My comedy hero, Dave Barry, who is a genius at the art of written humor, always makes it appear deceptively easy to be funny, and that humorous words, metaphors, and satire simply flow from him like Niagara Falls. In addition to his books, his most famous chore was writing a weekly syndicated column in the Miami Herald from 1983-2005.
However, when he stopped writing his popular column, I recall that he was interviewed on a national program, and the interviewer asked him, “Why did you stop writing your column? People loved it.” And I will never forget Dave’s answer: “Because my accountant says I don’t have to anymore.” Then, in a serious response, Dave explained how hard it is to be funny week after week and find new areas to exploit.
I felt a wonderful sense of relief. I welcomed his response, as I have often struggled to find new territory within our legal profession for these 34 years of Entre Nous. I ruminate over law-related subjects of importance or matters of social immediacy. I’ll try to give that subject a legal context and, if possible, entertain you readers with an analysis, argument, or relevant satire. And I always try to leave you with a thoughtful moral or an encouraging lesson.
Certain legal themes resonate with Americans; we lawyers see that with juries. Juries love to see a liar eviscerated. Hypocrisy does NOT play well in the justice system. As we all know, that’s why hypocrites and liars avoid trials like kryptonite, and, when caught, they attack the finders of fact. But now a new tool in the truth-finding biz is emerging. And it is particularly treacherous to frauds and hypocrites.
As I discuss in my CLEs, and in this space, our duty to society is to act as “special citizens” (as our rules demand) to ensure that our lives, our laws, and our policies are supported by truth. Many hours of our training are consumed by learning how to find the truth and legal precedent through skilled research. As we discussed in March (“The Revenge of Master Cylinder”), those skills will likely become dormant as we increasingly rely on artificial intelligence.
Yes, A.I. is already becoming the intellectual crack-cocaine of the legal profession. Its allure, its breadth, and A.I.’s frightening speed is simply too irresistible to escape. The problem is, lawyers all too often fail to ensure that A.I.’s information is correct.
One recent article reports that, in December, a federal judge in Oregon penalized a firm with more than $110,000 in fines and fees for false citations, and, in the first three months of 2026, over $80,000 in sanctions have been assessed to penalize lawyers who failed to validate the incorrect case citations issued by A.I. platforms. One large firm was ORDERED to notify each of its clients of the firm’s misuse of A.I., and the resulting monetary sanctions. (I’d love to help write that letter: “Dear Client, a judge has told us to warn every client that we were so lazy (at $750 per hour) that we filled our briefs with BS… We’re sorry about that. So, you’ll understand why we’re raising our rate.”)
Increasingly, people in high positions of responsibility will be dependent upon A.I., but you might expect them to learn from the lessons of the legal profession to double-check the information before they rely upon it. That would be stupid not to, right? But the hubris of hypocrites insulates them from the cautions of common sense. Therefore, many of us who deeply care about the future of our wonderful experiment in democracy have been concerned (well, perhaps “terrified” is a better word) by the actions of hopelessly unqualified managers in critical governmental posts and positions.
Trial lawyers know that there is a whole body of law concerning evaluating expertise. You can’t have a real estate developer testify on naval military strategy. You can’t have a science-denier credibly testify about best health practices. But those common-sense notions are clearly out of fashion.
Take one particular member of the Cabinet, whose hubris would prove the point. Certainly, he has access to the most reliable “intel” in the civilized world. The future of this nation, our domestic tranquility, and posterity is dependent upon the exercise of his knowledge and discernment of the truth. His actions, however, leave us frightened and sleepless. As did his attempt to invoke God’s help to defeat a theocracy. (Uh…didn’t that grudge match between supreme beings start the Crusades, which lasted 196 years?).
Well, at a Pentagon prayer breakfast last April 16, he recited a prayer, which he said came from Bible verse “CSAR 25:17.” First, there is no CSAR book of the Bible and a five-second Google search would have so informed him, and, as it turns out, his “prayer” was lifted directly, word for word, from Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 script for Pulp Fiction. Far be it from me to criticize anyone’s attempt to gain favor or influence from the Supreme Being. God knows I’ve been there many times. But, when you’re wearing your religion on your sleeve, maybe you should check before you learn you’re being pranked with a fake Bible verse.
But because sycophants are concocting ridiculous excuses for this absurd fakery, I think I can do better, since I love fakery, and I have skills.
Voilà! With the assistance of the American Screenwriters Guild, here is my prayer for the trial lawyers of Texas (bow your heads, and pray with me, please):
“The Path of the Plaintiff’s lawyer is beset on all sides;
“They faceth the scourge of Tort Reform and descent of Policy limits;
“We beseech thee, Lord, to aid the words they speak, as they must avoid
A Failure To Communicate;
“And guide my hand on Peremptory Strikes, to keep the unwise and the irrational from this jury, as they can’t handle the truth;
“And may we remember the words of the Lord as He guided St. Luke, ‘Luke I am your Father.’”
“And Blesseth be the Civil Defense Lawyers; as to them, Law means never having to say you’re sorry;
“For theirs is the peril of unknown lawsuits; like a box of chocolates, they never know what they’ll get.
“In your mercy encourage the Defense Lawyers to make each Plaintiff an offer he can’t refuse;
“And Blesseth be the Criminal Lawyers;
“For in their justice system they are two separate yet equally important groups, and theirs are the stories;
“And in the end, remind us to go home after trial. Because there’s no place like home. And there, by your grace, may we all live long and prosper.
“Hakuna Matata. Amen”
And finally Lord, let us all keep the faith that we shall survive this.
The opinions expressed in Entre Nous are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Austin Bar Association membership or the Austin Bar Association board of directors.
