Share This Article:
I recently found myself in the Doge's Palace in Venice, standing before a bocche di leone (lions’ mouth). Several remain throughout the city, each an "intricately carved face . . .with a slot at the mouth into which letters could be inserted." These date to the seventeenth century (1600s), according to National Geographic. Their use persisted until "that French guy came" (as my tour guide phrased it, reminding that this quaint Italian republic was sacked by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1797, and thereafter evolved to a French republic, and then part of the Kingdom of Italy. Napoleon was then the King, and thus perhaps some explanation of my perception that the tour guide was less than enamored with "that French guy.").
Photo copyright 2022 David Langham. Translation is "secret denials against those
who conceal thanks and duty or collude to hide the true income of them."
Venice was not alone. National Geographic notes that “many (governments) had systems for anonymous denunciation of one kind or another." This facilitated an "inquisitorial” system in which "inquiry would be started from a public accusation which often involved witnesses, or a secret denunciation.” In Venice, the accusations were allegedly taken more seriously when they were signed instead of anonymous. My tour guide in Venice contended in that system the unsigned complaints were disregarded completely, and that a signed complaint found to lack foundation might lead to prosecution of the accuser. There is some support for this contention on the Internet.
However, that perception of lovely Venice is not unanimous. American author Mark Twain was critical of the potential for anonymity and contended that the boche di leone "doomed many an innocent man." There is surprisingly little history readily available on the world wide web regarding the boche di leone. How did it work, was anonymity respected, were innocents convicted through innuendo and implication? That, I fear is lost to history, subject to perspective perhaps, and left to the reader.
Imagine having something to say, and yet fearing blow-back or even retribution. I have heard from lawyers for years regarding their perceptions of the Florida workers' compensation system, and those who run it. Their many thoughts and the promise of constructive feedback led to the implementation of the annual joint survey implemented by the OJCC and The Florida Bar Workers' Compensation Section. It was designed for our customers to have a chance to be critical and suggest constructive change. Unfortunately, there are some in this community that are less than constructive at times, and some who confuse "critical" with terms such as "belittling," "insulting," and "defamatory."
This phenomenon is not limited to the OJCC survey. Author and radio host Diane Hamilton notes in her blog that the Internet has encouraged opportunities "where people make their anonymous comments." These include some that they "might not otherwise have made should they have had to have their name or face associated with their remarks." Some people lurk in the shadows with their criticism and worse. She notes that on the Internet "many comments are made by children under 18 and some of those comments may be just dismissed as immature." Note she says "many," but adults are making such attacks also. And, in our context, no children are participating in the annual survey. No one can claim youthful indiscretion, but could perhaps plead emotional immaturity.
Some contend that a certain segment of society seeks anonymity. In The Many Shades of Anonymity, the authors contend "the desire for anonymity from users has led to the creation of anonymous content contribution platforms" on the Internet. The authors note that some research supports that "anonymity strongly influences user behavior – online and offline." They note that at times "humans turn aggressive and violent in situations in an environment that is less constrained by social norms," and may "exhibit a disinhibition complex within communications in an anonymous setting."
Why the angry comments (or worse)? Ms. Hamilton contends that "people who write these posts have little consideration of the feeling of others," that they evidence "a lack of interpersonal skills." She questions how to categorize the motivation for such comments and contends that some people may have "more issues with emotional intelligence than others." She briefly explores the potential, noting that some age and gender distinctions between groups have been noted in some research on emotional intelligence. It is an interesting read.
Back to the OJCC Survey and our effort to afford the public, our customers, the chance to make Florida workers' compensation better. The opportunity has been afforded for many years so survey participants may leave constructive suggestions. While some doubt the anonymity of the survey, I certainly have no capacity to learn the identity of any respondent or comment-maker.
In the survey's anonymity, unfortunately, there is some potential for spewing of venom. We are blessed to get a great deal of constructive feedback, suggestions, and information. However, there are also comments left that are certainly not the "constructive" criticism that is solicited. There are some that evidence a sad lack of emotional intelligence and maturity. Periodically, perhaps, some comments even cross the line towards defamation. Of course their anonymity prevents the prosecution or challenging of the emotionally stunted author(s)(proving the anonymity perhaps). But, their petty commentary is perhaps tortious or violative nonetheless.
Violative of what? The Florida Bar Professionalism Center strives to remind that "a lawyer must avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing parties, opposing counsel, third parties or the court." This is the professional course, but professionalism is largely aspirational and many lament the lack of firm definitions or parameters. Thus, consider instead the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which might be of more persuasive impact. Rule 4-8.4 provides succinctly that "A lawyer shall not:"
"(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis."
I do not read any of the survey comments except my own, unless asked to do so. Some of you have had some interesting and even angry things to say about me over the years (sorry, you have not hurt my feelings as yet). Such comments occur even outside the anonymity of the survey, for instance in pleadings. I had a lawyer approach me years ago regarding a pleading s/he had filed in anger and frustration. The lawyer sheepishly apologized privately for the venom that had been spewed there publicly. The apology was sincere, and I reiterated that I take no criticism or venom personally.
But, it is interesting that this lawyer felt no need to make the apology as public as had been the original and unnecessary ad-hominem attack. I felt sorry for the embarrassed and chagrined lawyer. And, while my feelings have not been hurt, it is perhaps harder for some to accept such petty, personal affronts.
In 2022, I was provided a comment by one of our state mediators. It was untoward, angry, and unfortunate. In all-caps, screaming, the survey participant had proclaimed:
"MEDIATOR LIED AT MEDIATION & REPEATEDLY THREATENED OFFICE STAFF. (she/he) IS SPITEFIL & PETTY. ONE OF THE WORST HUMAN BEINGS EVER. DISHONORABLE & UNTRUSTWORTHY."
