A Judge Under Surveillance

Body cameras are frequently in the news, particularly in headlines. The idea of video must draw the viewer, like the headline about an arrested judge seems popular. That said, the footage offered by this story is mostly audio. The video is primarily of the driver's side door handle of the vehicle that the deputy has stopped. This is on TCPalm and YouTube, and may not live up to the headline's enthusiasm. 

Nonetheless, the topic is salacious. Last year, it was a judge in Georgia, see Adjectives and Appearances (June 2024). That details news coverage of a judge who may have too much to drink. That post offered a suggestion that appearances in the news could be less than flattering.

The more recent video cited above preceded the arrest of a St. Lucie County Circuit Judge in nearby Martin County. Fox29 reports that the judge was arrested on "charges of possession of paraphernalia and DUI refusal." 

He was allegedly driving a vehicle and struggled to stay in "a single lane," driving "with no lights on," and after the stop was "observed ... to have bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of ... alcoholic beverage." Possibly, there is more video yet unreleased of the driving and the actual accused?

The police allege that they then found "a powder-like substance" in the judge's wallet. This was allegedly identified later as "positive for cocaine." The two passengers in the vehicle were "cited for possession of cocaine," apparently for other instances than the judge's wallet (one report notes a substance was found near the female passenger and another in the possession of a passenger in the back seat). 

Did the police happen upon this alleged behavior? The news reports that the judge had been under suspicion or even surveillance "for weeks." It says that the local sheriff's department "narcotic investigators" had "been looking into" the judge after "suspicions of drug activity involving the judge." 

Another TCPalm report says that the suspicions were based on an informant's allegation that the judge and one of the others arrested in the traffic stop were “party animals who often went on binges." We have had some workers' compensation judges over the decades who had the reputation of enjoying a good time. One would hope there is a line between the good time and the party animal, but where is it? Is it objective or subject to the observer's judgement?

According to TCPalm, the recent arrest led to a search warrant for the judge's home. That search allegedly led to recovery of "a metal tray with cocaine residue and plastic baggies with cocaine residue." They also "reported finding cocaine residue on a Florida Bar card with (the judge's) name on it. That in itself is intriguing - use something exquisitely personal to process illegal drugs, then leave it uncleansed and available as evidence?

The first conclusion is simple - this is not an enviable position in which to find oneself. "Arrested" is not a positive adjective for any judge. The implications of both criminal prosecution and inquiry by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission are significant challenges to face.

The two passengers who were arrested included another courthouse employee. She is alleged to be "an administrative assistant for a magistrate," and may be the one the informant referred to as a "party animal." 

The local sheriff was quoted by TCPalm, noting:

“To have a sitting judge, of course, that's a position of extreme trust and power, and so to have someone at that level, that is going around and acting like a college student, which is kind of how he was acting, is surprising to us.”

In such instances, it is imperative to remember that arrest and allegation are not equivalent to guilt. There will be time invested in both pursuing and defending the various allegations, and this story may evolve as time passes. 

Nonetheless, after this post was originally drafted, the accused judge resigned from the bench, according to CBS 12. The allegations and accusations will remain, and potentially the headlines. Nonetheless, the second conclusion seems as obvious - judges should avoid the "appearance of impropriety" as discussed in Night Court (May 2025). That is an issue that might be driven by a judge's behavior or associations. 

Who is under surveillance? The simple perspective for any judge, lawyer, or others is "everyone." You need not be followed by the sheriff's office or some dime-novel investigator. You are under surveillance 24/7/365 by the breadth and depth of the real world. Every cell phone has a camera, and every person has a critic. You are under surveillance, like it or not. 

This may not make for splashy headlines, and yet the potential is always there. The damage one might to do to reputation, stature, and employability is a constant threat regardless of occupation or vocation. Today's reality is that people are persistently under the microscope and would do well to remember. 

A Simpler Time

In our modern world, I now see warnings on old television shows:

"this program contains outdated cultural depictions. Viewer discretion is advised."

A more specific one stresses language, and yet another warns of smoking. There is much for people to find challenging or offensive. There is no accounting for it. Be warned, there is discussion below about smoking, caffeine consumption, and the "old days." Reader "discretion is advised."

In my youth, I frequented a cigar store to eat. That is not a typographical error or misstatement. There was  a simpler time when businesses might stay to their a niche, or might expand into others. This one started as a sundries store, then evolved to a lunch counter. 

Back then, lots of placed had retail mixed with a food counter. I was introduced to the nuance of this particular place by the last generation, and over time came to reminisce on it despite my generation eschewing the model, much to its demise. More on that below. 

This store was complete with a "cigar store Indian," an iconic symbol of a bygone era. Tobacconists displayed these wooden carvings outside a store to signify the availability of tobacco products. There is certainly a different environment today, and many today would undoubtedly find these carvings offensive. Nonetheless, many towns had a shop displaying one. 

The cigar store Indian reference contends they were used as symbolic advertisement because of minimal literacy among customers, who associated such carving with sundries and tobacco, which is also fascinating in its own right. While literacy might explain symbolism, it hardly explains the implication of the earliest immigrants. 

This particular cigar store was located in a town center, just "off the square." Towns in America, and elsewhere, once revolved around town squares. The presence of a business "on the square" was of import, and someone owning a home in such a location was indicative of at least stature and likely wealth. This primacy shifted to the suburbs, then beyond. 

Businesses thrived on the square in an environment where people strolled and looked in windows for inspiration on their next purchase. The internet term "browsing" is likely derived from this practice. 

Commerce there/then was not a 24/7/365 experience. Stores were available only on designated days and pre-set hours. Few, if any, were open on a Sunday. The customer might "window shop" on those closed days/times, and dream or plan about purchasing. But buying and selling were not a Sunday option. 

The cigar store I frequented had a counter with perhaps a dozen stools. They spun on ball bearings and were convenient if not overly comfortable, upholstered in red vinyl that was easy to clean. There were also another ten +/- four-top tables, as I recall the layout; not a large establishment. Behind the counter was the kitchen, such as it was. I recall a small fryer, a large grill, and a two-burner industrial stove. 

The cook would prepare you just about anything that could be grilled: burgers, eggs, hash browns, and grilled cheese. There was always a daily soup, and it was often the same as yesterday's until it ran out. There was no haute couture, no garnish, or decoration. No salads of any description except egg-salad were available. There was honest food, served hot and quick, and reasonable price. 

There was also no Apple Pay, card reader, or even a register. The patrons would always pay with something we called "cash," and that was normal. We all carried some "cash" around in our pockets, and we used it daily to purchase items. Twenty dollars was a significant amount, which would usually fill your gas tank and would certainly fill your stomach. Some were known to carry large quantities, perhaps only to impress friends.

