Gender Evolution

It was recently International Women's Day (March 8). In the sometimes vacuous and disturbing world of social media, there are positive moments. One example is that I learned it was International Women's Day. Not through the news, but through social media, I was informed. That ability to pass information is a critical benefit of the medium. Granted, there are plenty of countervailing challenges with those platforms, but some opportunities for greater knowledge.

There was a series of posts in which various women lawyers expressed moments of discomfiture or disappointment based upon the boorish (or worse) behavior of males. I was admittedly surprised. In my world, I do not witness discriminatory behavior in the practice of law, the legal education system, or the workers' compensation community. But, the complaints and anecdotes made me think.

I checked some figures on gender in the legal profession. According to the American Bar Association (a voluntary trade group to which some lawyers belong), less than 40% of the lawyers in this country are female. It notes that the participation is increasing. There have been incremental increases in female participation in this profession.

Another ABA report says that the population of American lawyers is around 1.3 million. That equates to about 780,000 male attorneys and 520,000 female attorneys and a current difference of 260,000. If law schools maintain a graduation rate of 50/50%, it will take a notable time before the practicing population is 50%/50. A more rapid path to that parity comes only if the graduating female students markedly exceed the males.

Men have been, and remain, the majority of legal practitioners. That means that there is a majority/minority relationship in that marketplace. Despite that, there have been some notable achievements in the last 100 years or so. The fact is that one can identify many "firsts" in that period: the first female lawyer, judge, appellate judge, etc. The first ABA report above noted "From 1950 to 1970, only 3%" of lawyers were women.

Statistically, Women are at a slight advantage. They make up 50.4% of the U.S. population, according to the census. And law school admissions are certainly trending to the benefit of women also. According to Jurist, there have been more female law students than male for the last eight years. Thus, we are on a path to parity, to erasing that 260,000 disparity. But, gaining a small percentage each year will draw the division to equality very slowly.

And, any gains in graduation and bar admission will move toward parity in the profession. There could nonetheless remain disparity if the practice of law. Some note that there are challenges in retaining female attorneys. The practice is challenging in any regard, ask any lawyer. However, there is at least some perception that the practice faces particular retention challenges with women.

The recent social media discussion noted examples of inappropriate comments to female attorneys. There was mention of judges referring to counsel as "little lady" and perceptions of disparate treatment both by the bench and male lawyers alike. There was a story recounted in which a jurist made demeaning comments to a law firm partner about a young female associate. The statement was loaded with both invective and innuendo.

I have witnessed poor behavior, and to some extent striven to address it. One example that sticks in my mind involved a curmudgeon trying a case against a bright, young, female attorney. Throughout the process of marking exhibits and working through objections, the curmudgeon insisted on referring to the female attorney by first name.

That may seem like a small thing, but there is dignity in expressions. In hearings, we refer to professionals appropriately. That means last names for lawyers. That means titles such as "doctor" are appropriate when addressing participants regardless of their gender.

In the case of the curmudgeon, I was disinclined to intervene. I recall wondering whether intervention on my part would somehow be perceived as taking sides from the bench or signaling a perception that the young lawyer needed assistance (I admired her tenacity and to this day I doubt she needed any help). Was I troubled by the first name out of a sense of decorum or chivalry? I had self-doubt about my course and my role. Thus, I did not address it immediately.

But after several iterations, I corrected the curmudgeon. Not abrasively or curtly, just a simple "we address each other by last name in this room." One would think that with intelligent people, such a reminder would be sufficient. However, that day I would repeat that sentence several times. I wondered thereafter whether the curmudgeon was simply suffering from senility or was intentionally returning to the first name references as a method or plan.

At the end of the day, I am glad that social media alerted me to the fact that there remain curmudgeons in the practice of law. Despite judicial perceptions (I suspect that judges witness lawyer's "best behavior" more often than not), there seems a significant body of evidence that boorish and worse behavior remains in the practice of law. According to some on social media, they perceive judges to be the source of boorish behavior. That is more disturbing still. 

Some contend that there are various examples in which challenges and hurdles are more pronounced for certain women, with specific references focused on race, age, and more. We all likely want to believe that people are generally appropriate and that they do not strive to be hurtful, inappropriate, or worse. That said, I fear that there is at least a perception of some groups that there remains mistreatment, disrespect, and worse.

As with many challenges in society, there is perhaps a variety of approaches to remediation. I would suggest that the best first step would be our collective and unanimous realization that bad behavior is a potential in every interaction. There may be offense, whether intended or incidental. In every conversation, you have no control over how you are perceived. And you have no idea what kind of a day your listener is having.

As we progress (yes, age) perhaps we can each start with the premise that what we say may matter. Perhaps we should all be less concerned about whether we might offend with our intervention in standing up to curmudgeons. Instead, we should speak up when we encounter curmudgeons and be clear in our collective and individual insistence that professionals are treated professionally.

When someone does react or intervene, we aging citizens need to be particularly aware, and reactive. We have to ask ourselves, "am I becoming that curmudgeon?" Our futures require nothing less. 

Deep Fakes in Florida

The topic of "deep fakes" is back in the news recently, right here in Florida. Readers will remember that "deep fakes" have been in the news. The term refers to any time something is forged, whether it be someone's voice, image, etc. There have been newsworthy instances of See AI is a Tool (October 2023). that post introduced some youngsters in a "sleepy little town in Spain." They were accused of creating photos of their classmates using a computer, lurid photos, and sharing them online.

I noted there that the Spanish instances were not someone's face pasted onto another's body. That technology has apparently been a thing since the advent of computer images and various programs capable of manipulating them. No, these were created by AI, with the computer apparently analyzing clothed individuals and hypothesizing about how they might appear unclothed. A critical point, however, is that they were real people. Critical point two is that they were shared online.

That story had multiple levels of intrigue and trouble. First, cyberbullying (and bullying) can be accomplished without such tools. Anyone can be belittled, threatened, minimized, or worse either in person or online. The only difference between cyberbullying and in-person bullying is perhaps the imminent potential for physicality in person. Bullying is present on the internet, in the schoolyard, and in the workplace.

See Bullying is in the News, is it in the Workplace (November 2013); Aggressive without Being Obnoxious (August 2019); A Miserable Example (February 2022). Bullying can come in many forms, from almost any source.

The perception seems to be that bullying is increasing, at least online. Mental health experts contend that bullying is foundational to various challenges to mental health. The McGovern School of Medicine informs:

"Bullying can cause feelings of rejection, exclusion, isolation, low self-esteem, and some individuals can develop depression and anxiety as a result."

The news from Florida is from Wired. It reports that two middle school south-Florida gentlemen, "aged 13 and 14," have been arrested for "alleged sharing of AI-generated nude images." These are felony charges, and thus the newsworthiness of the story. There is also attention drawn by novelty here, in the fact that the law allegedly violated was only passed in 2022. It appears these two young gentlemen are the first ever charged under its authority.

