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?

Crowd Wisdom

This blog has focused on the challenge presented by evaluation of large data sets and questions that evade scientific analysis. Adapting to the conclusion that science alone cannot answer some inquiries, the Rand Corporation pioneered the Delphi Method of consensus building. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021).

There have also been those who criticize group dynamics. George Carlin (1937-2008) is perhaps the most memorable with "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” A similar sentiment is expressed by Agent K: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Men In Black (Sony 1997).

Nonetheless, there are benefits from group analysis, collaborative or not. The Delphi example is one, but is dependent on the participants possessing expertise that is brought to bear on the challenge. What of the common man?

In the 19th century, a polymath named Francis Galton stumbled on a mathematical proof for estimating, called The Wisdom of Crowds. The legend of this method holds that Galton witnessed a contest in which people strove to guess the weight of a cow. None of them was correct, but he noted the average of their individual guesses was surprisingly close to the bovine's weight.

The method has come into repute and therefore use in estimating populations. The concept came to my attention with study of the amazing volume of theft and vandalism in a lovely city, Amsterdam. The place is famous for canals, dope, and Anne Frank. A municipality might gain fame in various paths.

Some might instead associate Amsterdam with canals. The town's fame in that regard has been reinforced with various movies. It is among the most famed canal cities, along with Venice, Italy. Few realize that neither has the “most” canals, a superlative reserved for unassuming Cape Coral, Florida. I have visited each of these three, and there are arguments for each. But if you may visit only one, Amsterdam is a good choice.

It is a city of canals, but also of bicycles. Getting around town is largely a pedal-endeavor. The tool is so popular, they believe the cycles outnumber people there: "Amsterdam has 780,559 inhabitants, who together have an estimated 881,000 bikes." Many of those end up in the canals each year.

The bikes that go swimming are not estimated. The city counts those as they are perennially dredged from the famous waterways. They call the task "Bicycle fishing," and the city claims that "Every year we fish up between 12,000 and 15,000 bicycles."

In this there is illustrated two methods of measure. First the "fished" cycles. Those are quantified based on results. The canals are dredged, cycles and more are recovered, and the cycles are counted. The number is neither estimate or guess. This is a valid method of quantification.

The second is the 881,000 volume of velocipedes. That is a great many bikes. They are not licensed as is common with automobiles and trucks. If they were, then the registration process would yield a significantly accurate quantity (a few might not be registered due to minimal use, as occurs with cars).

Thus, for the quantification, Amsterdam is said to have turned to the Wisdom of the Crowd. The description provided by Amsterdam’s Statistics Bureau, however, also suggests departure from the pure crowd, noting their conclusion is "the average derived from the guesses of a selection of experts." Thus, some suggestion of deviation toward a Delphi model and away from pure "crowd."

Some might argue with the validity of the crowd. Galton's conclusions regarding the famed bovine were, after all, subject to empirical confirmation. The Fair folks knew what the cow's actual weight was. The guesses of the crowd there could be compared to an objective, measurable, known outcome and accuracy measured. 

Others might forgive this absence of objectivity. They might note the accuracy of the "guesses" perhaps implicates neither benefit or harm. In the end, what relevance is there to knowing how many cycles exist in Amsterdam (other than perhaps predicting the need for racks to which they can be locked)? 

That argument would hinge on relevance, a topic purportedly espoused famously by Einstein:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

The Quote Investigator seems less than convinced of the provenance, but the point remains regarding what "counts." Presumably, no one would expend resources unless something "counts." On that broad assumption or conclusion, it is logical that the accuracy of the count would therefore be important also. 

To what end the crowd, Delphi, or guessing?  Intriguing indeed.  

Physician Shortage

There is ample discussion of both the current physician shortage and the predictions of future shortfall, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The most imperative element of workers' compensation is medical care. The indemnity is critical, but is dependent on the medical care and provider opinions. Comp needs doctors, period, hard stop. 

The Florida Supreme Court has concluded that attorney fees are the most imperative, somehow secondary to medical or indemnity, but that seems difficult to rationalize. It held "a reasonable attorney's fee has always been the linchpin." Castellanos v. Next Door Company, 192 So. 3d 431, 448-449 (Fla. 2016). That conclusion has drawn some criticism. No worker who was ever injured has ever gasped, "Call an ambulance, get me to a lawyer." 

Shortage of physicians is thus worthy of our attention. Some may find comfort in a more empirical representation of the shortage predictions. Currently, there are many physicians in the U.S., according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which says there are:

"1,010,892 active physicians of which 851,282 were direct patient care physicians, corresponding to 302 and 254 physicians per 100,000 population, respectively."