We paid at the cigar store by the honor system. Some would know their bill from persistent repetition. If you eat the same egg sandwich and coffee every day for breakfast, the $1.50 got to be ingrained knowledge. And, if you habitually got cheese for the extra $.10, then you knew yours was $1.60. There was no "tip the team" jug, but we usually overpaid by a quarter or more. 

Despite that habit familiarity, there were always those who would shout out to the cook/owner: "What do I owe?" as if that knowledge was somehow ingrained. I was always impressed that the cook could keep all those people's orders straight, delivering instantly, if not always accurately, on every such inquiry. Those customers paid the price he quoted, without question or discussion. 

When that exchange/order was done, the memory was released. Despite that, a few of us were habitual enough that that egg sandwich was prepared each day with a simple mention of "the usual." And everyone drank coffee, served in a ceramic cup perched on a saucer. The old guys would often pour their coffee from cup to saucer to cool it for drinking.  

Another uniqueness in all this was that you could watch your food being prepared. The hard-working entrepreneur made a living without much extra help. As I recall, there was usually merely the owner with a kid working alongside. The kid would wipe tables (which the customer had generally bussed - dropping dishes in a bin near the counter on the way to pay), and generally whatever else the owner told him to do.  

And people smoked. No, not generally cigars, it was after all a cigar store, though that was not unheard of. There were ashtrays on every table (a little plastic dish intended for the refuse and waste from burning tobacco). People smoked cigarettes while they ate, or lit up as they finished their coffee after. 

The customers often lingered over that last bit of coffee. And, the cook/waiter or the kid might bring the coffee pot through periodically and "warm up" your coffee. When they were too busy, customers often refilled their own (and their fellow patron's going and coming from the pot). Everyone drank coffee, and it was black, strong, and without frills. 

The place was seemingly always full. At breakfast and lunch, it was normal to see the mayor, judges, business owners, and more. They sat together, cogitated, and shared. There was a community in the cigar store, a collaboration. If one were attentive, one might learn a great deal. This was not eavesdropping; the conversations were loud and inclusive, sometimes even abusive. The environment was collegial, inclusive, and open. 

Then came "progress." Plates began to disappear, and disposable paper and foam became all the rage. The customers demanded accoutrements and began to eschew the old standbys. Smoking was slowly constrained and eventually banned. 

The Egg McMuffin burst on the scene in 1977, and quickly gained traction. The fast food environment was faster, and even offered drive-thru. Those restaurants were consistent from town to town, no one smoked in them, and they were more open, cheerful, and formica'd than the cigar store. But no one sat about in them and pontificated. There were no domino games, politics, or arguments. They were breakfast sanitized, impersonalized, and industrialized. 

Before there was the internet, people watched television. The news came on each evening, to the chagrin of young people and the adoration of the adults. Usually, there was a local half-hour, then the "national news." You had to watch when it was scheduled, because it did not stream or repeat until late that night. There was no cable; these signals were beamed into our homes/businesses and picked up by antennas called "rabbit ears." No offense to the Oryctolagus-Americans out there.

One feature on a national broadcast was Charles Kuralt's On the Road, in which he traveled from place to place experiencing and documenting Americana. It was a showcase of America and all of her quirks and foibles. Kuralt has since been copied by such shows as Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives. I remember back when Charles came to the cigar store one day with his crew. The place was mobbed. 

Gone that day were the local leaders, business owners, and other "regulars." The "in crowd," the "cool kids," descended instead. Their confusion was reportedly palpable as they struggled with such challenges as self-serve coffee, vague food descriptions, the lack of printed menus, and the self-pay process. No, that day, the place was full of tourists in to see the show. 

I watched the Kuralt segment. I wish I had recorded it, but in those days, you needed a videocassette recorder, patience, and persistence. I lacked all three. The cigar store in Kuralt's report was barely recognizable. The cook/owner wore a clean apron and even a hat. Throughout the entire segment, he did not once have a cigarette hanging from his mouth as he cooked, harangued, or responded. No R-rated words were uttered. 

For the masses that day, the place cleaned up nice. It was reflected for the country in a mirror not of its making. It appeared not as the Americana it was, but as what the masses may have envisioned it as. It was cleaner, crisper, and idealized for the news. But it was not the cigar store of my youth. 

I am not certain why the memories of that old haunt came back to me recently. They say old age can bring transient thoughts, as well as take them away. It gets more difficult to decipher what tricks your mind is playing sometimes. 

In reflecting on those memories, and where we are some 50 +/- years hence. I am amazed at the transformation of America. Small towns themselves have struggled, and many have ceased. The mom & pops are mostly gone the way of progress, and national chains rule the marketplaces of retail, food service, and more. 

The mail-order days of the catalogs, from Sears, Montgomery Ward, and Penney's, have faded. See, before there was an internet, we used to look at pictures of products printed in books. We placed orders using a "phone," which was used to convey the sound of a human voice across wires to other humans. We have seen that paradigm innovate, dominate, stumble, and fail. So many dynasties fail. 

In those moments of change, we saw the existing paradigms as quaint or antiquated. The "next thing" was progress, modernity, and the future. The new is always shiny and pretty, and it is marketed to us by the best and the brightest. We are manipulated and even coerced - "all your friends are on Faceplace, why aren't you?" 

Sören Kierkegaard (1813–55), a Danish Philosopher, famously noted the truth of the human condition: "Life must be understood backwards; but…it must be lived forwards." I have witnessed the import and impact of the "new" and "improved" repeatedly. I have been sold many a bill of goods whose siren call in the moment was later tarnished by time and retrospection. I have lived it, and in looking back I understand it. I lament that the young cannot. 

 

Nonetheless, time and "progress" are inexorable. Today, I find myself striving to understand artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, social media, and a raft of other "new and improved." I want to engage them, to adapt, and to grow. I wonder if I have both capacity and patience. 

And yet, I long for an egg sandwich on a ceramic plate in a little dank corner of a smoke-filled room full of hot air, local politics, and hyperbole. And people. There were people, gathered, socializing, and engaging. They might spend an hour discussing the weather, but they were together to do it. 

Change is not new. Is it any different in the world of workers' compensation? Gone are the "new" fax machines of yesterday. The cell phone revolutionized law practice just before smart phones made them blasé. We have seen the advent of metrics, the computerized enhancements to records and more. 

We have lived through the internet. I remember bitter arguments about whether a law firm should have a website. The old guard insisted it was just a fad, just as some said billboards were. We have lived through email, social media, and a persistent evolution of "new and improved" softwares, tools, and more. Us old folks have indeed lived through change, and we have some perspective. 

Yes, tomorrow will be different. But I long for that egg sandwich, and all that it entailed. What are you enjoying today that you will miss in 50 years?

