First Amendment

I have spent many hours studying the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. It is a fascinating document full of cautions, prohibitions, and implications. Through various statutory amendments over the years, the Legislature has applied its terms to the Judges of Compensation Claims (JCC), see sections 440.442 and 440.45, Fla. Stat.

In the administrative realm, the Code might serve as the basis for a complaint against a JCC and be examined by the Division of Administrative Hearings. But, in the constitutional courts, allegations or complaints are investigated by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), a constitutionally independent commission comprised of judges appointed by judges, lawyers appointed by The Florida Bar, and laypersons appointed by the Governor. Fla. Const. Article V., section 12.

I have spoken with many who mistakenly believed the JQC to be an arm of the Florida Supreme Court. Though its constitutional authority is within Article V., its membership and function are separate from the courts, per se. Ultimately, any complaint that the JQC pursues is heard by the Supreme Court, and the independence of each is therefore critical. 

There are various complaints each year, and the published opinions periodically grace these pages. Eventually, I will perhaps finish my tome on the Code and its implications for judges. But if you are interested in the history of the code, there is a video on YouTube. The history of the Code is intriguing and strange. 

The Code, the JQC, and the implications came back to me recently when a news article hit my feed. Channel 6 South Florida noted that the JQC had concluded an "appellate court judge 'demeaned' her judicial office." That is a headline you don't readily anticipate. The allegations are about as far from Paradise as you can get while still in Florida (Miami), but are interesting nonetheless.

The facts surround a criminal prosecution years ago and a prosecutor who progressed from that occupation to trial judge and eventually the Third District Court of Appeal (3DCA).  The story of that prosecution reads like some Hollywood thriller with allegations of conspiracy, intrigue, murder, coercion, threats, and more. The case she had prosecuted was recently returned to the trial court by the Florida Supreme Court to readdress some issues.

That led to questions about the prosecution years ago, and therefore questions for the former prosecutor, now appellate judge. It is fair to say that the circumstances of that prosecution, the challenges, tragedies, and trepidations, are all interesting in their own right; still, the intricacies of engaging this judge as a witness were a significant feature. 

The current State Attorney was on a first-name basis with the judge and texted her on her personal phone. Thereafter, there were various text messages, which ended up in the news and in the hands of the JQC. Some were focused on the mechanics of testifying, but some expressed perceptions, thoughts, or conclusions. 

The JQC conclusions here were not about the 3DCA judge's testimony in those recent court proceedings. They are not really centered on the 3DCA judge's judicial duties, as the judges of that court recused themselves when the matter returned to them. 

The conclusions are instead centered on the text messages between the 3DCA judge and the State Attorney's office. The judge contends they were private communications, on her time and on her personal phone. The JQC seems to see little pertinence to that distinction.  

The JQC Notice of Formal Charges is 22 pages and concludes with multiple charges. These include failing to observe the high standards of conduct necessary to the integrity of the judiciary, failure to demonstrate respect and compliance with the law, making comments that "might substantially interfere with a fair trial," and various concerns with impartiality, demeaning the office, interference with other judges, and the potential for disqualification.

The Judge's response is actually a motion to dismiss and for other relief. It is broad and about twice as long as the Notice. It includes extensive allegations about the JQC Notice, criticisms or rebuttals of specific paragraphs and charges, and citations to various precedents and conclusions. Among these is a challenge based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the contention that judges have the right to freedom of expression. 

Every lawyer would love to make constitutional arguments. There is a draw to the foundational and elemental role of that document in America and her judicial history. The Judge's response pulls in the thoughts of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and quotes from Justices Black, Cantero (FL), Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas (no primacy is inferred in this alphabetical listing). 

The arguments are, as to be expected, advocacy. There is much to consider in both Notice and Response/Motion. As the Court examines these allegations, it will be intriguing to explore its determinations of the applicability and pervasiveness of the First Amendment. The underlying theme of each is interesting reading. 

The outcome will potentially be of interest to all who serve under the umbrella of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in Florida and beyond. To what extent does the judge yield freedom upon taking the oath?

"Because they are Hard"

In 1962, Kennedy said

"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the lunar surface. The world changed. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "we all enjoy many benefits that resulted from the scientific investment and endeavors." Nonetheless, the role of NASA has diminished in recent years and private companies now conduct most American space launches.

From its era of engagement, the Mercury, Apollo, and shuttle programs, NASA claims credit for a variety of enhancements to our modern lives, a mere 50 years post Apollo. These range

"from solar panels to implantable heart monitors, from cancer therapy to lightweight materials, and from water‐purification systems to improved computing systems and to a global search‐and‐rescue system."

When I was a kid, they also pushed things like the advent of powdered drinks, such as Tang, dehydrated food, and more as products of the space program. That affiliation and astronaut idolization did not hurt sales of such products, but NASA did not invent them. 

For a generation of Americans, NASA is nonetheless synonymous with progress. There have been many astronauts and mission specialists who leveraged their relationship with the program into commercial success, along with the various products and processes noted above. 

This all came to mind this week when the Associated Press (AP) reported that the President has signed another executive order; this one ordering collaboration on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The project will be "called Genesis Mission" with a goal of "boost(ing) scientific discoveries." He has likened it to the moon mission, and some see a parallel in the audacious nature of that goal, time, and spirit.  

That said, there will be those who do not see the parallel. The moon is a rather patent and persistent part of our life. A goal directed at it, leveraging it, is a bit more easily visualized than AI. 

Essentially, however, this executive order is a government buy-in for AI. The resources and expertise already in government service will "combine efforts with tech companies and universities to convert government data into scientific discoveries." 