Those figures are difficult to duplicate using the current U.S. population, 342,065,749. Using that figure, the "1,010,892 active physicians" and "851,282 ... direct patient care" this morning equates to 286 and 249 per 100,000, respectively. Some will say I'm quibbling; others will note that the population increases each moment, both generally and of physicians. These are all moving targets. 

There is not geographic parity today, with "states in the northeast" exhibiting the higher populations of both care physicians and the broader "active" total. The shortage discussion is not something excluding the northeast, but is more acute or concerning in rural spaces.

How many doctors does America "need? That seems a more flexible analysis, subject to various perspectives and input.

The AAMC postulates that we face a "shortage" of 86,000 physicians by 2036. In ten years, they predict that this deficit is probable. Their reporting does not estimate how many doctors will be practicing in 2036, but only that there will be this shortage. The AAMC prediction sounds dire, but other organizations predict a shortage of nearly double the AAMC predictions.

Two postulates might anchor such a conclusion. First, that there will be only 924,892 (1,010,892-86,000) physicians practicing by that time (actual physician population decrease). Or that the current production and replacement will be sufficient to maintain the 1,010,892 but that it will be overrun by population growth (percentage loss of population per 100,000).

The population in 2036 is predicted to be 364,731,659. To maintain the volumes today, "302 and 254" or "286 and 249" respectively, would require a net gain in physician population by 2036 of about 66,000 physicians to an overall population of 1,077,000. This is an increase of about 7% (66,000/1,010,892).

That does not seem insurmountable. With population growth of 6.6% (364,731,659-342,065,749/342,065,749), matching a similar growth rate in physicians should not be challenging. Furthermore, with technology evolving in ways that both empower and force-multiply physicians, the potential may be that such increases in physician population are not only unnecessary but disadvantageous to the medical market generally (macro) and physicians (micro).

In the same vein as technology are the para-medical professions that have been aligning for years. Physician Assistants have flourished in the 21st century. In the last decade alone, "The number of board-certified physician assistants increased by 76.1 percent," according to the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA). That growth far outpaces population growth.

Similarly, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners notes that their profession has grown exponentially since it began 60 years ago. That association has reported annual growth rates exceeding 8%. That is an annual growth, compared to the 6.6% overall predicted population increase over the next decade.

Despite these increases in technology, Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners, American medical schools continue to graduate significant numbers of physicians annually. The "match" is a process through which medical school graduates enter residency programs. See Bid Day (April 2025). The program in 2025 was the "Biggest Match Day ever." In 2025:

"43,237 total positions (were) offered—up 4.2% over 2024. There were 1,734 more certified positions offered this year compared with last year, 231 more certified programs, and 877 more positions in primary care."

The volume of positions for residency increased by 4.2% in one year. Again, compared to the 6.6% overall predicted population increase over the next decade. This is notable from the perspective of percentage change.

However, these numbers also bear consideration of career arc and longevity. If this trust-dependent process introduces 43,237 new physicians annually, then the 1,010,892 total physicians in the marketplace are replaced every 23.4 years. (1,010,892/43,237). Stated differently, the current output should replenish the current physician population easily within a 30-year career arc.

In fact, that same production level should easily replace the population-adjusted need, 1,077,000, every 25 years. This is likewise comfortably within the 30-year career arc.

Despite this, there is persistent discussion of "shortage," and at significant numbers. The AAMC projected shortage is of concern for the market (macro), certain specialties such as primary care (micro), and more dire impacts for the rural environment subset (micro).

Thus, despite the math above, the AAMC recently applauded a legislative measure to create 14,000 more residency positions. Not born of market demand, but to be supported by Medicare (at least in part). These new positions would phase in over 7 years.

For the sake of argument, that might increase the annual figures into the future like this

The proposal is to increase the residency opportunities by 32% over seven years. The result would seemingly be to increase the volume of physicians in the US. In the next dozen years, this would presumably add 644,844 physicians to the marketplace. That is 64%, almost two-thirds, of the current U.S. physician population. Can the market really sustain that volume of supply?

Will those doctors enter the rural markets, serve the underserved, and solve the purported crisis driver - primary care? Or will these added positions train more specialists, for greater concentration in the same regions that enjoy supply advantages today?

Or is this whole analysis ignoring something? Is the unregulated monopoly that controls physician residency currently really producing 43,237 new U.S. physicians annually? Or are there portions of that total, and the proposed increase, that enjoy the experience, expertise, and training here and then relocate elsewhere in the world to practice medicine?