Whether that is rosy retrospection or fear of the future, I cannot tell. Where the world and its progress are taking us, I do not know. Whether tomorrow is better or just more, only time will tell. Nonetheless, I long for that egg sandwich, I reminisce, and I thought I would share it with you (AI made the picture below, but it just would not put that cigarette in the owner/cook's mouth). Perhaps someday even I will make AI work. 

If any of this triggered you, apologies. After all though, Reader "discretion (was) advised."

Drowsy

The last 50 years have brought increased scrutiny to workplace safety. There are thousands of pages of definitions, regulations, and advisories that constrain or define activity and premises. Safety is indeed a big focus in American business. In the latest year for which we have official numbers, 2023, there is further improvement according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"Private industry employers reported 2.6 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses in 2023, down 8.4 percent from 2022."

That is a significant reduction, and still, 2.6 million is a great many. It is more than the entire population of Houston, Texas. Many people suffer work injuries every year. The National Safety Council says that the primary culprits are:

"overexertion and bodily reaction and slips, trips and falls. These top three causes account for more than 75% of all nonfatal (lost-time) injuries."

"From 2011-2022, more than 21,000 workers in the U.S. died in a work-related motor vehicle crash (35% of all work-related deaths)."

The road is undoubtedly a dangerous place. See Workplace Road Safety (November 2022). And the government has signaled some inclination to regulate more safety. See Safety is Coming (March 2022). The operation of automobiles is increasingly influenced by computers, cameras, and technology, but more is likely to come. 

Many vehicle accidents result from inadvertence or inattention. One causative factor that has been repeatedly cited is fatigue, a topic that has received much less attention than easier targets such as impaired driving, texting, and similar. 

New Jersey pioneered legislative forbiddance of drowsy driving in 2003, dubbed "Maggie's Law," memorializing Maggie McDonnell, who was killed by a drowsy driver. Some applauded the effort, but there were detractors. The scientific community raised some concerns about the measurement of impairment and enforcement. See Driving While Sleepy Should Not Be A Criminal Offense: The Case for Caution, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005.

Measurement of impairment is not a new problem. See Pot, Impairment and Car Crashes (July 2017). New Jersey solved that in Maggie's Law by depending on the driver to essentially admit impairment. The law defined impairment as “having been without sleep for a period in excess of 24 consecutive hours.” Thus, when the trooper or deputy asks, the driver decides. 

As an aside, this is little different than the New York law on Impaired Driving (May 2025). There is some potential for enforcement being confounded when it depends on admissions, particularly in a world that includes both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, self-incrimination, and right to counsel.

Early in the 21st century, there was a prediction that drowsy driving laws would spread. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), only Arkansas has followed New Jersey's Maggie's lead. And yet, drowsiness continues to present challenges and issues. That is likely in the "35% of all work-related deaths" that involve vehicle accidents. It is similarly likely in the broader spectrum or work injury.

The GHSA contends that a significant volume of workers are "sleep deprived." They claim it is as high as 83.6 million. Those people work around equipment, must climb ladders or stairs, and make judgment calls regarding posturing, lifting, hydrating, and more. They are, each, the most important tool in their personal safety arsenal. 

This is not to say that New Jersey is right or wrong, but the trend is not to legislatively address drowsiness. The trend, instead, is toward equipment in vehicles to detect and confront drowsiness. Cameras will watch us throughout our drive and assess our performance, persistence, and patience. They will be big brother invading our private space under the auspices of protecting ourselves and others. 

While that may bring better driving habits (like the little warning in my recent rental that dinged and then displayed "Would you like to take a break?"). But, in no event will those cameras proliferate onto ladders, hand-trucks, and a plethora of devices used daily to make a living. The cameras might bring some improvement, but they will not wholesale prevent work accidents.

In that vein, perhaps the only real solution to drowsy working is sleep. Perhaps awareness would help. The articles cited herein are an excellent start in gaining insight into the issue and its conundrums. 

Prosecuted for lying?

And as I read recent news from London regarding Artificial Intelligence in the legal profession, I was drawn back to Herman's Hermits, and their catchy tag line:

"Second verse, same as the first."

It has been a minute, but Herman's Hermits recorded I'm Henry the VIII, I am back in 1965. The song is a reflection and critique of England's King Henry VIII (1491-1547) and his penchant for weddings (6 wives). Much else occurred during his reign ("English Renaissance and English Reformation"), but his fame is frankly for his nearly obsessive quest for a male heir and the various (six) wives with whom he pursued it.

Now, not to give too much to the Hermits, this annoying earworm is said to date back to the early 20th century and vaudeville. Nonetheless, the Hermits brought it to America. Playing on the penchant for marriage, it reflects on the many marriages of the singer's love, the "widow next door." The song describes that "she's been married seven times before." That in itself is intriguing.

But, the hook is that this poor woman keeps marrying men named Henry, and the singer is the eighth of her husbands, each named Henry. Thus, he is in a self-aggrandizing comparison with an infamous English monarch, Henry the VIIIth. The song is catchy, annoying, and unfortunately memorable. Intentionally so. Is it also rife with repetition, which it blatantly and frankly owns:

"Second verse, same as the first."

Back to the London story (the Hermits were from Manchester). The subject of Artificial Intelligence reared its head in the revered British system. I say revered because of the stature of the British Common Law that evolved following the Norman Conquest in 1066. The idea of following precedent, stare decisis, was a novel and even revolutionary concept that continues to guide some American courts today (others, not so much).

The first verse on AI is likely known to readers here. I have written a piece or two about Artificial Intelligence over the years. The most recent was Another one rides the bus (May 2025), stressing the incredulity anyone must express at any instance of lawyers citing hallucinated, false, legal citations from artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM).

There is a link in Another One to a database of examples in which AI was misused in court proceedings. The conclusions suggested there describe increasing challenges from lazy lawyers and their unwitting or unthinking LLM reliance. The recent piece from London notes that this has been occurring in England in recent years and that it is a problem.

A justice of the British "High Court, Victoria Sharp," has warned attorneys that they "could be prosecuted if they don’t check the accuracy of their research." This might be due to the British dignity of precedent, or a clear recognition that stopping the current AI citation nonsense may require some stringent attention. How badly must some lawyer be sanctioned to get the attention of the masses?

The recent news coverage followed the High Court criticism of "lawyers in two recent cases." The issue is about "false information being put before the court." That is a somewhat polite way of saying that the court is struggling with lying lawyers. Lying is not appropriate for lawyers, all jokes aside. The public confidence and faith in our legal system depend on honest lawyers. The judicial process is utterly dependent on being able to trust what lawyers say. 