The fact is, the government already has a great volume of computing capacity. More is on the way. See Singularity (March 2025). But while we wait on the quantum chips and the astounding predicted increase in speed and capacity, the government already has some of the fastest and most agile computers available. 

The government has been a longtime investor. There are literally thousands of college professors who have subsisted and thrived on the revenue streams of government grants. They have premises, processes, equipment, time, and more; much of that, you already paid for. 

This order sets the agenda for collaboration between free market innovators (who may have or want government contracts), government resources (already working and building), and academic intellect (that has enjoyed the flow of tax and grant dollars). This may not be the combination "most likely to" develop the next "it" game or app, but it may be the ideal collaboration for building a foundation for the developers to construct the next big thing(s). 

The focus will be on solving "engineering, energy and national security problems, including streamlining the nation’s electric grid." The point will be identifying challenges and collaborating to work us through, over, or around them. This could impact a variety of endeavors, industries, and interests.

Like the space program effect in the 1960s, this could see the advent of new technology to fill needs, the adaptation of existing technology, or more imaginative implementation or deployment of existing devices, products, or processes.

There is anticipation that tech in general, and AI specifically, will drive the evolution of the U.S. economy. This will bring direct change in the evolution and deployment of AI. However, there will be leverage impacts in a spectrum of industries, vocations, and professions.

Some will say that comparing the present to the challenge of the space program is an embellishment. However, if anything, AI and robotics will be a much bigger revolution than any we have seen. The impacts of today and tomorrow will literally dwarf the space program and its impacts.

We will do it "not because they are easy" or hard, but because the collective motivation of market capitalism demands and rewards efficiency and efficacy. AI and robotics will deliver both in volumes and impact never seen before. And you will have the choice to sit on the curb and watch this parade, or to get up and join in. 

Shoot the Lawyers?

Most people believe that Billy Shakespeare did not care much for lawyers. In Henry VI (1590), a butcher utters the phrase “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Many have used the phrase to infer the author's distaste, but scholars contend this is actually

"a complicated phrase that (somehow always) refers to the importance of maintaining a fair rule of law that protects the people."

You can read Henry VI yourself and make your own assessments of the statement, the butcher character, and Shakespeare's intended message. There is much in the world of literature, and whether Billy wrote this one or not, Henry VI is a good read.

Back in 2023 a Judge in rural Florida (Wakula County) was honored by the American Judges Association for "judicial courage," and in the same news release, he was recognized as honored by the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) as the 2022 Trial Judge of the Year. This is impressive, only more so for a judge on the bench since 2020.

Fast forward a couple of years, and in 2025, the same judge "recuses himself (and) apologizes" following comments in a proceeding. There, apparently, two siblings were litigating ("feuding") about their mother's estate. The judge reportedly told "lawyers in his courtroom ... that he wanted the deputy to 'pull his gun and shoot' them" (the lawyers). No reference was apparently made to Billy or Henry.

This is not the first judge to be frustrated with litigants or lawyers. One had a "feud" with an attorney's office. See What did I just Say? (January 2019). Another had the public defender handcuffed. Judge Handcuffs Attorney (August 2016). And yet another challenged a lawyer to a fight. See A Recap and Result of the Judicial Viral Video of 2014 (January 2016). Yes, there have been a few irritated or aggravated judges over the years. 

A summary of the most recent incident, provided by The Florida Bar News, said that the judge's apology for his comments was "rare," and that he "recused himself from several cases" after his comments. The story misstates that the lawyers "asked ... (the judge) to recuse himself." Though it is too often referred to as "recusal," when such a request is made, it is legally a motion for "disqualification." 

Don't feel bad if you cannot remember the distinction between those. Many judges of extensive tenure either cannot understand the distinction or simply choose to ignore it. 

If you have never been to Wakulla County, it is south of Tallahassee, Florida. If it were not idyllic enough, there is a town there actually called "Panacea." What could be more comely than that? That said, what would drive a judge in such a nice place to such frustration, agitation, or exasperation?

There is stress in litigation. Lawyers know it, parties show it, and too many are too quick to forget that it impacts the judiciary as well. Stress is not uniform in its depth or import, but it is universal in litigation. The very definition of litigation is disagreement. The rules of The Florida Bar (Rule 4-1.3, and Preamble) justify "zeal" and "zealousness." The lawyers each come to win.  Their individual drive creates pressure.

Everyone involved is experiencing pressures in the litigation, and whether you want to admit it or not, we all experience stress in our day-to-day. That is, as they say, what it is. There are deadlines, there are trips, and even falls, mistakes, misstatements, and challenges. To paraphrase an old saw: "dying is easy, litigation is hard." 

Stress affects us all. We are all human. This exemplary judge has stumbled. Exemplary? Note that the judge has published articles in various publications such as the Wakulla News, Tallahassee Reports, and Capitol Outlook. His biography in those lists him as "a bestselling author and public speaker. He serves as the Circuit Judge for Wakulla County, Florida." 

Exemplary indeed. This is a public servant. An exemplar. And yet, on a given day with various stresses, he said an untoward and unfortunate thing. He then regrouped, led with an apology (always a good start), and afforded the affected parties relief through recusal (another good move). You will trip periodically; follow his example.

No, we shan't "kill all the lawyers," or threaten them, cuff them, or challenge them to fights. We shall, instead, maintain our best composure, take breaks when needed, and strive to be our best while recognizing we are human, imperfect, and challenged. We will make every effort to be cordial, correct, and consistent.