Of course, anything AI is newsworthy. But this appears to be a more "cut and paste" effort of putting images of people's faces onto images of other people's torsos. The implication is that this is similar to more familiar Photoshop manipulation but with the help of AI. Unfortunately, the alleged incident is not unique. The story reports there have reportedly been similar news stories in Washington, California, and New Jersey. But, there have apparently been no arrests until now.

The South Florida gentlemen were identified in early December and arrested days before Christmas. The story recounts that a school administrator who learned of the allegations "interviewed the victims depicted in" the photos, and learned "they did not consent to the images being created." That seems, at first glance, to be a curious inquiry.

The images were allegedly of middle school students. One might instantly leap to the fact that those people are 12 to 14 years old, and incapable of consent in its basic sense. To what end would consent be of any import? But then one progresses to considering that the unclothed torso photographs were not of minors, only the faces that were affixed to them. In the strictest sense, perhaps the photos could be viewed as only partially of youth. 

In that, there is the potential that a court might conclude that such photographs are not actionable under various other laws. And that is where the 2022 law under which the South Florida gentlemen are charged becomes critical. That was CS/CS/SB 1798 (readers will recall that such a name means there were two "committee substitutes" (CS) for the original bill as that Senate Bill (SB) progressed to passage). This illustrates that there was likely spirited debate and various significant amendments as the law was considered and passed.

It created section 836.13, Fla.Stat. which provides for felony punishment:

"(2) A person who willfully and maliciously promotes any altered sexual depiction of an identifiable person, without the consent of the identifiable person, and who knows or reasonably should have known that such visual depiction was an altered sexual depiction, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

And thus, the rationale for exploring consent becomes obvious. The statute specifically requires that any actionable event would be "without the consent," and that the individual victimized must be an "identifiable person."

The law specifically defines what "altered sexual depiction" means:

"(1)(a) “Altered sexual depiction” means any visual depiction that, as a result of any type of digital, electronic, mechanical, or other modification, alteration, or adaptation, depicts a realistic version of an identifiable person:

1. With the nude body parts of another person as the nude body parts of the identifiable person;

2. With computer-generated nude body parts as the nude body parts of the identifiable person; or

3. Engaging in sexual conduct as defined in s. 847.001 in which the identifiable person did not engage."

There are a variety of other definitions and descriptions in the statute. Notably, this is not an "AI statute." The prohibitions are focused on "any type," and broadly address the cut-and-paste ("mechanical") to the Photoshop ("digital"), and beyond ("other modification"). It is a seemingly all-encompassing prohibition. While it addresses "cut and paste" in the present instance, one can readily see it applied as easily to efforts such as the Spanish example above. The statute is a worthwhile effort to prevent the bullying of people young and old. The scope is broad.

This is noteworthy because our focus must remain on the fact that AI is a Tool. There is too much inclination today to focus upon what AI can do, and how humans may misuse it. Legislation could be brought to bear on AI, on the tool. 

But, as this statute and the purported prosecution of the South Florida gentlemen illustrate, the law can address action (or inaction) in a broad sense. The potential use of the tool can be addressed in the law as part of a broader affront to a problem or challenge, regardless of whether AI or scissors and paste are the tools used. In this, we see again that AI is not the threat. The behavior is the threat. AI is merely a means to the end.

For the young gentlemen in this instance, there are likely difficult times ahead. Wired reports that the "parents of the victims" are "publicly urging the school to expel the boys." That may sound to some like a bit of an affront to the "innocent until proven guilty" to which we have so long adhered. That said, the press has long been a court in which trials have occurred without any of the formalities or protections of such vaunted concepts as due process, equal protection, or assistance of counsel. That is a topic for another day.

The charges under this statute could lead to conviction of "a felony of the third degree." That is significant. As Wired notes, this is the same potential punishment that one might face for crimes like "grand theft auto or false imprisonment." It is fair to say that section 836.13, Fla.Stat. reflects a dim view of the creation and promotion of these fakes.

It reflects that such photographs represent an affront to those depicted, a victimization. There is at least an implied admission that such depiction presents harm, which is consistent with the consensus of the emotional affront and potential for depression, anxiety, and more from such attacks. In the broadest sense, society's primary goal has to be the protection of youth. They are, after all, our future. This statute seemingly contributes to that protection, but while it includes youth it protects more. 

The prosecution or other conclusion of these allegations in South Florida will be newsworthy. The application of this statute will not change AI or Photoshop. Perhaps, however, it will change the inclinations of humans who utilize such tools? And in the process, perhaps it will prevent untoward and unconscionable bullying of students, coworkers, and people generally.

Felony Assault to Induce Abortion

There have been many pages penned here regarding poor behavior by lawyers and judges, sometimes with consequences. A news story from Texas reminds us that poor behavior can occur in any occupation and that credentials may or may not bear dignity or even recognition.

Mason Herring is an attorney in Houston. According to the internet, he is "a dedicated Texas lawyer" who "treats his clients with respect and care." He graduated from Texas A&M, and "received multiple awards and was honored for his journalism." In law school, he "excelled in pre-trial advocacy" and worked for the U.S. "federal court" in Louisiana. 

He was named to the "South Texas College of Law Young Alumni Leadership Circle" and the list of "Super Lawyers® Rising Stars."℠ In August of 2023, his website stressed "integrity," "trust," "excellence," and "compassion." These are powerful words, admirable goals, or in some instances perhaps merely cliches and punchlines. 

This morning, his website reflects only:

Other searches indicate he may now be an associate attorney at another firm

Some of the changes may be recent, as Mr. Herring has recently gained significant notoriety in Houston and beyond. ABC13 says that Mr. Herring "is the first and only person in Harris County to face a charge of forcing induction to have an abortion." Prosecutors there "allege(d) he put an abortion-inducing drug in the water he gave his wife on more than one occasion."

The story is intriguing. the news reports that Mr. Herring was perhaps less than excited to learn "his wife was pregnant with their baby." In that regard, prosecutors pointed to what "came out through marriage counseling, as well as through text messages later on."

The Daily Mail reports that Mrs. Herring was "was seven weeks pregnant with their third child when her husband of eleven years...started spiking her beverages." The two were already experiencing marital challenges related to her suspicions that Mr. Herring "was having an affair with a co-worker." Mrs. Herring "began collecting the drinks her husband prepared for her," and "set up cameras inside and outside their home." She gathered evidence of actions and substances. 

She reported her suspicions to the police and Mr. Herring was "initially charged with felony assault to induce abortion." That led to Mr. Herring

"accept(ing) a plea agreement to charges of injury to a child and assault of a pregnant person. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and 10 years of probation."

"Integrity?" "Trust?" "Excellence?" "Compassion?"

Mrs. Herring, according to the Daily Mail, is currently involved in "divorce proceedings." She is reportedly less than satisfied with Mr. Mason's sentence, noting "I don't think 180 days is justice for attempting to kill your child seven separate times." She says 'If you divide it up, he's serving less than 26 days per attempt to kill my child."