The Associated Press recently noted that:

"Hospitals in the U.S. are without essential staff because international doctors who were set to start their medical training this week were delayed by ... travel and visa restrictions."

This suggests that some of those coveted residency positions in U.S. hospitals provided opportunities to visitors from other nations. The article is clear that the volume is not known. Would those individuals be likely to remain in the U.S. following residency and add to the nation's physician population? If not, how many of the 42,237 do stay and practice here? How many in primary care, in rural America?

These points all raise important issues. Is there a shortage in gross terms (macro), or are there shortages in certain specialties (micro) or geographies (micro)? Is the path forward one of continued monopolization of residency participation and opportunity, or would a system with more free-market responsiveness more readily impact supply and demand?

The largest organization of physicians, the AMA, supports that there is indeed a shortage. It has issued an "all hands on deck" call to arms regarding the present and our present path. The actuality of micro and macro impacts and challenges deserves credible, calculated, and empirical study.

This may include analysis of if and why there are leaks in the system - early retirements, departures to other markets, etc. Is the market healthy in both recruitment and retention? This may include why and how services are compensated, and what adjustments might enhance physician attraction and retention in the challenged specialties and locations.

In the end, the questions remain numerous and complex. The challenge will be to quantify those questions, prioritize responses, and facilitate effective and efficient markets for the delivery of medical care, recruitment and retention of practitioners, and appropriate access to care in both local and regional perspectives.

The questions are varied, complex, and vexing. That is no reason not to answer them. As for workers' compensation, the physicians are needed here as much or more than elsewhere. While attorney fees may be "the" lynchpin, many injured workers will need to see a physician instead. 

Better look that up

I recently ran into Horace Middlemier*, Dean of a prestigious educational institution. The discussion was free-flowing and touched on multiple topics. But, as is normal this century, we turned to artificial intelligence (AI). The dean noted a recent example of a local lawyer being sanctioned for filing false information with a court.

Those were once newsworthy but have perhaps become commonplace or mundane. For a link to a database of the growing list of poor-performing lawyers, see Prosecuted for lying? (June 2025) and Another one rides the bus (May 2025). A complete list of my AI posts is on my website.

The dean expressed exasperation regarding the speed at which writing has declined in the last 24 months. Few are writing, and fewer still are writing well. The idea of a term paper in class has reportedly become anathema among some educators. They cannot deal with the various challenges that AI presents.

I have since had the chance to discuss these concerns with various educators. The spectrum was clarified for me rapidly. I have been an educator for many years, and am approaching 60 semester classes delivered. Through that time, I have leaned toward tests, quizzes, and homework rather than papers. When I did venture into papers, there were issues of plagiarism and collaboration that were challenging.

What do the instructors face?

First, there is the grading. Tests can be processed through a grading machine in many instances. Even if the test is an essay test, the length of the answers can be limited. Term papers of 15 or 20 pages may simply equate to several evenings of difficult grading.

Subjectivity is a second point. Tests with definitive correct answers are easier to grade than essays and short answers. The subjectivity factor can make grading short answers and essays difficult, and there is the same concern with term papers.

There has always been the nagging concern about plagiarism. This is a suspicion that may be driven by papers that are notably articulate, inspired, and insightful. That is ironic, but it is what I am told. There may be some tendency to look at the quality of one with a comparative eye to another(s). 

That plagiarism concern might be addressed with sophisticated software, and I have heard professors say they merely paste portions of the paper into a Google search—too often there is some poetic license that is readily apparent.

But in the era of AI, there is also detector software. They are no more perfect than the AI that writes the papers. Imagine AI hunting for AI, it is Skynet versus Skynet. See Arms Race (May 2024). I saw that one coming. There are challenges. If an AI detector presents an analysis of some percentage of non-human contribution, how accurate is that prediction or conclusion? Can the instructor even count on a positive being a real positive?

Some have concluded that any AI detector is "an ethical minefield." That article points out the risk of false positives. There are citations to claims from various providers as to the infrequency of false positives. Those sound promising, with only 1%, perhaps. But what if you are the one who is accused of being in the 1%? What if you are the professor striving to defend your grading conclusions and defend such a tool?

I know, I know, the old men in the balcony are grumbling already, "what does this have to do with workers' compensation?"

Well, there is no difference in grading term papers and assessing written arguments, briefs, or memoranda of law. And that is what judges spend a great many hours doing (the prevalence of poor spelling, missing punctuation, and questionable grammar is similar in both settings). There should be some relief for judges in not having to assign a grade, but not necessarily.