Despite that, we will fail periodically, no matter how good we are or how hard we try. Let us each strive then to remediate, and grant us the individual strength to grant ourselves grace to accept our humanity, to get up, and to begin again. The parties and lawyers deserve that, and the rest of us both expect and respect that. 

Let's not "kill all the lawyers," and let's not beat ourselves up for being human. 

A Slow Process

In Then Arrested (January 2021), I noted former attorney Bradley Douglas. He had been the focus of earlier complaints that were discussed in A Disciplined Attorney and Repercussions (September 2018). The approximately three-year delay between disbarment and arrest was reasonably apparent.

In that instance, the Florida Supreme Court had granted Mr. Douglas' "petition for disciplinary revocation" in SC18-709 on June 7, 2018. The petition itself describes the charges that were then pending. Essentially, these were each instances in which a workers' compensation case settled and the resulting funds were not paid to the injured worker.

After those various Florida Bar complaints in 2018, Mr. Douglas was disbarred within the year. It was almost three years later that criminal charges were brought, as noted in Then Arrested.

I noted there that the described situation "would be lamentable and troublesome if it were isolated." And that post then documents other instances of allegations of people taking others' money.

In August 2022, I returned to the topic of a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation (August 2022). This instance involved Gus Vincent Soto, who had practiced in workers' compensation as long as I can remember (admitted to The Florida Bar in 1984). He had been Board Certified since 1991. He was known in the community as a bright attorney.

Mr. Soto had then been issued a "Petition for Contempt" for failing to respond to Bar inquiries. A subpoena had been issued on December 9, 2021, and the Bar petitioned for contempt in late February 2022. The Supreme Court granted that on May 16, 2022, and suspended Mr. Soto from practicing law.

Mr. Soto filed a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation rapidly, dated April 19, 2022. This noted multiple pending cases before a bar Greivance Committee, and more in the Bar investigative process.

Mr. Soto's petition agreed to an audit of his accounts, to provide a sworn financial statement to the Bar, and to "eliminate all indicia of petitioner's status as an attorney on:

on social media, telephone listings, stationery, checks, business cards, office signs, or any other indicia of his status as an attorney, whatsoever, as soon as reasonably possible and circumstances would permit. Petitioner will no longer hold himself out as a licensed attorney.

On June 16, 2022, The Florida Supreme Court granted the petition, case number SC22-505. The main distinction between this petition and Mr. Douglas' was that Mr. Douglas left open the option of later reapplying to be an attorney again. Mr. Soto did not, and the Court therefore noted "his revocation is permanent."

The Court's order says Mr. Soto "shall pay restitution" of $396,931 to various individuals. The story faded into history. More than three years later, WCTV Tallahassee reported recently, "Disbarred Tallahassee attorney arrested for allegedly stealing worker’s comp check from client." It has been well over three years since the June 2022 disbarment and restitution order.

The story proceeds to say that Mr. Soto was "arrested for allegedly stealing from one of his clients." This instance identifies a "$45,000 workers' compensation settlement," and an allegation that the client's name was "forged" on a settlement check in 2021. Allegedly, this client inquired about the funds recently, "not knowing that (Mr.) Soto had been disbarred in 2022." 

The WCTV story mentions the accusations "of not paying nearly $400,000 to five other clients." It is not clear, however, whether those funds have now all been repaid as the Court ordered, or whether those allegations are included in the current criminal allegations. It is also not clear whether efforts have been made to remove public references and social media suggesting Mr. Soto is an attorney. 

Today, a simple internet search returned multiple news references to Mr. Soto's challenges described above. But, it also returned multiple references to Mr. Soto's law practice without any notation of its closure. Only one, Avvo, noted a suggestion of questions: "this lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2023." No mention of disbarment or no longer being licensed.

(See images below, printed November 23, 2025, from Avvo, Findlaw, Google, Jacobs and Whitehall, Law Call, Lawayer.com, Lawyer Legion, lawyer.com, lawyers.com, LinkedIn, Martindale Hubbell, and even the Yellow Pages).

In fact, Martindale Hubbell describes Mr. Soto as "distinguished" in its listing. The "distinguished" icon in his listing says "2025." Martindale has been discussed here before, see Reproval for AV-Preeminent Lawyer (December 2023). 

The point of all of this is rather simple. If you settle your workers' compensation case, you should receive the funds reasonably quickly. When you get the money, you should receive a document that describes how much you are getting and what was kept by the law firm (fees and expenses). This "Closing Statement" is your right, according to The Florida Bar publication A Consumer Guide to Clients' Rights.

It is also important to remember that what is reflected on the internet may not be accurate or current. It is possible that an internet search will return information that is dated, incomplete, or simply not true. This is true of websites and social media platforms. This inaccuracy may be true even if a former attorney is ordered to remove such information. 

Some such references may be easier for an ex-lawyer to address than others. With some, removal may be as easy as a few clicks. Others, perhaps, require more time and dedication. Should it matter whether the ex-lawyer sought such a listing in the first instance? Some allege that listing on some of these "directories" occurs without request or even permission. Nonetheless, cancelling your LinkedIn, Twitter, and similar accounts is easy and quick. 

This internet caution is not limited to law firms or even to the internet. The customer should be wary of all advertisements. An ancient Latin caution, "caveat emptor," means "let the buyer beware" and is good advice in any commercial transaction. It is very good advice in situations that may involve the person you hire holding your rights in their hands and perhaps holding tens of thousands of dollars of your money.

When you hire an attorney, you should have clear communication of expectations (the goal or goals). Ask the attorney to predict the timeline (when) the necessary efforts (how), and follow up periodically. The lawyer should keep you informed, but you should also make efforts to stay in contact. If you move, get a new phone number, or change email addresses, you should tell your lawyer. 