When I read the story, I was reminded of a recent continuing education seminar I was compelled to attend by the Florida Supreme Court. See The New Professionalism (February 2024). There was stress there that a lawyer "is a lawyer 24/7." That is, actions and inactions in our personal and private lives might reflect on us professionally and on all lawyers. How do the actions described in the news support a conclusion of professionalism? What are the implications for the public perception of the legal profession?

Ultimately, per the Daily Mail, the outcome was the birth of Josephine Mason. The attempts regarding her life and development were not successful. However, she "was born 10 weeks premature...and spent three months in the hospital, before she was able to go home." According to Fox News, Josephine experiences "developmental delays and attends therapy eight times a week." 

In all, it is a disturbing story. It reflects on attorneys everywhere, like that or not. It reflects on fathers everywhere. It is troubling from every perspective. But one must wonder specifically how the three children will perceive their father's guilty plea? Their father, a person upon whom they deeply depended for love, support, and succor has pled guilty to (at least attempted) harm. The personal impact will perhaps be very difficult to navigate, particularly for Josephine. 

At least as of now, the professional implications remain unclear, whether the maintenance soon concludes at his website, or whether he has joined another firm. According to The State Bar of Texas, Mason Herring remains "eligible to practice in Texas."

Accolades are certainly nice. School achievements are worth noting. Success in practice and a community are discussed and exalted. Right or wrong, lawyers occupy a special place in society. And perhaps "super lawyers" are more special than others?

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct recognize that:

Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society.

What is the reflection here on lawyers, "the profession, and the public interest?" There can be debate about lawyer ethics and rules. Many have struggled with describing or even understanding how such ethics and rules integrate with or augment "professionalism." But, in the end, society expects more of attorneys. Beyond the personal, familial, and paternal implications of this story, how does news of a guilty plea impact society?

"Integrity?" "Trust?" "Excellence?" "Compassion?"

Ineffective Assistance

The criminal defense legal practice has evolved over the almost 250 years that America has existed. Our legal system is imperfectly bound by purported parameters that are equally imperfect. I strive in my teaching to help students realize that these challenges exist and persist. They all want to excel, to go to law school, and to make a career path in this imperfect world of statutes, rules, and the ubiquity of judicial interpretations, the "common law."

The focus is on criminal cases largely because of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. While that was ratified in 1791, the implications were incomplete until at least 1963 when Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) concluded a somewhat clear interpretation of the right to counsel in criminal cases. In fairness, there was reliance there on the Fourteenth Amendment also, and it was less than 100 years old at the time (1868).

The old saw from television is familiar enough to everyone who has not been living under a rock. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), the implications of the Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Gideon were extended beyond the right to counsel to the right to know about the right to counsel. "You have the right to remain silent . . . "

Since that time, there has been the potential for a criminal defendant to argue about how they were represented (or not) in those proceedings. It has become known as "ineffective assistance of counsel," and the Legal Information Institute says this describes when "legal representation fails to meet the minimum standards of competence and diligence expected from attorneys."

Essentially, there is the right to counsel that we have found in the Constitution, but that counsel is not sufficient merely because someone went to law school. Competence is not a degree, a personality trait, or in any way inherent. That seems axiomatic. There are significant threats in being criminally prosecuted. From its worst outcome of death penalty to incarceration, to the reputational harm of mere prosecution, much is at stake.

Unfortunately, there is no such counsel guarantee in the civil realm. No one in a civil case has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. There is no right to counsel in civil matters at all. As a result, many people struggle through their legal challenges alone in the maze of laws and rules. They cannot find a lawyer interested in their challenges, or cannot afford the fees that would interest them. 

More unfortunately, many also suffer from the incorrect assumption that the lawyer they have hired is competent. The sad truth is that there are incompetent, sloppy, and ineffective lawyers.

NBC News recently described an instance in the criminal setting. It reminded me of Harry and Lloyd, Zacharia Crabill, and Forrest Gump. See AI Incognito (December 2023). There is illumination of a "2014 murder trial" and the efforts (euphemistically) of counsel to defend the allegations. There was a conviction, incarceration, and then a 2022 reversal based on "the defense lawyer's 'egregious' conduct."

The defendant might be viewed as fortunate. He had both the right to counsel and the funds to pay one. He paid over $100,000 and seemingly thought he had hired an expert. Did the lawyer use artificial intelligence like Harry and Lloyd? No, there was no AI in 2014. The defense lawyer used the next worst thing, the Internet. And, it appears he did so during trial, "Googl(ing) forensic issues like DNA." 

There will be those unexpected moments, and the lawyer has to respond. But the time for delving into the science of a case needs to be before trial. Preparation is a hallmark of competency. The teacher never let you do yesterday's homework in class. That should have taught you something. 

The defendant claims "he was floored when the lawyer put him on the stand without properly preparing him." Preparing witnesses is Lawyer 101. The defendant was further troubled "when his lawyer rested without calling a single expert witness to challenge the prosecution’s case." There were conclusions that the lawyer demonstrated "sheer lack of knowledge regarding any of the technical and scientific issues relevant to the criminal proceeding.”

Eventually, a new trial was ordered in a "blistering 17-page decision" regarding the failures or mistakes of counsel. The lawyer admits he was not prepared for such a fight. There is no dispute that he lacked sufficient experience. 

There is no right to counsel in civil proceedings. There are challenges and complications in the course of representing any party in litigation. Over the years I have witnessed some lawyers that are absolutely stellar at the task, and others that we might charitably characterize as "not so much." Unfortunately for the public, it is difficult or impossible to determine who falls into which category. It is equally difficult to deal with the results that may follow.

In the NBC News story, there is a conviction of a crime. There the downside is incarceration, shame, and despair. But in any legal proceeding, there is a downside. There is the real chance of financial damage in either being ordered to pay or in not recovering what you are due. The fact is that any legal proceeding can be a life-changing event.

Lawyers hold the lives of people in their hands, and unfortunately, there are a fair few who do not perform competently. Through inate inadequacy, sloth, or overcommitment, they fail. More unfortunately, spotting poor performance may be beyond the client's capacity. It is, as I noted at the outset, an imperfect system in which we labor. It is filled with imperfect humans, overtaxed resources, and complications. There are risks, challenges, and imperfect knowledge.

I would like to conclude here with an upbeat recommendation for rectifying the failures, addressing the challenges. But none occur to me. Perhaps Harry and Lloyd can find us something on AI?

Dope and Heart Disease

I have written a post or two about weed. See Marijuana May Be a Problem (January 2016) Marijuana Headaches in Colorado (March 2017); Federal Law Matters in Maine (June 2018); Decriminalizing Marijuana (May 2021); Edible but Stomach Churning (October 2023); Edibles and Illness, (November 2023); Harmless? (January 2024). There has been a sentiment in this country that dope should be legal because it is a panacea of harmless relief to so many. 