There are abundant examples of lawyers citing fake, hallucinated authorities. They are usually noted by opposing counsel, and then trouble ensues, arguments are made, and orders entered. 

Judges should be able to count on four things:

1. Honesty in fact of the lawyers in any proceeding
2. Lawyers carefully checking their own authorities and verifying they are real (actual statutes or cases) and accurate (say what you say they say).
3. Opposing counsel checking their opponent's citations and pointing out errors (in number 2, i.e., "that case does not exist," or "that statute does not say that").
4. That there will be errors, shortcomings, and interpretations (we are only human).

 ** Appellate courts should be able to count on all these and that trial judges are carefully checking what they rely on, from whatever source. 

That fourth one is critical. The trial judge has to retrieve those cited authorities, read them, and form their own conclusions (subjectivity, see above). The judge is ultimately responsible. The judge better look that up. The judge is studying what the parties bring, doing their own research, and striving to get the outcome right. Day in and day out, the judge must be studying, reading, and verifying.

J.D. Supra reported last week that an appellate court in Georgia had to vacate a trial judge's order. The trial judge cited fabricated cases that were (apparently) hallucinated by an AI and cited in pleadings (at a minimum, they were not real and could have been created without an AI). The opposing counsel apparently did not bother to verify or contest them at trial, and the trial court relied on the falsehood. See Shahid v. Esaam, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 299 *; 2025 LX 214277. 

The appellate court reportedly sanctioned the lawyer who originated the hallucinations. In a twist some might find ironic, that lawyer apparently was not awarded fees. The court noted, "Appellee's Brief further adds insult to injury by requesting 'Attorney's Fees on Appeal' and supports this 'request' with one of the new hallucinated cases." For some reason, Hamlet (Billy Shakespeare, 1599) and some petard come to mind. 

Thus ends the fallacy of reliance; see numbers 2 and 3, above. The judge cannot count on the lawyers to check their own work and avoid hallucination. The judge cannot count on the opposing party(ies) to check their opponents. Those halcyon days, it seems, are gone. 

The age of "IDK" and "IDC" has perhaps come indeed. See Ignorance and Ambivalence (July 2025). Unfortunately, this example reveals that perhaps the appellate court cannot rely upon the trial judge either.

        Courtesy Charles Schultz.

There has been talk of AI detectors for legal practitioners and judges (remember the "false positive" mentioned above?). There has been talk of making lawyers certify whether their pleading was prepared using AI. Would a certification cause lawyers to go back and verify, to look it up? Would we require judges to similarly certify? 

There is the reported practice of clients declining to pay attorneys for the seemingly mundane task of legal research ("you should know the law"). Lawyers tell me they do not check the opponent's authority because "the client won't pay for that either." In a world of litigation, with cases being decided daily, how could anyone "know the law" with certainty, thoroughness, and confidence?

Where does the fault lie? Where is the "holy grail" solution? Every lawyer and judge should be looking up the case law and statutes. 

Back to Dean Middlemier, who led this post. The most poignant observation that educator made was in their reaction to various damning news stories of lackluster attorneys (now judges). The dean said their first reaction is to check the education of each malefactor in such stories. The Dean's singular desire is to verify that that particular lawyer (now judges) did not graduate from the dean's school.

I am not faulting Dean Middlemier. I get it. How embarrassing if your graduate is the one hallucinating or relying on them. Imagine if it's your partner, associate, or fellow judge?

But the concerns of AI in the legal practice are deeper. "IDK" and "IDC" are seemingly becoming commonplace. The very future of the profession, the legal system, and ultimately society lies prostrate before us on the road, wounded, perhaps gravely. How shall the community respond? What aid? What remediation?

Should we just drive around it and pretend not to see? Should we try to help it up? Is there anyone we could call to its aid?

The Shahid decision identifies only the husband's counsel by name, Diana Lynch. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals website says the trial judge was Hon. Yolanda C. Parker-Smith (who has apparently been on the bench less than 6 months), and counsel for the appellant was Mr. Vic Brown Hill (who may or may not have been involved at the trial level). 

Note to Dean Middlemier, it appears none of these attended your school. But that does not mean another dean or two, law firm owner, or a client elsewhere might not be SMH right about now. 

Ed. Note - Horace Middlemier is not a real person but a figment of the author's imagination and experience; a literary tool or foil. Any resemblance to a real person is strictly coincidental and unintended.