If the lawyer will not return calls after several attempts, you may want to visit their office, send them an email, or write a letter. No, you do not jump to such actions after your first call is not immediately returned. People have calendar commitments and multiple responsibilities. Be patient. But do not forget your relationship with the lawyer; don't be too forgiving. After multiple unsuccessful attempts, you may decide it is time to contact The Florida Bar for advice. 

Justice Delayed?

I have written and spoken repeatedly about the challenge of being a Florida Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). There are deadlines, workload challenges, legal complexities, and more. It is not an easy job by any estimation. As I have studied adjudication and the many American systems, I long ago concluded that no judge is subject to more scrutiny and deadlines than the Florida JCC.

This stems largely from section 440.25, with time parameters for mandatory mediation, pretrial, and final hearings. The primary concerns are mediation within 130 days and trial within 210. Much can influence those, including delays in care, challenges in discovery, and more. The requirement of a trial order within 30 days is shorter, but more in the judge's control. Those timelines are exceeded periodically in a particular case, but overall, the averages are attainable.

Too few today remember the old days. In the 1990s, it was not uncommon to wait a year or more after trial. When the judge eventually ruled, it was no order. Instead, the judges sent out "ruling letters" explaining in little detail why a party prevailed. This instructed one of the parties to draft a proposed order. Some judges even instructed the non-prevailing party to collaborate in drafting an order adverse to their interests. It was a confusing time, and one in which delay was systemic, lamentable, but simply accepted.

I am reminded of timeliness each year as I prepare the OJCC Annual Report. This examines the statutory parameters above. But in the report season, I ran across a story on WSAV (Savannah) regarding a County Judge who is defending a Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint about tardiness. He is "answering questions about why he isn’t ruling on cases quickly, if at all." The first of those is troubling, but the "if at all" is disturbing.

A "10-count" complaint alleges that Judge Tom Bordeaux

"did not handle a dozen or more cases in a timely manner, cases that took years to come to a conclusion with some still outstanding due to Bordeaux’ inaction."

To his credit, the judge has acknowledged the facts. He repeatedly testified, “I dropped the ball on this one. I readily admit that." His diligence and timeliness have been called into question. More recently, that has been in this complaint, but lawyers noted that they have previously engaged with phone calls, letters, and even pleadings filed.

The judge claims that "overwhelming workload" and the pandemic contribute to his timeliness. He also explains that his rulings are detailed and therefore require significant time to prepare. He says, "That’s why one of the reasons why I write so much, a novel type order is not new, but it is wordy."

The fact is that no order requires more than 30 days to prepare, proof, and publish. I have served now for almost 25 years, and I have written hundreds of trial orders. Some of those were short, but some exceeded 100 pages. I have reviewed trial records that were thousands of pages (one stack of records exceeded thirty inches). 

Any judge can issue timely orders. The challenge is never with can or can not, but is will or will not. Timeliness is a choice. Judge Bordeaux was asked how he will rectify the delays in his work, that is "improve." He said he cannot ensure that delays will not persist, but he "can try and make it better."

Judge Bordeaux testified that more budget, more staff, and a "full-time associate judge" might help with the delays. Having someone else to do your work for you will almost always help your workload, but the other person may be as unproductive as you are.

The article concludes with his commitment to not seek another term in 2028, when he will be 74 years old. William Gladstone is credited with "Justice delayed is justice denied." Many a party in the 1990s, Florida workers' compensation learned that. There were those who waited years for a decision and often settled out of pure, unadulterated frustration.

No, the simple fact is that if workload and volume are the issue, then all judges in a system would demonstrate the same delays and disappointments. When a single judge is an outlier example, there is reason for concern. It is appropriate that the Georgia system is conducting an inquiry. 

That the orders are late matters. Why the orders are late may matter. But critically, the attorneys and the public deserve to know both the what and the why. The judge is first a public servant, and performance must be effective, efficient, and timely. 

Even the Experts

The "Godfather of AI" has been on these pages before. See X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024). That post is about the British computer scientist who has spearheaded the intelligent things movement, which is generalized with the label "artificial intelligence." Last year, he was warning that humanity was not ready for "what is coming," and frankly, that we do not understand it. Some of us are striving to.

Recently, I have posted about the economics that impact us all. See Opportunity Cost (October 2025), Utopia is not Coming (October 2025), but that is a central theme of medical care delivery, business operations, and more. See It's Simple Economics (March 2021), How will you take your profit? (February 2014).

As an aside, there is no such thing as "simple economics." The world we live in is a vastly complex conglomeration of competing interests, priorities, and influences. There are various pressures on economic activity, drivers of both supply and demand, and they are all in a matrix. This was recently illustrated by comments of the Chair of the Federal Reserve, discussing experience and indicators.

Yahoo Finance recently reran a Fortune story in which Jerome Powell discusses layoffs and the American job market. These are factors intertwined with the larger picture of monetary policy, debt, and money supply. All very heady stuff. There are varied beliefs about the Federal Reserve, the supply of money, and the national interest. I leave that to your own research and conclusions.

But Powell focused on workforce demand, layoffs, and the near-zero increase in job availability. The labor market is tight. Despite that, he noted, consumer spending is still holding up and "inflation remains elevated ... even as hiring slows." He sees a conundrum for the money supply (Fed interest rate) debate.