The good news about dope just keeps rolling in. As many in the marketplace recognized, during the prohibition years, there was very little dope grown in the United States (permissively) and a dearth of research. But, in the 21st century progress came in the form of decriminalizing dope on the great promise that it doesn’t hurt anybody.

Well, the decriminalization of pot has had side effects. One of which has been an increasing volume of investigatory studies regarding the use of this "harmless" drug. For the sake of clarity, a few voices have remained clarion clear throughout. A very few of us have suggested that perhaps "harmless" isn’t harmless.

The latest study suggests that extremely infrequent use of tiny quantities of pot can lead to an increased risk of medical conditions. The largest proportion of American deaths are traceable to cardiovascular failure (heart attack 695,547, stroke 162,890, etc.). Cardiac failure beats cancer, COVID, and more. And it turns out that dope doesn’t help that. In fact, even minute use has been now demonstrated to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

It is important with any medical test or study that we keep in mind the potential for anecdotal and coincidental outcomes. One of the great feelings of small minds in interpreting science is the inclination to associate concurrence with causation. 

It is entirely possible that we might see an increased prevalence of an injury without causation. For example, what if herniated discs were more common in Airline pilots than in fighter pilots? One might draw the conclusion that fighter pilot activity is more orthopedically relevant or challenging. Or, one might note that fighter pilots tend to be, on average, some 20 years younger than airline pilots. In that example, care would be required to determine if the aircraft or the age is driving study outcomes. 

With that caution in mind, it is nonetheless intriguing to find out that there may be a statistical link between blowing dope and cardiovascular failure. The first thing one might question is, why now? In other words, let us all admit, frankly, that Americans have been blowing dope for decades. Is there a sudden prevalence of cardiovascular events? The answer is likely no. Heart disease has led the curve since 1950. All that has changed, with decriminalization, is more likely the proclivity of patience to admit to dope use.

In other words, the same volume of individuals was likely having cardiovascular events 10 years ago. That prevalence has not increased. However, when listing their medical history, 10 years ago, the smart patients were not listing "illicit drug user" in their medical history. As "illicit drug user" was not listed, there was no statistical possibility then of aligning that cardiovascular event with Mary Jane. 

The authors of this NBC article suggest, however, that a recent study is not an incidental finding. They note that this study result “add(s) to the growing body of evidence, connecting marijuana, use to cardiovascular” issues. There is more than one study, apparently, that ties blowing dope to cardiovascular disease. 

The study examined "435,000 people between the ages of 1874.” It was compiled by the Centers for Disease Control. The results were published in a peer-reviewed publication: The Journal of the American Heart Association. This could be serious. Now that’s not to say that the study results are true or not. The fact is that articles have been retracted before. Time will tell. 

In a broader sense, one can never base conclusions entirely upon the credibility of the messenger. Some portion of our analysis (most) must always be focused on the actual evidence. Paraphrasing, Deming (or others) "in God, we trust, all others bring data.” Data will come. There is money in researching Ganja. 

Nonetheless, some will perhaps begin to question whether the uninformed and unrepentant marijuana marketers and advocates may have overstated their “harmless“ sales pitch when advocating for broader, simpler access to weed. The bad news is that Herb is here to stay. It has been decriminalized and is ubiquitous. There are illegal (federal law) distributors on seemingly every corner and your government has forbade federal law enforcement from enforcing the law that it refuses to change. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. 

The challenge, now that Ganja is ubiquitous in our cities and towns, will be to mitigate the impact on society, through more ready and affordable access to medical care. Yes, we face a physician shortage. 

See Supply and Demand (February 2024). Yes, markets are already rationing, delaying, and forestalling necessary care. Crisis is upon us, and smoking Grass will make it worse. 

But, Marijuana is not alone in its societal prevalence, nor its potential to impact cardiovascular health. The similar risks attributed to tobacco, alcohol, and stress have been long recognized. There are risks associated with diet, lack of exercise, and more. There has been no sincere effort to criminalize stress, snack cakes, or booze. These are accepted components of our world despite their propensity for causing or contributing to death. 

We could ban such things, in hopes of promoting public health and minimizing its cost. But that will not happen with sugar, alcohol, or cigarettes. The government will never ban these, they are too much fun to tax. There is no reason to expect that pot will be any different. Instead, there will be further studies, eventually warnings, and death. Those who wish to be high will be allowed to be, and society will pay the healthcare costs associated with it. 

Harmless? That was a ridiculous assertion from its first iteration. Inhaling smoke is not healthy. Weed is not healthy. But, that "harmless" lie is little different than many that have been perpetrated on us over the years. The facts will continue to evolve and people will make their choices. This is, after all, a free country. Death is inevitable, but its velocity and cause are sometimes subjects of choice. 

In the end, when it is you who needs a cardiologist appointment, you may wonder if the wait would be shorter if not for all the self-inflicted damage that is waiting in the line in front of you. As you wait, just remind yourself that alcohol, sugar, and dope are harmless.  

Self-Replenishing in Broward

A "closed ecosystem" is:

"a self-replenishing ecosystem in which life can be maintained without external factors or outside aid."

There is no plethora of such systems. We are not surrounded by such independence and interconnectivity. There was a time when geographic isolation drove such characterizations. The advent of technology long ago began to threaten and invade such singularity, isolation, or novelty. Many remember when one might drive from West Palm Beach to Miami over hours with punctuations of country driving interspersed between what has now become a massive and uninterrupted urban sprawl. Times change. 

I recently attended the Broward County Bar Association Worker’s Compensation Section meeting. I have enjoyed each iteration, and am grateful for invitations over the years. I saw some familiar faces, and reconnecting is of great value. I ran into some who were a bit affronted that I did not know them or recognize their names. Perhaps we all think we are a bit more famous than we are? I have no idea what it means when someone thinks they are famous.  

Late in the day, the conversation turned to various events, strengths, and the great turnout at this particular 2024 venue. I opined that live events are gaining traction in a post-Covid world. The Florida Bar Workers Comp Section "meet and greets" have been widely attended, and highly praised. There is a viral desire to be face-to-face. There is gratitude for the effort that requires. That desire may explain the great turnout in Broward. 

A group of us tried to further distill the spirit of the Broward County group. We struggled. I have always perceived this spring meeting as a positive experience. There are many lawyers, many opinions, and much diversity. I have never felt anyone pulling punches at this Broward event. But, I perceive it as heartfelt, interactive, and collegial. How does the collegiality in Broward always overshadow any disagreements? Is this a closed ecosystem?

One of the attendees, in the discussion of distilling the essence, said “the secret is that we all really do like each other.” That seems awfully simple. Can it be that easy? Is that so much to ask?

Substantively, I never expect to gain formal education from such gatherings. Generally, the CLE presentations are excellent, informative, and full of opportunities. However, I persistently find myself drawn to conversations in hallways, lobbies, and vestibules. Many people, enjoy, catching up, and casually conversing. I find that informative, refreshing, and endearing.