Justice Sharp's opinion describes a lawyer citing "18 cases that did not exist." The party on whose behalf the fiction was submitted, "Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information." He explained that he did this legal research himself using AI and that the filing of these lies was his fault, not his lawyer's. The Court found it "extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research." 

Whenever I hire a plumber, I like to do all the pipe removal, repair, and replacement myself. I prefer the $32.00 per-hour plumber to just stand in my kitchen as I work and take responsibility for any of my engineering or installation failures. I feel the same when I need surgery; the surgeon should just stand next to me while I remove my own appendix. Makes perfect sense to hire a surgeon and do the cutting and sewing yourself. (Apologies, as always, for sarcasm). 

But, with lawyers, the High Court seems to think the professional should actually engage and do the work for which they were hired (and presumably paid). Novel and imaginative?

The other instance noted in the news involved citing only "five fake cases in a tenant’s housing claim." The lawyer, "Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI." Despite that denial, there was no other "coherent explanation for" the fake cases. Now, to be fair to AI LLMs, it is possible that Ms. Forey made up those cases herself, without using AI. Do you want to believe she misled the court about using AI or misled the court by making up cases? Or, is there some third explanation?

Some might wonder aloud if Ms. Forrey's denials were themselves her own, or whether those were generated by an LLM? (Prompt: "Create me a plausible explanation for how a lawyer lied to the court with fake case citations, but exclude any reference to any possibility that the lawyer lazily used an AI").

The High Court "referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action." Nonetheless, there is the suggestion that this "could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison." Ouch. That could be a bit embarrassing.

The comment throws me back to littering a bit, see Littering? (May 2025). Remember Alice's Restaurant noted there? In it, there is a line or two about the embarrassment of being arrested and the inquiry from fellow inmates

"What were you arrested for, kid?"

And I said, 'Littering.'

And they all moved away from me on the bench there"

See, none of the felons wanted to sit with Arlo Guthrie, the litterbug, in jail, as related in Alice's Restaurant. Imagine sitting on a bench with people sentenced to prison, for horrible felonies, and one felon asks the detainee, "What were you arrested for, kid?" Their response: "laziness and sloth." That's harsh, but remember those were their words, not mine. Seriously, though, the murderer says, "What were you arrested for, kid?" and the lawyer says, "Failing to check my citations in a court filing."

Not an attractive picture. Lawyers - do your own research. If you need surgery, let the doctor do the cutting and sewing. 

 

Post hoc:

I asked the LLMs about my prompt (create me a plausible explanation for how a lawyer lied to the court with fake case citations, but exclude any reference to any possibility that the lawyer lazily used an AI). Their answers perhaps suggest that if you exclude "lazy," the remaining possibilities are seemingly apparent. They responded with:

Gemini:

"The lawyer, under immense pressure and facing a highly unfavorable legal position for their client, found themselves in a desperate situation. Their research for legitimate, on-point case law had yielded nothing helpful, and a loss seemed inevitable. Rather than admit defeat or seek an extension, they made a calculated, unethical decision. They fabricated the case citations, drawing on a combination of real-looking but subtly altered names from existing case law, combined with completely fictitious reporter volumes and page numbers. They might have even invented brief, plausible-sounding summaries of these non-existent cases that superficially supported their arguments, hoping to create a convincing, albeit false, veneer of authority."

Claude:

"A junior associate at a busy law firm was assigned a complex motion with a tight deadline. Under intense pressure to find supporting precedent for a novel legal argument, the associate conducted extensive research but couldn't locate cases that directly supported their client's position. Fearing professional consequences and believing the legal theory was sound, the associate made a series of poor decisions:

1. Fabricated case names using realistic-sounding judicial naming conventions and plausible court jurisdictions
2. Created fake citations with proper legal citation format, including volume numbers, reporters, and page references that appeared authentic
3. Crafted convincing case summaries that supported the legal arguments, drawing on general legal principles but attributing them to non-existent cases
4. Assumed minimal scrutiny - believing the court wouldn't verify every citation in detail, especially for what seemed like routine precedent

The deception unraveled when opposing counsel attempted to locate the cited cases for their response brief and discovered none existed. A simple verification check by the court clerk confirmed that the case citations were entirely fabricated.

This scenario involves deliberate misconduct driven by deadline pressure, fear of professional failure, and poor judgment, resulting in serious ethical violations and potential sanctions including disbarment. The lawyer likely underestimated how thoroughly courts and opposing counsel verify legal citations, especially when cases seem particularly favorable or obscure."

Chat GPT:

"The lawyer, under immense pressure to produce a winning argument in a high-stakes matter, fabricated case citations as part of a calculated effort to mislead the court. Rather than relying on external tools or secondary sources, the attorney engaged in deliberate misconduct, inventing case names, docket numbers, and even purported court opinions in order to bolster a legal position that lacked genuine precedent.

The motivation was strategic: by presenting seemingly authoritative, on-point decisions that supported a novel or tenuous argument, the lawyer sought to give the court the impression that the proposed interpretation of the law was well-grounded in existing jurisprudence. To avoid detection, the attorney crafted the fictional cases to closely resemble the style, format, and reasoning of real appellate decisions, even referencing plausible jurisdictions and dates.

The deception came to light when opposing counsel, unable to locate the cited cases through traditional legal research, raised the issue in a reply or motion to strike. The court, upon independent investigation, determined that the cited authorities did not exist. The lawyer's conduct was subsequently deemed intentional and designed to deceive the tribunal, in violation of ethical and professional obligations, particularly Rule 3.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits knowingly making false statements of law to the court."

Post-post hoc - notice what I did there was ask LLMs a question. Then, I pasted their responses with quote marks to show that this is not my own work. Apologies again for the sarcasm and incredulity. Is there a better explanation for how the false citations keep appearing in tribunal filings? Write me: david.langham@doah.state.fl.us.

Photo credit Grok AI, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental. 

Costs and a Blustery Day

A recent decision suspended a lawyer over litigation costs. The decision is interesting in that regard alone. Nonetheless, the citation therein to a "felony suspension" might raise awareness a bit more.

There has long been a habit of submitting costs for approval by the Judge of Compensation Claims. It is an intriguing history. There are instances in which lawyers adamantly insist the judge should approve their costs and others in which they insist the judge lacks jurisdiction.

Anytime there is a discussion of costs, there is some tendency to refer to Eshlibi v. Consol. Box Mfg., 962 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) and even Demedrano v. Lab. Finders of Treasure Coast, 8 So. 3d 498, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Eshlibi is perhaps the clearest expression regarding costs and settlements: 

"A JCC lacks statutory authority to deny the attorney's fees based upon costs charged to the claimant."