He says that "AI and automation are boosting output," and that means economic growth. But, with AI and robotics, this is occurring "with fewer workers, leaving the labor market softer even while GDP stays positive." So, the inflation says money should be tightened (raise interest) and the lower employment supports lower interest rates, which would stimulate spending and perhaps investment in business expansion (hiring).

This is critical because it illustrates that the expected paradigms can be changed in a fundamental way by the application of technology. Though that may seem a revelation, I would suggest the same was true in each of the four industrial revolutions (yes, your high school history teacher shortchanged you when they said there was "an" industrial revolution).

AI and robotics are currently shifting the economic curves, with increased production and diminished labor. For a simple illustration, the same expansion/contraction paradox occurred when tractors appeared on family farms. Productivity was simpler and therefore increased, and fewer farmhands were needed/hired.

But, returning to the "Godfather," Fortune reports he has "doubled down" on his premonitions regarding AI. He contends there are two ways to profit from AI, and those are selling subscriptions to those who want to use the tools and decreasing labor costs as a result of increasingly proficient and efficient workers.

He acknowledges that this is not new, accepting that "some economists point out previous disruptive technologies." Nonetheless, he believes that the changes in labor will be "massive job replacement by AI," as that is the side of his analysis that promises the most pervasive and intensive economic opportunities. Said differently, there is more money to be made in using AI than in selling AI tools.

Therefore, Hinton perceives the current AI spending boom as driving the economy at least near term. The longer term, from his perspective, is clearly and certainly going to bring job and even profession destruction, decreased demand for human input, and AI will "replace human labor" in a variety of ways.

This is likely to start with the entry level, but is unlikely to remain there. Entry-level job openings have decreased "roughly 30%" in recent years, "since OpenAI launched ChatGPT." He sees these as socital challenges, business challenges, and human challenges.

To make the equation more complex, there are human challenges like the birthrate. See Approaches to Data (May 1028). Birthrates in many countries are dropping. There are nations that are essentially shrinking while others are growing (in comparing birth and death rates). Complicating that is the legal migration between countries and the illegal incursion over national borders.

Thus, each person will face their own challenges of employment, finance, growth, and progress/prosperity. Various vocations and engagements will fluctuate. Nations will struggle individually with shifting economics, influences, impacts, and effects. In short, the most likely answer to almost any economic question will remain "it depends."

There will be an end to jobs in the buggy whip industry. It's Just a Question of When (March 2025). There will be opportunities in the data center industry. There will be a mixture of workplace and occupation evolutions, revolutions, dissolutions, and innovations in a spectrum in between.

The economy and your place in it will likely be less predictable than your parents'. But remember, theirs was likely less predictable and stable than your grandparents. Historically, there were entire generations who persisted on a family farm or worked in a particular industry, company, or even factory.

Change is not new. Unpredictability is not novel. The pace of change is increasing. The challenges will confront us all. Expert paradigms will be reconsidered, past bedrocks will be reexamined, and assumptions will be as analyzed as new revelations. The best and brightest will no more "know" the future than the rest of us. 

Hinton says that the change is really deeper; it is about societal organization. Nonetheless, collectively and individually, outcomes will depend on attitude, engagement, and persistence. And you get to choose your own. 

Did they WARN You?

There is anecdotal evidence accumulating that the world of work may be evolving. Business Insider recently ran a series focused on people engaged in work searches. There is a focus on the tech industry, with this particular example highlighting layoffs at Microsoft. 

That said, search "news layoff" and you will find Paramount, Amazon, General Motors, and more. The fact is that layoffs are happening. To persevere, identify your strengths, remain in contact with your connections, and focus on the horizon. How is your position postured for the changes that are coming? Do you do something a computer cannot?

This is not new. People have faced financial and survival struggles since the beginning of time. See Yesterday (November 2025). People have moved from locations, industries, and occupations. There has been a singular constant in all of human industry. That it is not new is likely of little comfort, but it should be. Look at all those who persevered, succeeded, and thrived. 

The Business Insider article asserts that the publication "has heard from dozens of tech workers about how corporate strategy shifts, layoffs, and hiring slowdowns have affected their careers." The example there is a younger worker who was laid off in May 2025. He received the word by email while "on leave for a personal health issue." His described efforts since are noteworthy and admirable, yet unsuccessful.  

The employee describes extensive networking efforts on social media, various offers of assistance, multiple job interviews, and yet continued struggles. With his home lease expiring, he is contemplating relocating across the country to live with family. In a refrain not uncommon in workplace injury, the employee notes, "rent is expensive." As an aside, few workers are financially prepared for the impact of a lost-time work injury. 

Coincidentally, the CEO of Klarna was featured in Fortune recently. This article acknowledges that various CEOs are "ringing the alarm bells that artificial intelligence could threaten millions of jobs around the world." While he feels this is apparent, the Klarna CEO is accusing his peers of "sugarcoating the truth."

Acknowledging that there will be new jobs related to AI, his contention is that in the short term, there will be more jobs lost than gained. He points to Brussels, Belgium, as a dire example. He says that there, "thousands of people still work as translators, a job he says can already largely be done by AI." He argues that those jobs, and similar ones, will be among the first to disappear.

Despite challenges with AI, and the customer response to interaction with a virtual "OpenAI-powered customer service chatbot," Klarna has "slowed hiring and reduced its employee base from 7,400 to 3,000" (-60%) through the adoption of technology. The change has been reflected in earnings and the financial returns that attract investors.

Too often, in my teaching experiences, I encounter young people who perceive the purpose of business in a new-world perspective of social responsibility. They lament that companies care about making money and are perceived by the students as less interested in the needs and interests of workers.