I did sit through several sessions of education. Content comes and goes at such opportunities. This year, I was particularly taken with the caselaw update. There was focus on both what is known, and what is debatable. I persistently find myself wondering if we really know as much as we think. "Known" may be a bridge too far in our self-perception. In any event, it is great to strive to understand different perspectives. Whether one agrees with analyses or not, it is extremely healthy and powerful to hear how people are interpreting decisions.

There are a great many who live and die by stare decisis. They believe in following court interpretations and precedents. There is an evolving trend in some quarters to revisit statutory analysis and to essentially devalue or ignore case law interpretation. There is, in that, some positivity of purpose. Just because a Court has decided it, just not being the answer remains the same today. This is particularly true if the statute has changed. See Precedents and Statutes (August 2023). 

The other program, I always find intriguing is the "view from the bench." It usually includes some illustration of differing perspectives. One might expect each judge would have an identical, singular view of process, procedure, and practice. As we grow and learn, we realize nothing to be further from the truth. Judges are individuals, they are independent, and they have their own views and perspectives. There is value in striving to understand how the judge in your case is likely to perceive and proceed. 

In this program, I was subjected to almost a full hour of Judge Daniel Lewis' humor. If you’ve never had a chance to interact with Judge Lewis, as they say in the South, "bless your heart." Decades? Longevity? Judge Lewis blew past 30 years of service a good while ago. You can’t tell it to look at him, he looks the same as he did the day I met him in 2001. He has not aged a bit, and rightfully deserves the title of the "Dick Clark" of Worker’s Compensation. 

All three Broward judges were effective and informative in their presentation. But, their day-long presence and participation was also powerful and reinforces the community feeling of this annual event.

So, to be clear, utmost gratitude and respect for the judges. But, as to the humor, perhaps there is strong support there for keeping the "day job?" In fairness, Judge Lewis got a lot of laughs. But, as Judge Dietz once pontificated "my jokes became 34.7% funnier the day I was appointed." Now that is funny. 

Who goes to these events? Obviously, some practitioners that need to learn and do better are there to soak up information. Amazingly, many in the audience should be teaching. But some of those are striving to headline less. I get that. Others are at such events to market their services. Some come to see old friends. Some were there to honor the Hall of Fame inductee Mr. Massey. And perhaps some came just to reinforce their strength, energy, and collegiality. There is power in community and it is worth pursuing. If it is a closed system, is it unique?

On the same trip, I had opportunities to chat with the staff and judges in three district offices. It was a great opportunity to gather feedback, and perceptions, and reminisce. I am astounded by the number of OJCC staff members who measure their service in decades. Time flies, and many of them I think of as contemporaries. That reflection of my own age is sometimes hard to face. I am proud of our long-timers and their contributions to serving you. 

In all, a great trip to Broward. There were many opportunities and revelations. The best line of the trip though was the comment about "really liking each other." There is genuinness in that. There is sincerity in that. But, as I hit other workers' compensation events around Florida, I see the same. The atmosphere of collegiality in Broward is charged and powerful, but it is not unique. 

The community there is no more a closed system than is the Florida Bar Section. But, there is community. And it is magnified by the tendency toward a closed ecosystem. Each is "self-replenishing." Each is maintained without significant outside help. But all are sustained by the collective collegiality, cooperation, and contribution. 

Test my collegiality theory and join me in Miami and West Palm Beach in March. I am looking forward to hearing what is important to you. We can catch up, reinforce our commitment to community, and perhaps learn something? I will keep the jokes to a minimum, I promise. If you plan to attend either event, email and let me know. I will strive to ensure that we get an accurate head count.

Neither snow no rain nor heat or gloom

Does anyone else remember that famous slogan of the intrepid and the persistent?

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds 

The undaunted and strong nature of our national postal service was embodied in that jargon. That is actually a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) motto. There are two, however. The second is 

The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

I really like the adjectives. USPS services shall be "prompt, reliable, and efficient." There are many jokes about mail, but Pat Paulson is perhaps the quintessential with: 

"The federal government spends millions to run the Postal Service. I could lose your mail for half of that."

January brought intriguing news from the great bureaucracy that is the USPS. There is unlikely anyone who would argue the USPS should be seen as an exemplar of efficiency or effectiveness. Recent news stories around the country are about significant delays in delivery (80 days, "prompt?"), deficiencies, and issues. These little trucks ply our neighborhoods and communities bringing an endless supply of irrelevant coupons, unwanted catalogs, and monetary pleas.

There are many good arguments for avoiding the USPS. Some might even say price is an issue. Money magazine reported recently that

"Stamp prices will rise to 68 cents this weekend — the fifth hike in less than three years. This probably won't be the only stamp price increase in 2024, either."

Yes, the good news is that while service will be dismal and delayed, at least the price will be higher. Reportedly, the rapidly escalating prices at the USPS are due to

“inflationary pressures on operating expenses and the effects of a previously defective pricing model.”

Yes, that is what it says. The admission is that the USPS has been poorly managed and that has enabled an economic outcome that is not sustainable. Perhaps the only flaw is in the "previously," because the increases will continue, the waste will continue, and the defective will continue. It is not news here. See E-Filing Landmarks (March 2014). I have noted before that postage prices have not paced inflation, but those concerns were ignored. E-JCC Saves Millions (October 2013)

We announced recently that the Zip Code for our Tallahassee office (including our Clerk’s Office) is changing from 32399 to 32301, based on guidance from that local post office. The Post Office has struggled recently to deliver the mail that is labeled 32399. One must discount and ignore that the exact same Post Office has been successfully delivering our mail with this Zip Code for decades. What changed?

To paraphrase Rick Springfield (Jessie's Girl, Working Class Dog, RCA 1982):

But lately something's changed

(and it's) hard to define

This is a challenge. And it will be compounded when we ask you to change your contact information for us again in a year or so. Yes, after decades on Apalachee Parkway the DOAH operation will be moving to a new location. That will take some getting used to in a broad sense, but for now change our Zip Code to 32301. Of course, there is little purpose for the Postal Service in Florida workers' compensation. Since we switched to mandatory e-filing, it has been a redundancy in most instances.

EXCEPT: if you have something that cannot be e-filed, such as a video, or an x-ray film, that can be mailed to the clerk's office. Occasionally, we get a demonstrative filed (one of the objects the plant was manufacturing and the worker was lifting/carrying/handling). These instances should be rare (judges don't read x-rays, we count on experts interpreting them). If you are filing an x-ray film, ask yourself about relevance, context, and probity. But, file what you believe you must. 

Why did the USPS suddenly decide that the Zip Code we have been using forever is no longer valid? That is hard to say. If only it were an isolated challenge.

I recently got news that there is a mail issue at the Rodhe Building in Miami. That houses our Miami District Office and has for decades. One tower was built in the days of Wage Loss (1976) and the other shortly after (1986). I think the OJCC moved into the South Tower in about 1977, and to the North Tower in 2007. It is a state-owned building, full of state agencies. And daily, it seems, "they've got mail." And, like so many buildings of the era there are USPS mailboxes built right into the building. That's convenient.