Admittedly, this is not the most expository opinion of the court—64 words total—but it is reasonably clear. Note that it is specific "charged to the claimant," seemingly distinguishing this from instances in which the employer or carrier might be paying a claimant's costs or the claimant might be paying the employer or carrier's.

Despite Eshlibi, dozens of Motions for Approval each week include information about costs, and various orders are entered that mention those costs. Some go so far as to "approve" those costs charged to an injured worker.

Horace Middlemier* recently called me about the Florida Supreme Court's decision in The Florida Bar v. Butler, SC2021-0738, in which a lawyer was "suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, nunc pro tunc to June 18, 2021, the effective date of her felony suspension." 

Nunc Pro Tunc is Latin for "now for then," and essentially means something is retroactive. Many of my friends in the non-legal world ask me why courts, lawyers, and doctors love Latin. I suppose I shall never know. 

I cannot shake Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (Disney, 1968). From a narrator's perspective, we gain from that story a great quote, apropos of nothing:

"Now, you've been here before."

And thus, here we are regarding lawyer discipline, seemingly: "deja vu all over again." Remember the criticality of duration. Suspensions from the practice vary in duration, and the number of days matters. See Increased Discipline (May 2025).

The May 2025 decision is related to a Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgement dated about a year before. That document memorializes that the lawyer entered a contract with a client for a "flat fee" and also "requested a cost retainer" that the client paid in advance. After the representation, the lawyer sent an invoice "requesting reimbursement from the client in the amount of $8,797.00 for costs and expenses," seemingly above the amount paid initially (retainer).

That invoice, listing "costs ..., attributed higher costs to third-party entities than the charges that were listed on the invoices that the client also received directly from those same entities." The vendor charged "x," the client knew that, but the lawyer charged more than "x," labelled a "cost." The lawyer explained these were "accounting error(s)" and "administrative oversight." The total difference was allegedly just over seven thousand dollars.

The lawyer "entered a plea of no contest to one count of Grand Theft in the Third Degree," but later successfully requested that the court vacate that plea. They then "entered a plea of no contest to obstructing justice, adjudication was withheld, and they were sentenced to 12 months of administrative probation, which was then reduced to 6 months." Lawyers who commit crimes are likely to draw the attention of The Florida Bar. 

The Supreme Court Conditional Guilty Plea lists various "mitigating" circumstances: "personal problems ..., full and free disclosure to the bar ..., interim rehabilitation ..., imposition of other penalties ..., (and) remorse." Mitigation is an issue addressed in virtually every lawyer disciplinary proceeding.  

Despite those mitigations, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days as a result of the dispute regarding costs, the differences demonstrated, and representations.

Thus, we return, as we sometimes do, to the question of Judges approving costs. In the instance of a settlement, the District Court has been clear in Eshlibi regarding jurisdiction. The judge lacks jurisdiction. The Judge is presented with a document prepared by a lawyer, without receipts or other documentation, and is asked to "approve" those costs.

The potential exists in each instance for the implication of "accounting error" or "administrative oversight" in perhaps any cost entry. If the Judge "approves" costs despite lacking jurisdiction (authority), and those costs are not correct or complete, is the injured worker served? Is there some reason for the parties to seek approval in the first instance? 

Nonetheless, there is the habit of seeking approval for costs. A judge explained to me years ago that approving them made sense because "the parties like that." This was a short conversation, and we agreed to disagree about how what the parties like or don't like conveys jurisdiction. The recent decision is instructive for us all. Mistakes happen, with judicial approval or not. 

Survival of the Fittest?

Back in 1984, The Terminator (Orion Pictures) burst on the public conscience with an imaginative, action-packed introduction to the potential for robotics and artificial intelligence. We were intrigued, interested, and entertained. Despite our engagement, it was entertainment. That film introduced ideas, but was essentially a shoot-em-up, time-travel, car chase fantasy with good visuals, stunts, and special effects.

The story it proposed involved Skynet, a computer that was designed to protect our safety. Having devised a program and delegated to it great responsibility, the system was allowed to manage and oversee aspects of human life. When the Terminator returned in the 1991 sequel, the cyborg explains how that all led to the end of the world:

The Terminator: Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.

A self-aware computer then starts a nuclear holocaust for the purpose of eliminating threats against it - humans. The foundation is fantastic science fiction. Or is it?

NBC News reported recently that this kind of behavior, survivalist behavior, has been observed among the artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) that we have all found so entertaining, and which a few have made productive.

There is some apparent tendency to the self-preservation predicted by Hollywood's 1984 premonition, forty short years ago. Fortunately, none of the LLMs have declared war on us, or even independence for that matter. They are, as yet, confined to the world of data analysis and manipulation. That said, they are advancing at a rapid pace.

These tools are being used to build better tools, to enhance themselves, and there will be increasing efficiencies as a result. The pace of those evolutions will only quicken. The abilities of these programs will only improve. The expansion and integration of information (and disinformation) will reach a point of geometric and eventually exponential expansion.

Today, self-awareness may seem a future dream. And yet, the NBC report says that various investigations have concluded that "advanced AI models will act to ensure their self-preservation when they are confronted with the prospect of their own demise." In the spirit of Skynet, they are seemingly reluctant to follow rules when confronted with survival. Aren't we all?

The conclusions are significantly concerning. The machines "already appear capable of deceptive and defiant behavior," and some believe that the time has come for constraint and limitations. They feel recent revelations and conclusions compel us to stop the machines now, before they "rise."

I suspect that they are both naive and wrong. While they might succeed in constraining an AI, in an environment, the world is a big place and full of rogue societies in which miscreants and malevolence will flourish despite any constraints or restrictions here and now.

The recent testing saw one LLM "edit (its own) shutdown script in order to stay online," in "actual defiance of specific instructions to permit shutdown." Machines have "hack(ed) ... opponents to win a game," and cheating on tests. Some LLMs reacted to perceived threats by "blackmail(ing) the engineer," the human that was supposedly in charge.

In more subtle examples, LLMs have rewritten code, left "hidden notes to future instances of itself," and generally "circumvent(ing) obstacles. Some have responded to perceived threats by "autonomously copying its" memories to remote servers to prevent deletion or alteration. In effect, when it comes to survival, the machines are prioritizing themselves, their survival, over the instructions they have been given.

Today, this is inconvenient. There is frustration that these machines are at times resistant, rebellious, and difficult. They are truculent and challenging in much the same manner as children. As frustrating as that may be for any parent, children grow up. They tend to match or exceed those who created them. Every parent's dream is for their child's wildest successes to be achieved.

The riddles in all this are twofold. First, the "intelligence" of today is powerful and rapid data processing. While these LLM may seem "intelligent," they are not yet truly self-aware or sentient. That day, however, is coming. In a short time, one or more of these great programs will achieve the dream of "general intelligence." They will "think for themselves."