If one were petty, they might point out that spell-check might enhance one's credibility with such a rant (is it spiteful to says so?). It is not very nice to point out someone cannot spell. I apologize here publicly for pointing it out. This is not the only survey comment brought to my attention this year, but it is among the worst. It is perhaps supportive of a broad conclusion that the anonymity provided is ill-advised generally, or that some in the Bar lack the maturity to self-regulate in such an environment (only Bar members were invited to participate in the survey).
How does such venom make the workers' compensation community better? How does this angry rant perform any positive function? How is this anonymous comment not violative of Rule 4-8.4? It is unquestionably "callous," "indifferent," "disparaging," and "humiliating." Was some other, constructive, import of the all-caps comment intended? Did the author intend it as "supportive," "encouraging," or "remediating?" I would really appreciate someone explaining how such a rant is constructive or productive.
There are those who contend that ranting is positive in a cathartic sense. However, others argue that psychological research supports "that venting, far from releasing anger, actually makes it worse." There is some suggestion that ranters "experience() many negative consequences related to anger, such as verbal and physical fights, damaged relationships, property damage, and dangerous driving." The author of a Psychology Today article asserts that instead of forestalling it, "venting may increase the likelihood of subsequent aggressive behavior."
He argues that "anger does not have to be expressed through aggression," but that people can "express their anger in constructive ways." Perhaps, by making suggestions for change in the system as the survey comment opportunity is intended? Perhaps instead of ranting from the solitude of keyboard courage, one might instigate a conversation about the perceptions above? An attorney so inflamed as to issue this vitriolic insult to a fellow attorney and state mediator might have been better served by sitting down with that mediator or their local Deputy Chief Judge to discuss their perceptions, frustrations, and upset? Does anyone think keyboard courage vitriol is really a better path to addressing a perceived difficulty or problem? Can insults and all-caps really change anything?
I am sorry for the mediator that received this childish and rancorous rant. It is immature, inappropriate and simply sad. However, I am frankly more sorry for the poor, tortured, attorney out there that lacks the emotional and professional maturity to express her/himself more readily and constructively. I am hopeful that this attorney's aggression and anger is limited to this anonymous little corner of the Internet and is not reflected in the attorney's relationships with family, friends, and professional colleagues.
In that vein, have often suggested that we might each impact others. See Starfish (February 2022). You can make a positive impact on people around you. You may choose to channel Your Inner Pooh (January 2017) or be one of the Eoyores (that) walk Among Us (November 2019). Certainly, the lives of attorneys are stressful. Certainly, days are punctuated with successes and disappointments. Clients, opposing counsel, witnesses, and more can bring stress and angst, and lawyers live with a tremendous amount of transferred and assumed stress. This is a challenging profession and practice, there will be disappointment, stress, and perhaps even anger. How can we deal with that? How can we del with that positively?
We never know what someone else is going through, or how bad her/his day actually is. When someone loses their temper with me, I strive to immediately wonder what is going on her/his life of which I am unaware. What pain, stress, or challenge are they facing, or worse internalizing or ignoring? Respecting that people may be severely stressed, ill, or otherwise challenged, do they have therefore some right to hunker behind their keyboard and spew venom and vitriol? Simply stated, no it is no excuse. It is my hope that the person that penned this poison comment, and similar comments elsewhere, was merely having a really bad day. It is my hope that day ended, and their vitriol and anger passed. I hope they found peace or sought help. I certainly hope they did not carry that anger home.
I am saddened in the end. A process is provided through the survey for professionals to provide feedback and suggestions. Their anonymity, as professionals, is respected completely. They are facilitated and engaged. I appreciate the many of you that have taken that responsibility seriously and sincerely. Your participation in the survey has greatly benefitted this Office, the community, the Bar, and more. I have appreciated your suggestions, ideas, and collaborative attitude. Much of what we are today came through the exchange of suggestions and even frustrations/complaints.
As much as I appreciate and respect those who have employed the opportunity appropriately, I regret those that have devolved to unprofessional, childish, and stunted insults. I suspect that those who make such comments likely speak to their associates, friends, and confidants about their venting and aggression. Perhaps sharing or bragging may be part of their attempted and untoward attempt at catharsis? I have no desire to know who these commenters are, but if one engages you to brag about their vitriolic vomit, might you remind them of their professional obligations? Maybe you could encourage them to seek help with their anger and emotion before it inflicts real harm on them and those around them?
Thanks for considering the foregoing. I recognize that this is a post about an nanoscopic population of attorneys, a negligible sub-set that incline for whatever reason(s) to anger and insult. I pity them, and I apologize to the community, The Bar, and all of its leaders for my foregoing focus on the problem and challenge that this petty, immature, and anonymous minority presents.
Read Also
About The Author
About The Author
-
Judge David Langham
David Langham is the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He has been involved in workers’ compensation for over 25 years as an attorney, an adjudicator, and administrator. He has delivered hundreds of professional lectures, published numerous articles on workers’ compensation in a variety of publications, and is a frequent blogger on Florida Workers’ Compensation Adjudication. David is a founding director of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary and the Professional Mediation Institute, and is involved in the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC). He is a vocal advocate of leveraging technology and modernizing the dispute resolution processes of workers’ compensation.
More by This Author
- Jun 05, 2023
- Judge David Langham
- May 20, 2023
- Judge David Langham
Read More
- Oct 19, 2023
- Bill Zachry
- Oct 12, 2023
- Liz Carey
- Sep 28, 2023
- F.J. Thomas
- Sep 28, 2023
- WorkersCompensation.com
- Sep 15, 2023
- Chris Parker