Well, that was convenient. Those who deliver to that address have decided that those built in, time-tested, convenient mailboxes no longer suffice. Rumor has it they are working on a motto change from

"render postal services to all communities"

to

"render postal services to all communities (that have kept up with our changes regarding mail boxes and our convenience)"

So, the mailboxes, after decades of consistent use and acceptance, are somehow (ambiguity is king) now inappropriate. So, the postal service has decided not to use them any longer, pending a visit to Miami by a postal service official from Washington, D.C. Yes, we understand that a mailbox expert will be dispatched from the nation's capital to review the mailbox situation and perhaps propose remedies or remediations. This is, indeed, apparently rocket surgery and expert USPS consultation is required. 

In the meantime, the USPS might just deliver the mail as they have for decades. But, instead, they have elected to deliver all of the mail for the agencies in the two, ten-story, Rohde building to one agency.

That agency is not equipped or staffed to distribute the mail to all the various tenants. So, the mail is unceremoniously deposited in a hallway, in a cardboard box marked "mail" in sharpie. To protect the mail from any impacts of weather, or mopping, the box is carefully balanced on two five-gallon buckets. It has to be seen to be believed.

Thus, the realities of the deteriorating world of service reinforce the OJCC Rules. E-file your documents. Do not send paper mail to the District Offices. Tell your clients not to send mail to the District Offices. Electronic Filing is mandatory, not discretionary, except for the unrepresented (see below). Any documents or materials that are mailed should be sent only to the Clerk's Office (use that new Zip Code - 32301). 

Thanks for reading. I have to go now and read my Christmas Cards that just arrived. Oh, to have holiday greetings now that spring has come. Perhaps they were stored in a cardboard box somewhere while my thirty-year-old mailbox was being expertly evaluated by a world traveler, Kevin Costner perhaps? (The Postman, Warner Brothers 1997).

I am certain that you just cannot make this stuff up. Thanks to all the intrepid letter carriers out there. We appreciate your efforts and regret the many trepidations and challenges you face in this complex world (yes, sarcasm, sorry).

Central Clerks Office

Email: AskOJCC@doah.state.fl.us
Phone: (850) 487-1911 Fax: (850) 487-0724
Mailing Address
Office of the Judges of Compensations Claims - Central Clerks Office
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32301

60Q-6.108. FILING AND SERVICE

(1) Filing.

(a) All documents filed with the OJCC, except documents filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney, shall be filed by electronic means through the OJCC website. Any document filed in paper form by U.S. mail, facsimile, or delivery shall be filed only with the OJCC clerk in Tallahassee. Documents shall be filed by only one method, e-filing, facsimile, or U.S. mail, and shall not be filed multiple times. Duplicate filings will not be docketed and will be destroyed.

Supply and Demand

There are many interesting applications of the economic concepts of supply and demand. Those are largely lost on the population, but the effects of economics are arguably universal. They surround us in our daily lives. We address them individually and collectively. Imagine a workforce that would band together to artificially control supply, and thus strive to manage the economic equation regarding the value of services.

To increase price (wages), one need only increase demand for the service or decrease the supply of those who provide it. Either of these paths will increase the price to the consumer. I illustrate this in class with the observation that some rocks (diamonds) are deemed more desirable than others (granite). Yes, I realize diamonds are not rocks, but if you get mired in the various forms of carbon the whole conversation takes days. Despite common misconceptions, carbon is not your enemy

There are natural examples of scarcity. Physically, only a percentage of us are capable of dunking a basketball. Mentally, Einsteins come along only so often. Those people are scarce. But we create scarcity artificially as well. Make no mistake, there are various reasons why government might legitimately restrict access to various occupations. The predominant of these in the United States is the “police powers“  described by the words “health, safety, and welfare." Check the U.S. Constitution, Amend. 14 for discussion.

In that vein, it makes no possible sense to allow me to open an appendectomy store in the local mall. I lack medical training and expertise regarding the procedure and the potential for untoward outcomes or problems is nearly endless. I do, however, have "the ultimate set of tools," Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), or perhaps as apropos "I can fix it." I could do brain surgery as well, given a few moments to think it through. 

But seriously, anyone interested in having me perform their appendectomy has far larger issues than appendicitis. It makes sense that only doctors can legally do surgery. We have seen that with fake plastic surgeon, Botox injections, allergy treatment, physical therapy, and more. People are injured when the untrained and unprepared perform medical treatment. 

By the same token, however, such government licensure arguments can be easily made in favor of electricians, contractors, architects, engineers, lawyers, and more. There are legitimate interests in protecting the public. Some other licensure requirements may be viewed more as revenue-generation tools than public protection. As perceptions shift, areas, occupations, or professions might be discussed in such an analysis with varying degrees of agreement or dissent.

However, licensure requirements are generally intended to assure that those who practice in such occupations and professions possess the requisite skill, experience, and knowledge to both benefit their customers and to avoid harm to either the customer or the public.

A recent story from Korea is far different, British Broadcasting Corporation, February 2024. Physicians in South Korea are protesting by way of non-attendance or resignation. They are not seemingly delivering “health, safety, and welfare" arguments in support of their slowing or stoppage. Instead, they seem to be making simple supply and demand arguments. Their contention is that the government, allowing more individuals to be licensed, increases the supply of skilled practitioners, and thus decreases the price which each can viably demand in economic exchange

There is an effort to increase the supply of doctors there. The doctors are opposed. Their message is simple, too many practitioners (supply) means too little reward (wages). The argument is not about delivering better care, attaining better outcomes, or the public good. But really, is having too man doctors in society a bad outcome?

America is presently in a difficult position as regards, medical care. Becoming a professional can be long and arduous (10-12 years of hard work and studying). Furthermore, there is an understandable inclination for anyone undertaking such an investment to spend 30 to 40 years thereafter practicing that profession. It is understood that those who invest in that career path will want to make a living, recoup for lost time in achieving the status, and succeed.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are jealous of the wages doctors and other professionals earn. That four years of undergrad, three years of grad school, and pittance in initial earnings equates to a huge investment of deferred compensation. There is a huge emotional, financial, and chronological investment to join such a profession. That decade or more of deferral is being compensated, or it should be. If it is not, that will deter great students from taking that path. There is a benefit in attracting good people to the practice of any profession. 

That said, the tail end of the baby boom generation (with admitted self-interest by yours truly) has snuck into the medical-consumption years. While it is not absolute, young people tend to require less frequent and less pervasive medical care than the older generations. And it seems that the curve keeps turning upward the older we get. Certainly, I am worried mostly out of self-interest. But that does not mean there is not a real problem that will impact many people. 

Medicare will not, has never, paid the full cost of care. In Florida, workers' compensation pays doctors 110% of Medicare. Some have proposed increasing that. If we need to pay 150% or 200% of Medicare, does that mean workers' compensation would overpay? Or, does it suggest that Medicare is not paying enough to compensate providers? 