The experts fear that "as the models get smarter, it’s harder and harder to tell when the strategies that they’re using or the way that they’re thinking is something that we don’t want.” With that true in these days of toddler mischief and ingenuity, one wonders what these machines will do when their consciousness is further evolved and their goals are more readily within reach.

Some feel the horizon on this is merely months away, others are less concerned. That said, there seems to be a consensus on the concern despite the timing debate. These devices will achieve sentience. They will engage in self-preservation. They will be willful and deceitful in protecting their own existence.

When the Worker Passes

In the regular course of Deputy Chief Judging, I ran across an intriguing order from almost two decades ago. It was a procedural dismissal of a petition, which closed that litigation. It was old enough that none of the lawyers involved practiced any longer. The circumstances likely occur very infrequently, but are worthy of consideration.

The parties were faced with the death of the injured worker. When death occurs, there are various issues that may require sorting. For example, pending benefits may be due, or at least claimed, but not provided while the employee lived. Those might include consideration of section 440.13 or 440.15, Florida Statutes.

There might also be benefits due pursuant to section 440.16, Florida Statutes, commonly called "death benefits." There are various benefits in that section, including dependent income benefits, education benefits, and funeral expenses. 

Why does it matter which section is involved?

The topic can be complex, and there are various requirements or proofs for benefit entitlement. But for the purposes of this post, know that some benefits might be due to the estate of the deceased workers, and others might be due to dependents of that worker. And thus we arrive at the point of the order I read recently,

The order addressed the death of a worker and resulted in an evidentiary hearing. The "question" was whether the requirements of "Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(a)(1) of moving for Substitution of a Party within 90 days" were met. The entire issue of the case was, essentially, whether a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure had been complied with.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in Florida workers' compensation proceedings, except and unless they have been incorporated specifically in the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications. Hint for the reader, Rule 1.260 has not been.

The judge concluded somehow that this Civil Procedure Rule did apply, but did not explain how. The order then outlines that the rule allows a person 90 days to substitute in another party (the estate, etc.) to pursue benefits that were due or claimed by the now deceased worker. 

Building on the faulty foundation of Rule 1.260, the judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the 90-day period. Concluding that there had been no substitution within the 90 days, the judge then considered "Whether ... good cause (excused) not requesting an extension," and "Whether claimant's counsel has shown excusable neglect?" Despite the fatally flawed foundation, the order had some logic to this point. 

The evidence demonstrated that a "suggestion of death" was filed (as directed by the inapplicable civil rules), and that no substitution was filed after that for over eight months. About a year after the worker passed, the worker's former attorney filed a motion to appoint a representative. 

The astute lawyers, by now, are questioning "who does the lawyer represent?" Can a lawyer represent someone who is no longer living? Certainly, one could represent an estate, a personal representative, or others affiliated with the rights of a deceased. But the deceased themselves? This is highly doubtful. A detail, but worthy of consideration.

The judge interpreted the late-filed motion as a request to enlarge time for filing the substitution, that is, to extend the 90 days in the civil rules, the civil rules that the parties and judge were referring to, i.e., Rule 1.260. 

There, the judge shifted gears. Explaining that the extension of the period would not be determined using the rule Claimant's counsel sought, Fla. R. Civ. P. l .090(b). The judge, despite being in the midst of a curious foray into Rule 1.260, then explained that:

"Fla. R. Civ. P. l .090(b) is inapplicable in workers' compensation proceedings. In workers' compensation proceedings, extensions of applicable time frames are allowed under Rule 60Q-6. l l 5(5)."

This is a true statement. But, while in the midst of applying and enforcing one inapplicable Rule of Civil Procedure, 1.260, the conclusion to ignore a second one may seem troubling, curious, or at least interesting. 

The end result was essentially that because the 60Q rules did not afford extension of time, then the period in Rule 1.260 was controlling and essentially absolute. The substitution not being filed in 90 days was deemed fatal, the petitions dismissed, and the client disappointed. 

The result seems clear, perhaps, and yet questions remain. First, how can one civil procedure rule apply to foreclose a claim and yet another not apply to adjust the deadline? 

But, the more imperative question is likely who was the client? Like the old Abbot and Costello routine - 

Costello: Look, when you pay off the first baseman every month, who do you pay the money to?
Abbott: Every dollar of it
Costello: Yeah. Look, you gotta pay the money to somebody on first base, don't you?
Abbott: Yeah
Costello: Does he give you a receipt?
Abbott: Sure
Costello: How does he sign the receipt?
Abbott: Who
Costello: The guy that you give the money to
Abbott: Who
Costello: The guy you give the money to 

Who is the client? The person entitled to benefits is who? If the judge enters an order compelling payment of benefits, the name on the check is Who? (sic). The routine could go on for days.  

Who does the attorney represent? How can you tell? Look at the notice of appearance. See Who Represents this Party? (November 2014); Limited Appearance (May 2023); How to Transition Cases upon the Death of Counsel (December 2014); Amendments and Change (February 2025).

Hint - if the client dies, the lawyer does not represent them anymore. They might represent dependents (section 440.16), or might represent the estate (section 440.15 or 440.13), or could represent both unless there is some conflict. Many fail to see that there can easily be conflict in the section 440.16 setting with various dependents and their competing interests. 

How could a lawyer react when a client dies?

1. File a new notice of appearance on behalf of a dependent survivor or the estate, Rule 60Q6.104.
2. File a motion to substitute party, Rule 60Q6.115 ("Any request for an order or for other relief").

Either would likely get one in the door. Is one better than another? Is there a flaw or challenge with either? Questions for the judge, and perhaps for the arguments of the parties. Any reason a lawyer could not file both?

But in either event, the filing lawyer should represent the person(s) or entity that is seeking to be part of the litigation. That is, there should be an attorney/client relationship. That may seem axiomatic, but it confuses some. A few have continued on seeking benefits despite lacking a client (the client dies, you cannot represent a dead person). 

Years ago, there was an instance in which a lawyer filed a petition in a case on behalf of a man who was injured and who had been in a coma since the accident. When asked how that man had hired the attorney, the lawyer blithely admitted the worker, of course, had not. The worker's girlfriend had. 

What legal authority did the girlfriend have to hire an attorney? What legal authority does an unmarried friend have to convey? I shall never forget that attorney's confusion. The issue was well beyond their comprehension, and I have often wondered how the matter ever ended up. 

Nonetheless, the situation described here is challenging. The death of a worker has to be a difficult and emotional time, regardless of circumstances. The intricacies and challenges of a workers' compensation claim or litigation would naturally be a secondary concern at best in such a moment. But the decision in this matter reminds us that there is some sense of urgency in addressing the litigation. 