I remind without apology: the purpose of business is to make money. The business exists to make money. Starting and running a business involves risk (blood, sweat, tears, and lots of sleepless nights). Those who do this risk their capital to create a good or service in hopes of selling it to a consumer and making a profit. Some succeed and become affluent, while others fail and lose it all. Make no mistake, the purpose and challenge of the business is to create, sell, and profit.

That often requires human engagement. People are hired to produce the good or service, to market it, distribute it, repair it, and across the board to manage others engaged in the process. Each represents a cost to the production, a cost that is included in the process. The elimination or reduction in any cost has the potential to increase the company's profit and, therefore, distribution to the owners (those whose capital is at risk in the enterprise).

Who are the capitalists that invest? They are largely me and you. We have our 401 plans, individual retirement accounts, payroll savings plans, pensions, 529 plans, and more. We are all investing in business, and we hope they are profitable, grow, and succeed. As they prosper, so does our nest egg. 

Returning to the employee, their involvement is multifaceted. Among their costs are employee payroll of course. But there are additional considerations. Each employee also represents costs for benefits offered to attract employees, such as health insurance, retirement plans, workplace enhancements (snacks, drinks, etc.), and more.

There are also a variety of non-optional costs that the government mandates, such as employer contribution taxes. While each employee pays about 7.5% of their income in FICA (social security and Medicare), the employer usually matches that. The employer pays for unemployment compensation insurance, workers' compensation, and more.

Employers who hire workers face these expenses. In addition, employers who downsize employment also face expenses related to severance packages, advance notification regarding layoffs, and various documentation and transition expenses related to these government programs. See the WARN Act and similar. 

Each of those expenses, from the free drinks in the breakroom to the severance packages for employees, is part of the price for that company's goods or services. Each is a component of what you, the consumer, pay for what that company produces. You, the consumer, bear the expenses as they are built into the price of what is consumed in the company's effort to generate a profit for its owners (also likely you).

This will be the driver now and in the days to come. I know a physician who is followed room to room by a typist/assistant (Medical Scribe), but now there is an app for that. There are many translators, but now also many apps. There are many chatbots, customer service tools, and more that are replacing humans. This evolution is not new; see AI and the Latest (June 2023).

The threat is real, but so is the promise. There will be challenges for job seekers (there always have been). There will be disappointments and false starts (ditto). There will be winners and losers (ditto). This is not news, it is not new, and we will all find a path to the other side. Some will be more challenging; some will be more painful. But we will all find a path. 

What are you waiting for?

One of the catchiest earworms recently has been Sofia Camara and her What are you waiting for (Universal Canada, 2024). It is likely about relationships and love, as with most pop music. Despite those persistent themes, I hear different messages in lyrics, and I find her lyrics compelling:

You know you gotta give it your all

And don't be afraid if you fall

You're only livin' once, so tell me

What are you, what are you waiting for?

On one of my long morning walks recently, this streamed. At the moment, I was coincidentally ruminating on some recent conversations about being a judge. The fact is that I am getting long in the tooth, and the day approaches when someone new will need to take on my role. As I peer about me, I realize that it is true for many judges, law firm owners, and long-time practitioners.

This is nothing new. Certainly, some pursue judicial jobs in their youth; I did. Those who do may find a career on the bench, reach their 30 years, and retire. 

But many see the judicial role as a way to give back to a system in which they have long grown, evolved, and prospered. They apply after many years and often storied careers in practice. The examples are easy to spot, such as Hon. Stephen Rosen, who came to the bench in 2010, after 36 years of practice, and spent a decade on the bench before retiring. These "capstone" examples are admirable.

That said, there is merit in a bench that includes multiple perspectives, and youth is one of those. I remember when I bought into electronic filing 20 years ago. I was met with incredulity, animosity, and ridicule. Most of that did not come from my generational peers but from the last generation, some of whom were threatened, challenged, and anxious about such a foundational change.

The upshot of all of this is my periodic conversations with lawyers in both the "give back" and the career mindsets. They are interested in exploring this role, curious, and yet cautious.

One recently expressed self-doubt, essentially: "I don't know if I would be good at it." That has bothered me and was perhaps why I was ruminating on my recent walk; "what are you waiting for?"

In an old movie, All the Right Stuff (Warner Brothers, 1983), Dennis Quaid portrayed Gordon Cooper, one of America's first astronauts. The movie presents two story lines in parallel narrative: the astronauts on one and the test pilots on the other. All were young, daring, and larger than life. The astronauts got lots of press, but the test pilots also made much history; they just did it a bit more quietly.

There is a scene in the movie when a reporter asks Astronaut Cooper, "Who's the best pilot you ever saw?" There is some poignancy to the scene. Cooper is initially introspective and ponderous seeming to think, reflect, and reference Chuck Yeager, one of the test pilots. But the press was persistent, impatient, and pressing. They seemed to want a quick soundbite.

Cooper senses that he is losing the reporter's attention and reiterates the question:

"Who was the best pilot I ever saw? Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im."

Everyone in the litigation business likely has someone, similarly, that they admire, respect, and even emulate. Judges are not different. If you asked them, "Who was the best judge you ever saw?" you might get their rumination and reflection. They might start to tell you some anecdote or name a name. Or, you might get "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er).

The reader will likely be surprised that I think the second one is the best answer. Whoever has the bench at the moment, whatever their failings and faults, should honestly believe, "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er).

I do not suggest or support pomposity or hubris. I am not in favor of, or advocating for, self-delusion or conceit. But I am suggesting that there is a real path that can readily lead to the conclusion "Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im" (or 'er). And that path is not about ignoring those you admire, respect, and emulate.