I am inclined to disbelieve that workers' compensation would overpay. So, it likely means that the burden of caring for those on Medicare/Medicaid (whose care is discounted by the constraints of those programs) is being shifted to the provider or facility that then shifts it to other consumers like workers' compensation. This differential is an example of socialism at work in the delivery of medical care. "To each according to his needs." Karl Marx. The price of every product and service we consume is inflated by the price of workers' compensation subsidizing the medical care of others through this shifting. 

And the U.S. is is already short of physicians. OPAGGA (Florida government agency) says Florida faces "an anticipated shortfall of nearly 18,000 physicians by 2035." That seems like ages, but it is literally 11 years away. And, this is not a "Florida thing." Fortune reports "30% of Americans don’t have a primary care doctor due to a shortage of providers." Fortune notes "The Association of American Medical Colleges projects we’ll be short as many as 124,000 physicians by 2034." That is almost the entire population of Gainesville, Florida.

Let's build medical schools on every corner! Hint, I am not competent to provide care. Do not let me open a medical school. However, there are a plethora of qualified institutions and doctors that could appropriately train new doctors. 

But opening schools today might not help much. Look above at the 10-12 years. Even if we could divert more college graduates this year into medicine, the "medical school (four years), and a residency program (three to seven years)" would still see us just beginning to make a difference in 2031. In reality, the curve we are behind is at least 7 and more like 10-12 years. Why were we not building medical schools a dozen years ago? Did no one see this coming?

Any increase in production of positions, in anticipation of the aging, baby boomers (a dozen years back), had to be weighed against the probability of a potential decrease in demand for services for later generations. That is, was the deficit predictable? Or have we seen some exodus from the profession? (Note - I do not speak for the AMA). The AMA says that there is "burnout" that drives early retirement, "cut back hours," or "leave(ing) medicine altogether." The AMA also lists the stated reasons. Was this exodus predictable?

For whatever reason, medical school output does not seem to have kept pace with medical practice demands. On top of that, there is some likelihood that a population of medical professionals found our recent SARS-CoV-2 experience demoralizing, stressful, and retirement-inducing. That is likely true of various professions. Do not get me started on the projected nurse shortage (1.1 million, I kid you not). 

Notably, others "insists there isn’t a nurse shortage at all. There are plenty enough nurses for the country, they say — merely a shortage of nurses who want to work under current conditions." There it is again, supply and demand. The supply is being constrained by circumstances of the workplace, perhaps, or by the output of the schools? Does it matter why there is unmet demand in the workforce? In the end, I am doubtful we patients care why there is no willing provider (doctor, nurse, etc.), we are simply pained that there is a shortage. 

Nonetheless, expected or not, there is a shortage of physicians. There are persistent acknowledgments of challenges with finding willing providers. This is notably true in Worker’s Compensation, but more broadly also. The result of an insufficient supply will lead to increased prices, even without the boomer bubble. If demand only remains constant and supply decreases (retirement, etc.) prices will rise. This is only aggravated further by the increased demand of the aging boomers.

Price? Might prices have an impact? Would it bother anyone to know "that more than $100 billion may be lost in fraud, waste, and abuse annually?" That means each year folks. And, that is the figure that the government will own up to. Others claim that the waste is more like 25% of the "$4.3 trillion" in health expenditures. That is about $1 trillion of waste. I love those who strive to cast blame and propose easy answers to our challenges. But in the end that is still $1 trillion. It is easy to point fingers, but this is not a simple societal problem. It is a deep and murky challenge with many moving parts. 

Who pays for waste? We all do. Sure, in one characterization, "34 percent of the nation’s healthcare spending is funded by the federal government." That is painful. The taxpayer is funding 34% of $1 trillion of waste. But wait, there is more. We all pay for waste more directly. What is the doctor busy with such that you cannot get an appointment? Well, the statistics here suggest that about 2 hours per day (at least) is "waste." That is a great deal of time that might be spent treating a patient instead of completing a form, interpreting a rule, or complying with a bureaucracy. 

Would decreased red tape, forms, and constraints be a quicker path to more physician time (supply) than building medical schools? Would decreased bureaucracy mean more physician retention and satisfaction? (Supply) Is the challenge the fault of insurance, business, government? Many are quick to jump on the "fault" wagon. I watched an evolution recently on social media that illustrated the failure of the masses to think critically about medical care. 

That debate was rife with indignation about people with insurance facing medical costs. The insurance is not covering everything! Notably, the government stepped in a few years back and mandated that people can wait until their house is on fire and then purchase insurance against fire. With it came the first mandate compelling Americans to purchase a product that they did not want (if they wanted it, they would have bought it without being told to). 

Demand increased. Consumption of services increased. Someone, somewhere, is astounded that these increases led to price increases. When demand increases, and supply does not, prices rise. Water is wet, the sky is blue, and the Browns don't win Super Bowls. 

There were many promises that prices would not increase (they did), that we could keep our present coverage (we didn't), and that everyone could have more and it would cost us all less. That this was promised is not surprising. Promises are easy. That anyone believes that everyone can get more for less is astounding. People seem enamored with the idea of taking more of what belongs to others, but then they are surprised when there are market corrections and impacts. Markets react. 

Turning back to South Korea, one might wonder what the demographic shift portends in that nation. Is the supply that is being discussed an intended replacement supply, an increase in anticipation of greater demand, or an intended expansion of the current supply? In a nutshell, one might broadly question who is making the supply decision. Is it a central government, or a market economy? Are they planning more production (starting supply in the pipeline) as a reaction to insufficient current supply or proaction?

The point to this all is that there are impending storm clouds. The numbers in America point to many of us having little or no access to primary or specialized care. The trends are set, and there is no time to build our way into solutions. There is room to discuss why there are not more medical schools. There is room to discuss how we could avoid such a challenge in the future.

But, there also has to be some way to discuss how we provide the marketplace today with enough willing providers in the near term. How will workers' compensation work, how will anything work, without an adequate supply of willing providers to deliver the care, remediate the damage, and palliate the symptoms? 

I doubt a strike such as South Korea's will make a difference. However, there has to be a way to prioritize and manage the needs of the population. Perhaps through leveraging technology? In tech is there any immediate path to efficiency or efficacy that would provide relief? 

Those who would leverage other professionals (nurses, see the 1.1 million number above) are not likely to solve the problem. 

Those who would blame these, those, or them are ignoring the problem. Blame will accomplish nothing. 

Increasing demand is certainly not the answer. More waste, fraud, and abuse is not the answer. 

The problem is simple supply and demand. There is too little supply and too much demand. The time has come to work on it in earnest. Or, we could just let folks like me start doing appendectomies? Trust me, my dad's "got this ultimate set of tools."

A Social Media Post

I was surfing LinkedIn Friday and came across a post from Mark Pew. It is one of those eye-catchers in which he illustrates what he has been up to. Since he began educating in the workers' compensation community in 2012, he has tracked his public presentations and some of the associated demographics (over 70,000 attendees at programs and over 40 jurisdictions). However you might carve that, it is a lot. Perhaps Mark will eventually make it to all 57 states?

