse atrophy for some time. See Disuse Atrophy (December 2024). That post mentions Idiocracy (20th Century 2006), as do some other posts, such as Sharing a Drink Called Loneliness (May 2023), Are You Innumerate (July 2018), and We are Regressing (March 2025). It seems axiomatic, forgive the expression, "use it or lose it."

Well, a group has now "explore(d) the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing." With some grouping and differentiation, the tested individuals were asked to write three essays. Each group was allowed varied resources:

1. (access to Large Language Model - Artificial Intelligence, "AI") LLMs
2. (access to) Search Engine
3. Brain-only (no tools)

After the three "sessions," in the fourth round, the groups remained static, but some of their access to tools was altered:

"LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM)." 

The participant's "cognitive load" was measured with electroencephalography (EEG). In addition to this measure of brain engagement, the resulting fourth essays were analyzed by Natural Language Processing, a type of AI, human instructors, and "an AI Judge."

The results were troubling. The

"EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity."

The efficacy of the human brain was diminished, or showed decreased engagement, most significantly in the people who had been afforded the greatest help, the LLM, in the first three sessions. The results were noted in "reduced connectivity," "under-engagement," "memory recall," and engagement of the "occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas."

In a nutshell, those who exercised their brains in the first three sessions were more likely to display mental ability and agility in the fourth round. The conclusion: "While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs."

But wait, perhaps there is more.

When studied over time, the "LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels." This, the researchers conclude, "raise(s) concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscores the need for deeper inquiry."

This is of particular interest because evidence is mounting that a generation has abandoned thinking and studying. They are using AI, without inhibition or regret. An "engineering student at UCLA" reportedly "pulled out his laptop and proudly displayed how he used ChatGPT to complete his final project." There was no apparent reticence or fear of repercussion.

After, the student denied that his use of the AI paradigm was cheating. He explained that he had deadlines, competing priorities, and therefore "used ChatGPT to finish strong." Will that matter? Some suggest this student may "struggle to find a job after graduation," and there is mention of doubt regarding "how much he actually learned while earning his degree."

There are implications and questions. Who wants their doctor to be reliant only on what the internet says (search engine) or the conclusions of AI? In that vein, anyone can Google their symptoms and likely find a page with an answer that is comprehensible to any lay person (someone who is not a doctor). Other than getting a prescription, what is the benefit of seeing the doctor if the internet is all they know?

This is likely a more difficult question if the doctor is ignoring the analysis necessary for comprehending the Google result(s) and instead just lapping up the spoon-fed AI-LLM conclusions gleaned from the vast array of internet data, including the collective wit and wisdom of Wikipedia. See Are I Diminishing? Am You? (May 2025).

Would you want a doctor who used AI instead of studying? An engineer, an accountant, a lawyer? There were various comments noted regarding the UCLA gentleman and his achievement of graduating with the help of AI. Would you agree that he is as prepared to help you solve problems as any non-AI-engaging engineer? Some would argue he is demonstrably more prepared due to his AI savvy. Others will disagree. 

There will be more studies. One study does not often answer all perspectives, concerns, or questions. That said ...

In the end, it is possible that we will be lulled into reliance and eventually become obsolete ourselves. I cannot even remember anyone's telephone number anymore; it is all in my phone. As comedian Kathleen Madigan once described it, "My brain is that phone." That is not because we were told to dump that information. We were given convenience, we forewent using our brains for that task, and we lost the ability (I do remember my phone number from 6th grade, but not those I have had since; that is odd). 

What else will we lose, and how fast? Well, Sancho Panza, that is indeed a worthy question of proof. Where is the pudding?