The path to honestly and accurately making that statement is simple—do not believe it. That seems a riddle, but read on. The "best judge" is the one who internally harbors self-doubt. It is the judge who learns every day and considers perspectives and perceptions carefully and intellectually.

The judge who knows in their heart that they are not yet "the best judge I ever saw" is, in fact, the person we need on the bench. They will listen carefully, ponder arduously, and struggle with arguments, interpretations, statutes, rules, and precedent. The judge who questions themself and strives each day to be better than the day before—that is the best judge I ever saw.

Back to Sofia Camara, in a nutshell:

You know you gotta give it your all

And don't be afraid if you fall

You're only livin' once, so tell me

What are you, what are you waiting for?

If you doubt yourself, I think you are exactly what is needed. Bring it, and let's perpetuate the Florida OJCC and all of its success over these last many years. I encourage you to think of this job, as I see retirements on the horizon. Whether you are young or old (for real or at heart), consider it. 

Judge Roesch used to say, "This is the best job I ever had." Judge Farrell used to say he would do this job for free. Judge Dietz had similar ruminations and thoughts. The fact is that it is hard to find any JCC that does not enjoy the work, appreciate the challenge, and welcome the role. Consider it. 

Caught with Trousers Down

I have written about some untoward judicial behavior over the years. There are those who take a Pirates of the Caribbean (Disney 2003) approach to regulations and the Code of Judicial Conduct ("the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.").

Remember the judges who had drinks, hit a strip club, spewed profanities, and ended up getting shot in a fast-food parking lot? But there have been several who made the news for allegations of drinking and driving.

All of these are discussed and linked in Appearances (October 2025). Other recent examples of the perils of alcohol for judges are in Adjectives and Appearances (June 2024), A Judge Under Surveillance (June 2025), and the posts linked there. Alcohol and inebriation can be troublesome for any professional, including lawyers, doctors, and more. But it is reasonably likely a judge facing such accusations will make the news.

One recent example involved body-cam footage. I have repeatedly suggested that we are all under near-constant surveillance. See

Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021). The judge in this recent example was allegedly caught on body-camera "urinating in the street," according to FOX 10.

This was not on some dark country road in some isolated urgency. There are a few parts of the world where finding a toilet in the dark may be a real challenge. No, the allegations are that the police happened upon "the moment the woman had just pulled up her pants, and was sitting on a bench, face to face with ... police" at 01:30.

This was allegedly a few steps from the "courthouse plaza" in which Judge Pro Tempore Kristyne Schaaf-Olson regularly presided. As the officer strove to identify the urinating lady (who apparently was also gastronomically unwell), the judge's spouse interceded with the "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" defense.

The news article includes the video, "obtained from an anonymous source," and a Google map to illustrate where the circumstances occurred.

The police apparently chose their eyes and their body cam footage over the (also public employee) spouse's protestations of innocence. The spouse ended up arrested, and the judge merely cited. This, despite the judge's clear protestations on the video emphasizing her "Judge" title. 

As an aside, stressing your job title will likely do little more than attract the press. And, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, precludes the "I'm a judge" pronouncement for personal gain or advantage. This is periodically called "playing the judge card," and it is inappropriate and indecorous. 

In the judge's defense, following the October 4, 2025, arrest, she apparently self-reported later that day (Saturday), "accepted full responsibility" and submitted a "resignation on Monday, October 6." Though the news report suggests an investigation by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct remained pending, the resignation likely divested that of jurisdiction.

The lessons here are reasonably simple. First, little good happens after midnight. Second, drinking in public may lead to decreased inhibitions, poor decisions, and untoward outcomes. Third, surveillance cameras are everywhere. Fourth, getting caught with your trousers down is embarrassing at best. Fifth, playing the judge card is a universally poor idea. Sixth, interfering with the police may lead to your arrest. 

And, finally, there are honorable paths out of errors and mistakes. The judge was appropriate in (1) self-reporting immediately, (2) resigning from office, and (3) focusing on the needs of the public and the court in the process. 

The situation is troubling, but it could be worse. More recently, the "chief judge of (Iowa's) Second Judicial District" was arrested in a scene that might sound to some like a Hollywood script. Headline USA reported that the chief judge is accused of driving "the wrong way on a highway Tuesday night while passed out behind the wheel." Urinating in the street is unsanitary, but it is less dangerous than operating a vehicle.

A Tech Example from Ancient History (the 90s)

This article is about artificial intelligence and trust. That will require some patience, as the first half deals mostly with a challenge of a bygone, analog, age. But that foundation is necessary.

Early in my career, there was a volume of injured workers who alleged entitlement to a stream of benefits defined in the workers' compensation law. Some were measured in weeks or months, but permanent total disability was a stream that extended for years. In order to place a reserve value on those cases, the lawyer had to evaluate both the probability of an award of such benefits and the present value of the stream.

Present value was a term that I came to the practice already understanding. The idea is that the "cost" of paying someone $400 today is different than the cost of paying them $400 in 20 years. If I agree to pay you $400 tomorrow, that costs me $400. but if I am to pay you $400 on October 1, 2045, I can invest some money today and it will earn interest for years before I have to pay you that money.

It is important, therefore, to know the interest rate. And that is somewhat unpredictable. Sure, there are financial vehicles that may provide that predictability. A good example would be a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. The day I wrote this post, that rate was 6%. The Internet told me that to make that payment in 30 years, I would need to invest "approximately $121.91 today."