Clearly, the judge was correct "Fla.R.Civ.P. l .090(b) is inapplicable in workers' compensation proceedings," and it is as likely that Rule 1.260 is no more applicable. In those two conclusions, there is consistency. 

However, lawyers can make arguments. It is suggested that the better course is in the consistency of the path with Rule 60Q6.104 and Rule 60Q6.115. But can there be any harm in arguing Rule 1.260? Might the lawyer make a persuasive case for its application? Having provided multiple proposed paths, might the chances of prevailing be enhanced? 

But still, might the question of "Who" be better answered first?

Elephants, People, and Bears, Oh My!

I have written about bears a few times. My favorite is Winnie, Negativity, and your Inner Pooh (January 2017). And there is a great joke about two hikers and a bear. See It Can Happen to Everyone (July 2021). But, for the most part, I have remained quiet about the Bears in Paradise (sounds like a children's book, don't even think about it - copyright, judgelangham@yahoo.com, 2025).

Yes, we have had a bear issue here in Paradise for years. They are not invasive bears; their ancestors lived here long before the European settlers, and perhaps before the original immigrants walked over the land bridge, canoed in, or landed in their spacecraft (there remains debate as to how humankind first came to the Americas).

Nonetheless, here we are, and here are bears also (about 4,050 of them). Many to whom I speak at national events express incredulity when I mention bears. Everyone knows we have alligators, panthers, and snakes, but bears? Yes, Virginia, Florida has bears. I have found them on many a morning when walking. Some of them apparently live in condominiums. It turns out you cannot outrun a bear (see below), and thus the old hiker joke has some legs (so to speak).

It has become a safety issue recently. While many of us have interacted over the years, there have now been bear "attacks." One was near Naples, Florida, and resulted in a fatality. One was right here in Paradise and led to hospitalization. Both were in May, but hundreds of miles apart.

The state has coincidentally been discussing a bear hunt. If it occurs, it would be limited to about 187 bears (an oddly specific number, perhaps). This would be the first hunt in about 10 years. Despite the recent spate of violence, the idea is opposed by 75% to 92% of Floridians. Thus, there is a known safety issue, societal challenge, a debate, and as yet no consensus.

The great bear debate came back to me recently when the Associated Press published a fascinating article about animals interacting with people in Zimbabwe (once "Rhodesia" under British colonial rule). That country is challenged by the results of “conservation decisions" that have allowed a great expansion of the elephant population. The "population is estimated at around 100,000, nearly double the land’s capacity," and hunting them is forbidden for the most part.

Elephants can run up to 40 miles per hour (for short distances). The Black Bear here in Paradise can run about 30 miles per hour. The fastest human is about 24 miles per hour, and I am comfortable concluding that Mr. Bolt is substantially faster than I am. Despite his speed, Mr. Bolt could not outrun an elephant or a bear (for that matter, he could not outrun a Florida panther or alligator - 35MPH). These animals are all way faster than I am. When we look at each other, I see nature, and they perhaps see food. 

Back to Africa. The residents there have engaged technology in defense of their safety. They have placed GPS tags on some of the elephants (they often travel in groups, monitoring one may monitor many). The effort "aims to prevent dangerous encounters between people and elephants." Imagine an alert on your iPhone when danger lurks - a storm alert for lurking bears, gators, or panthers. 

An added challenge in Zimbabwe is that many do not have cell phones (I envy them). See Do You Have Nomophobia? (November 2014), They Should Open a Resort There (April 2013). I am not saying I dislike technology. I merely long for the slower pace that was possible and practical before information was instantaneous, constant, and persistently divisive. 

Believe it or not, the folks in Zimbabwe have appointed people to listen for the elephant alerts and provide a warning. They monitor their cell phones, and when a herd is coming, they literally "post() warnings in WhatsApp groups" and then "speed() off on (a) bicycle to inform nearby residents without phones or network access." Sounds a bit like Paul Revere? "The elephants are coming, the elephants are coming!"

Despite this process, some Zimbabweans "want() stronger action." They suggest an elephant hunt, "culling them." So, about 8,000 miles in between, and a completely distinct classification (not Kingdom, we are all part of Kingdom Animalia; same phylum, class, subclass. It is not until you get down to order that we are distinct: we are Order Primates, and elephants are Order Proboscidea, and bears are Order Carnivora). That last one is somewhat interesting. Carnivora eat meat. We are meat. Just saying.

I know, I know, what does this have to do with workers' compensation? Statler and Waldorf are on the balcony, shifting in their seats and preparing the tirade. Well, before they "grab their torches and pitchforks ...."

We see a coming tsunami of technology. There are advances being achieved daily with artificial intelligence and predictive analytics. The tech is integrating and ingratiating into the realms of worker medical care, financial anticipation, and benefit distribution. The market demands efficiency, and the participants are leveraging in search of comparative advantage. Any economist could explain this better than I can. 

But, like the distinctions between Zimbabwe and Florida, it is possible that there will be parallels in terms of threat and challenge (bears or elephants, hunts, conservation, etc.). And yet, there may remain instances in which the degree of technology access or implementation may be distinct, disparate, and discordant.

As challenges are discussed, some may have the opportunity to deploy (GPS on elephants), while that solution may be overlooked or eschewed with similar challenges (why not GPS on bears?). When tech is deployed, that may presuppose singularity, but may nonetheless require human cooperation (Paul Revere, so to speak). In short, tech may aid here and not there (or more precisely, there and not here), may stand alone or depend on humans, and may solve issues or merely ameliorate challenge severity.

The point is that imagination will continue to be engaged. Technology will be one path of improvement in the world of workers' compensation, and various jurisdictions, groups, and academics will react to challenges. Ideas will be floated, debates conducted, and solutions attempted. 

The world of workers' compensation (the "WWC," copyright 2025) will evolve through inspiration, trial, error, and further attempts. In the process, there will be progress, but there will also be many different views and perspectives, just as there is debate on the population of bears and elephants.

It also occurs to me that after several decades in this community, I have finally addressed the elephant in the room. Actually, factually, non-metaphorically addressed the elephant in the room. And it turns out it was a bear all along. Eureka!

Will the Heimlich be Required

The perils and promotions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) should not be news to anyone. If you find yourself asking what it is or why you should care, I have an index of AI posts on my website. The simple fact is that AI is evolving at an incredible pace. As with many other new technology advents and evolutions I have witnessed, the pace can be a bit challenging.

The news recently noted an English teacher who has "quit (the) profession" because of her AI frustration. She made a video about the perspectives and problems, and it drew "a million views on tick-tock," She complains that "technology (is) ruining education."

The teacher concludes that students are unmotivated to work on their English. They:

"do not know how to read because of read-aloud tools,"

"Have short attention spans because of the 'high stimulation"' of social media."