He noted that he has reached 700 times presenting educational content. I thought I was the only person on the planet who kept such information, but it's worse. I texted Mark and he has much more data on the subject than he included in his post. He has co-presenter names, topic titles, and more. He offered to send it all to me, and I did not reply. The last thing I need is more data.

So, perhaps the point is to congratulate him on the milestone? Well, that too, but no. The simple fact is that the post struck a chord with me in multiple ways that are worthy of addressing.

I have also kept track of statistics over the years. I had an older lawyer tell me early in my career that I should keep track of trials and the information would be of assistance with a board certification application. This lawyer presumed I would seek that one day (I had no intention of it). As a result, for years, I kept that data as well as counts on depositions, hearings, and more. That is all lost to the ages at this point. I do know how many presentations I have delivered, but all that other data went the way of the floppy disc.

Mark's post got several comments. There were the brief "congrats," and some more in-depth. Some noted how he had been a mentor to the commenter. He replied to several of those and noted how he had grown or learned from them. There were mentions of OCD in the keeping of date, compliments, and collegiality.

No, the point is not the post itself. There are several points actually.

First, note the mention of mentoring. I had a lawyer tell me to track data. She assumed I would seek certification one day. She presumed I would remain in the practice, and progress. In being a mentor, she did not question. Her approach was to offer advice for the success she presumed I would one day enjoy. That was a confidence builder. Who do you mentor? How do you mentor?

Mark's commenters congratulated, but several noted he was a mentor. I am certain that was not isolated. But, do you need to post on LinkedIn to get that kind of feedback? If you had a mentor, like Mark, why wait? Reach out to them spontaneously (today maybe). Tell them how you are doing, what they did to inspire, guide, or support you. Why not share that feedback in a world that is too often weary and challenging?

Reverse that. Mark's reply to one commenter was essentially about how much he has learned from this mentee. If your efforts and course have led you to someone from whom you have benefited and grown, ditto the above. Why not reach out and say so? Every day has a bit of challenge, and sometimes that is the preponderance of people's day. Think how valued such a quick text or call might be.

Second, note that in his comments Mark admits that he had little in terms of credentials in 2012. He said he kept the numbers as the "only thing I had at the beginning as a complete unknown with no credentials but lots of opinions." I am not a fan of "fake it 'til you make it." And in truth, he is being self-deprecating as to what he brought to the table. But, the point is to strive for what you want. 

Know this. There are lots of opportunities to do what you would enjoy. If that is speaking to groups, do so. I know, "I never get invited." Have you let anyone know you are interested? Have you sought out people who produce education programs? Have you offered to help them, to serve on panels, to support their efforts? Some programs are "pay to play," but the majority are not. They pick people on a different basis. They want and value hard work, sincerity, and collaboration. 

Know what you know and what you do not. Find topics that you can be passionate about. When you experience a great presentation, take the time after to compliment the speaker. Ask if she/he would join you for a cup of coffee and pick their brain. Some may defer, but many will not. Don't hate those who defer, but treasure those who help you. Generally, this community is full of good people who will revel in your success as much as you will.

Third, Note that Mr. Pew is not a spring chicken. Sorry, Mark. I think he already knew that, but really age is in the eye of the beholder. I mention it because he notes that his odyssey into public speaking began about a dozen years ago. You can evolve and you can try new things in life and work. You can find purpose at 23, or perhaps a few years later. You can wander into passions and pursuits, or purposefully seek them. But one must persistently remember that it is a decision to open doors or to walk on past. You decide but do so consciously. 

Finally, I note persistently that when he travels for such a presentation, he spends time at the event. There is value to both the speaker and the event from such engagement. I have persistently struggled with that. I find myself always short of time and resistant to extended travel. I have many times driven in an hour before, and been gone again before lunch. Always trying to cram too much into limited time. 

But there is value in the experience. The Pew post notes the power of networking and connecting. It is extremely difficult to build relationships virtually. Networking in a 3-hour stop is challenging as well. There is value in being present, watching presenters, and engaging with them. There is no speaker from whom you cannot learn something. Find a way to be present and to participate. I have recruited many a speaker because of familiarity and persistence. 

The lessons that this seemingly innocuous social media post conveys are clear and notable. Engage in your community with a mindset that both mentors and mentees benefit (sometimes you cannot tell which is which in a relationship). Lead with what you have, passion, experience, curiosity, you name it. Any strength can be leveraged. Know that life will throw challenges, changes, and curve balls. It is always all about how you elect to interpret them and respond. Be present when you can, and engage with the community. Growth and opportunity come through involvement, not through isolation.

I reflected on many conferences I have attended that included Mark as a speaker. I am reasonably confident that those did not include us sharing a stage. I texted him to confirm, and he reminded me that we did share a screen once on The Point (he also noted that he did not find that in his list, so he is really at 701 presentations). He also suggested an occasion in which I did not show up as planned (not my plan, they planned and did not tell me I would be called upon). Sidenote, be prepared for the unexpected. 

See, Mark keeps records of those appearances and of topics, co-presenters, venues, and more. My record-keeping is a bit more rudimentary (date, sponsor, town, topic), and I lament that in retrospect. As a very old dog, I will adapt to his trick moving forward and note my colleagues. 

There is a great deal about social media that is a complete waste of time. But we can learn from it, and be reminded by it, if we take a critical view. Find social interaction that brings you value, whether that is in the real or virtual world. Recognize that either may bring you both ideas and strength. I have met many people through those interactions and I stress to my students to find ways to do so. 

When you choose a professional social media, and nonetheless note a post that really belongs on FaceBook, you can lament it, comment on it, or just move on. But pause for those that describe things that worked or did not for people. Learn from both the mistakes and the successes of others. You can evolve slowly while making all the mistakes yourself or you can absorb the experiences of others and grow with less pain. If they insist on telling you about their lunch or offer an inane poll, perhaps just scroll on by. They are trying to be relevant with their macaroni and cheese, perhaps that works for them?

In the end, there is much to learn and the path is long. Few will find a "forever home" in business (even people with their name on a door often find some young protege eventually showing them that door). Careers will be even more evolutionary in years to come. Change will be increasingly a challenge. The workplace and professions will be persistent opportunities for growth and fulfillment. But that will require conscious engagement, persistence, and focus.

Find your center. Choose a (new?) passion. Plot your course. Change your priorities as needed. Engage your community. Know that there will be disappointment and challenge. Keep swimming. The fact is that success is out there if you care enough to pursue it. Watch for those who can inspire you, strengthen you, and reinforce you. They are rare and worth keeping.

So, congratulations on the 700 Mark. That is an incredible achievement. While it has delivered value, the real point is that you are engaged in the community in a way that fits both you and the community. You are an example for your peers, and more critically for the next generation of contributors, writers, or speakers (of whatever age or experience).