That is the "present value" of that single $400 payment in the future. This seems relatively simple. However, if that $400 is one of a series of payments over the lifetime of an injured worker, then we also need to know the investment necessary for the $400 payment before that, and the one after that, and all the others.

Added to this complexity, the amount due for permanent total disability to a Florida injured worker is not constant ($400), but will usually increase annually. That increase is not always true, because certain maximum constraints might apply. Those constraints for this year are known, but can only be guessed at for tomorrow and for October 2045.

Therefore, as a young lawyer, I was faced with a series of challenging calculations, and there was great debate in the practice as to the appropriate assumptions (interest rate, life expectancy, and maximum rates) that had to be agreed upon. Then, various repetitive calculations would lead you to a present value of the benefit stream.

Under the statute, in some years, the interest rate was stated, 4% or 8%. Obviously, if you can earn 8% on the money, less is needed than if you can earn only 4%. For that example of $400 on October 1, 2045, according to Claude.ai, that difference means either

At 4% interest: PV = $400 / (1.04)^20.06 = $400 / 2.208 = $181.16

At 6% interest: PV = $400 / (1.06)^20.06 = $400 / 3.281 = $121.91

At 8% interest: PV = $400 / (1.08)^20.06 = $400 / 4.953 = $80.76

The reader will likely be asking what this has to do with artificial intelligence, but the foregoing quotes are illustrative. AI calculated those values almost instantly. Because they are relatively simple (one payment, fixed value, and known term), we could do so long-hand.

As an aside, some will find it curious that a statute would mandate the rate used in such a calculation. That represented a legislative conclusion that such rates were available to the injured worker so that they could invest their settlement and earn that return over time, replacing the actual value that would have been paid in periodic benefits, had the case not been settled.

Suffice it to say that calculating and predicting such a present value was tedious. It was slightly less so with a handy program like Lotus 123, Quattro Pro, or Excel. The spreadsheet made replication of discrete calculations far simpler and faster. Keep in mind that those tools were not intuitive; we spent many hours learning to use them.

But then came the entrepreneurs. By the early 1990s, several of them were marketing calculator programs (think of it like an "app"). Those programs did the math for you. There were inputs for known facts such as the worker's average weekly wage, the date of accident, the birth date (for life expectancy), and the interest rate. Those plug-ins resulted in a straightforward prediction of present value.

Unfortunately, each of the programs tended to yield different results from identical input data. Sometimes those distinctions were markedly different, and consistently so. One program tended to predict a higher value, another usually a lower. There were then arguments as to what assumptions were input, and what assumptions the program made about other variables, such as the predicted maximum compensation rate in future years that might limit the overall value stream.

The fact that programs yielded different outcomes sewed the seeds of distrust. Despite having a program at my disposal, I still spent hours manually calculating the present value of future benefit streams in order to advise clients and strategize about reserves and appropriate settlement values.

We tried the various calculator programs. We test-drove them, compared results, and did the manual work as an acid test. In time, we gained comfort. Not so much in the absolute inviolability of a particular program's output, but in our faith that this or that program produced results that were or were not reasonably valid based on our acid test manual calculations.

We came in time to believe one program or another was the most likely to be close to the correct number. This did not alleviate the arguments. The attorneys who represented injured workers tended to prefer the output that was predictably highest, and many defense attorneys preferred the lowest output. Others were more academically focused, but everyone had a preference.

The point of this post about artificial intelligence is that we all became more efficient. For a period, when those programs first appeared, we did both manual and computer calculations (with spreadsheets). Then we did both manual and spreadsheet and automated program calculations. The amount of time invested actually increased initially.

The increase was driven by our persistent engagement of the "old way," and the additional time for the spreadsheet or then the automated program. But, in a short time, we came to have faith in the automated. Then we stopped doing the spreadsheets. Eventually, we stopped doing the manual calculation.

Eventually, we became accepting of the output of one of the automated programs. Then, we were producing a present value in five minutes that had taken us a full day of work and patience.

We were more efficient. We were faster. And we delivered a better service to our clients at a greater value. Some attorneys still billed their clients for 8 hours of hard math and assumptions, despite working only 10 minutes. Others of us, instead, were honest and billed the 10 minutes. That is a discussion for another day. 

The point here, however, is that we "tried and then we trusted." The technology initially cost us efficiency. We invested 10 hours in that eight-hour task, and the client was used to paying for eight. They did not understand why the cost would increase, and therefore, we tended to eat the extra time and bill the eight hours.

But as our proficiency grew, our confidence grew, and we gained faith in the technology. We became more efficient, with more hours in our day, because we could do eight hours' work in 10 minutes. The tech eventually resulted in efficiency, but first, we had to try before we could trust.

The example is only one, but it illustrates the challenge of artificial intelligence (AI). We may reach a day when blind reliance is appropriate for many AI outputs. But it is not this day. Today, we verify every AI output (does the picture it created have people with six fingers? Is the case law it cites real?).

In the short run, there will be increased work caused by AI. Over time, we may come to be more reliant, trustful, and confident. But that is not today. We can fear it and ignore it. But if you do, know that others in your profession are engaging it, leveraging it, and learning when and how to trust it.

The tool is new and novel. The challenge of evolving technology is not in the least. With all technology, there will be doubt, verification, and trust cycles. For more on cycles, see Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024). You must make decisions about your faith, trust, and process. You must grow with or without it and persist in a world that is constantly changing. Get used to that.

Know that there will be few, if any, perfect solutions. Know that tomorrow's innovation will always surpass today's. Know that this evolutionary process is cyclical and scary, and inevitable. And then, get back to work doing your best to adapt and verify, and adopt. It is a challenge, but that is life.