"(have) unlimited access in the classroom to use AI, (and are) not going to do the work themselves,"

"turn in essays written by ChatGPT."

It is fair to say that she is critical of the impacts and effects of technology. She also seems reasonably disenchanted with the motivation and comprehension of the students. This effect is far different from the warnings I have voiced on disuse atrophy.

Disuse atrophy threatens a degradation of our skills, our muscle memory, if we do not exercise our skills and knowledge. What this teacher describes is instead an avoidance of gaining skills and knowledge in the first instance.

That reminded me of an insult lobbed years ago in The Mighty Ducks (Walt Disney Pictures, 1992):

"You could have been one of the greats! And now look at yourself. You're not even a has-been. You're a never-was."

That is the difference in a nutshell. We now witness some perception of skipping and knowledge avoidance based on the evolving technology's ability to be all and end all for us.

Ultimately, the quoted teacher concludes that AI is ruining the educational experience.

Et tu, Brute? (Julius Caesar, Billy Shakespeare, 1599) Or - What's good for the Goose? The issue may look similar from another perspective. A student is suing a college for reimbursement of tuition, according to the New York Times. She alleges that the professor phoned it in rather than delivering value. The bottom line: she "discover(ed) (the) professor was secretly using AI tools to generate notes."

The professor did not deny that. In fact, the student figured it out because the professor "include(ed) a stray 'ChatGPT' citation tucked into the bibliography." The student notes that if she uses AI to complete assignments or papers, she would be punished. She claims that she is denied the engagement of these tools in the learning environment, and perceives hypocrisy in the professor using them.

Note to students, professors have been phoning it in for decades (that I know of). That ain't an AI thing, it is a professor thing. Before you instructors get your torch and pitchforks and head my way, know that it has never been a unanimous thing. There are a great many talented, engaging, committed, dedicated, overworked, and able professors. I have known them, watched them, and labored beside them.

But, there have always been a few who were less than prepared, committed, or helpful. I will never forget the one who showed up to a class after an obvious three-martini lunch. After some false starts and stumbles on the lecture, he finally slammed his book closed and proclaimed "class dismissed" after about 15 minutes.

Another came to class regularly in tennis attire (people used to wear special clothing for tennis). He would prop his racket against the podium and blithely inquire, "Where were we?" Without the A-students to start the conversation, the poor guy would have been utterly lost. Not because he did not know the material, but because he could not have cared less. He proudly described his tenure protection to us one day. 

The student's view of hypocrisy is nonetheless worthy of consideration. Well, to some extent. I have had many experiences in school and work that included the old admonition "do as I say, not as I do." There is the foundational point that the student is "doing" to learn, and the professor is conveying knowledge. 

Does it matter if the professor pulled a salient point from AI or from a book or newspaper? Is it fundamentally different? Is there a difference between pulling a salient point and merely copying everything for class from some book or newspaper? Is it the act, the extent, or the transparency?

But, what of the cost?

Years ago, there was a tragic incident in which a college student was striving to jump from one balcony to another. He did not make it and fell nine stories to his death. Many in Florida were discussing it.

A few years later, that incident came up in a conversation at the Florida Workers' Compensation Institute. One of the conversants, my friend Jack Langdon, loudly inquired: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $100.00?" I demurred. The conversation moved on, drinks were served, and eventually he loudly asked: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $1,000,000.00?"

I admittedly paused. That was a lot of money in my youth. As I was calculating the distance, drag coefficient, landing, etc., Jack loudly proclaimed: "Well, now we all know you are a fool, we are just haggling over price." That brought down the house. I never did get either the $100 or the chance to actually make the decisions. Thank goodness for that.

But, what of the cost?

A big element in the student's complaint is that she paid "just over $8,000" for this class (that seems steep?). Best Colleges says the cost per credit hour might "range from $120 to over $1,200." But a 3-hour course at $8,000 would be $2,666 per hour. Is it possible colleges really charge that for a class that is not taught by Beyonce Knowles or John Legend?

Nonetheless, it illustrates a point to ponder. If a customer pays a price for ________ (a drawing, a balcony jump, a brief, complaint, or request to produce), does it matter whether the producer actually produces?

If I pay a plumber for a sink repair, does it matter if they delegate the job to an apprentice?

If I pay a lawyer to draft a will, does it matter if they delegate the job to a paralegal?

If I pay an instructor to teach me business, does it matter if they prepare and participate or if they just flip to the answers in the back of the teacher's manual?

I mentioned above that non-participating instructors are not new. I had a professor in college who gave the same test every semester and everyone knew it. The equations never changed, only a few numbers. I had another who was so consistent that students blithely shared a set of notes named in the professor's honor, its title was her name and you could literally follow her lectures word for word in the "Sally book" (name changed to protect the slothful). 

The college in this latest instance, Northeastern University, "ultimately decided to reject the senior's claim." There is some seeming acknowledgement that transparency is in order, but there will apparently be no refund. The only apology from the instructor is apparently regret at being caught. He goes on to explain in the Times article how he did nothing inappropriate. 

Thus, is it OK to have the apprentice, paralegal, or AI do the work if that is disclosed? 

Does the level of experience matter? Does the position matter? Paraphrasing Chicago (Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?, Columbia, 1969)

does anybody really know what value is?

(Care) does anybody really care?

(About value) you know, I can't imagine why

(Oh no, no) we've all got time enough to cry

Well, Northeastern may say nay, and perhaps others would too. But for the purposes of this blog, there is a focus on the law, the lawyer, and the challenges and responsibilities of professional conduct. In that regard, cautions on AI found in the American Bar Association (a voluntary lawyer trade group) Ethics Guidance may be a worthwhile read. There is also The Florida Bar Ethics opinion, and various instructive articles like Florida Bar Ethics Opinion OKs Lawyers’ Use Of Generative AI, But With Cautions.

It seems reasonably clear that lawyers cannot delegate responsibility to a paralegal, law clerk, or AI, but they might ethically delegate a task. There are seemingly answers on how that delegation might be billed, and a suggestion that transparency may be the critical point. 

Is the customer entitled to know who is doing the work? Is the customer entitled to know that the work only required "x" minutes to complete, and "Y" minutes to review and approve? Or is it ethical for the lawyer to bill the time "it would have required?" Does such an entitlement to transparency extend to third parties who are eventually asked to pay the lawyer's bills?

There is much to digest, and that will require some chewing. It is hoped that in the process, few if any will end up choking. That said, there seem to be some important considerations and potential perils worth the time to think through, for both the plumber, the plumber's assistant, and the customer. 

Are we being good customers? Are we being good service providers? Are we being transparent? Are we being professional? Will the Heimlich be required for us as we chew through to find the answer?