AI is Coming

Hugh[00:00:00] That's some of the craziest things that I was seeing in the last couple years were just horrible calculation errors or,

Christineoh, a judge not understanding gross income versus net income. I, that's like next level. Oh yeah.

ChristineWelcome. Yesterday, two 50 to three 10 ish. Right? We had eight of the 39 judges there. What do you think about it?

HughI am not surprised if you recall when we first talked about it, you know, that that was a comment that I made. If we were talking about three o'clock. Oh, I said three o'clock on a Friday. Yeah. But my experience has been later in the afternoon, the less you're going to have by a pretty, you know, this is, there's a drastic difference between one 30 and three o'clock., I've always found. So I , wasn't super shocked, but now that I'm thinking about it in the context of these are the courts that are supposed to be serving people. This is this, these are the courts that we're supposed to be giving [00:01:00] hearings to my clients who had urgent needs. Mm-hmm. And it's not just me as a practitioner trying to get one thing done at a time over there in court. It's disappointing. It's , very disappointing that's how it is.

ChristineIt's extremely disappointing and I think in particular, there's no excuse whatsoever for district court to have for judges there. District court should be open most of the time because like I said last time, they're not really doing this amount of writing orders like you do in Circuit and family. They're not doing these massive, , trials and they're mainly doing, , preliminary hearings which get sent up pre-trials, pleas if they have a jury trial. Which I mean, how rare is that to even happen nowadays? I, we actually, we may have seen one. I'm not positive That could have been a guardianship trial when we saw those three lawyers outside District Court.

HughYes. I have no idea. 'cause it was a confidential case and so the only thing I could think it would be a guardianship trial. I think that happens pretty often. I think guardianships are pretty common and you have hearings regularly and [00:02:00] they are always going to be confidential. So

Christineguardianships are super depressing. It's very much think in Kentucky we don't have conservatorships, at least I don't know that we have conservatorship, do we? It's a guardianship. Like Britney Spears would've been under a guardianship. She would've never, it would've never happened in Kentucky, 'cause a jury would've never done it, in my opinion. But we do have that safeguard in Kentucky, which I think is extraordinary. Now, they're the most depressing things to watch, though.

HughThey can be. I mean, a lot of times, I've always thought that probate matters. Guardianship matters are some of the only things that can match the emotion and, and just, lack of better word, craziness of family court. Yeah, yeah, yeah. . It's just such a different world than litigating financial matters or contracts and things like that. People get angry about that. But it is so much different when you're dealing with family dynamics and people are fighting over who is best qualified to take care of a loved one. And it's not just one person versus the other. It [00:03:00] might be one whole side of the family versus the other side of the family, and they're all there. And it's, I mean, it's, it really is wild.

ChristineYeah. In district court, a lot of it, especially like in my time it would be theft at Walmart, theft at Walmart, theft at Walmart, you know, people, obviously stealing's bad, but substance abuse issues. But it's not anything that creates this visceral reaction mm-hmm. From the judge or from the even parties. You know, oftentimes by the time you're charged it, and get to court, it could be months later and then you're getting probated time. And so I just struggle with the fact, I think district court in particular, in 2021, I believe really when they tried to pull that whole 10 day thing

Hughlet's, yeah, we, you've mentioned that a couple times. If, explain what was going on at that time because it was something that I. I had heard about it at the time, but I had forgotten and I didn't do a deep dive at the time. But now learning more about it is really quite appalling.

Christine, So in 2021, , obviously there was a backlog of cases from COVID. There's still a backlog of cases, but what they [00:04:00] wanted to do was waive the 10 day rule. So if you're in custody and you are charged with a felony and you are going through district court, okay. 'cause you can get, you can be charged with a felony in district court as an F case, or they can skip that process and go on to just. Walk you into the grand jury and indict you, that's a completely different protocol. 10 day rule does not apply in circuit court, but if you're arrested through district court, you have to have a preliminary hearing within 10 days. And if that preliminary hearing doesn't happen, they have to release you from custody. At that prelim is where they have to establish probable cause that goes before the judge probable cause that the felony occurred. Hey, , we're sending it up to the grand jury. And they wanted to abandon the 10 day rule in order to, frankly, in my opinion, I think they wanted to have week on, week off schedules allegedly.

HughOkay. How how does the 10 day rule, how would that affect week on, week on off schedules for the judges?

ChristineWell, if there's 16 judges at the time there were [00:05:00] 17. So if you look at just, this is from their website, what you can gather from, I think right now they'll have five, courtrooms open in the morning, five courtrooms open in the afternoon, and then you're gonna have juvenile court as well. And if there's a confidential, so maybe six courtrooms, you got 12 courtrooms at each time. And the goal back in the day, I mean back, or like just any competent person is gonna be like the judge that does the arraignment is, should be the judge that does the prelim, right? That's how it's done in the counties. Unless it's like a rare circumstance because of this 10 day time period.

HughAnd why would that be beneficial?

ChristineThe judge that's making the decisions about the case should be the same judge throughout the case. I mean basic, basic. , And I don't think that's happening right now in district court. Now. I'm not going on a regular basis to see that, but I think what that allowed them to do, because if you had that week downtime, you could never schedule your prelims within the 10 day time period.

HughI see.

Christine, So it's just

Hughfor a practical matter. , The 10 day time period was incompatible with a week on, week [00:06:00] off schedule.

ChristineIt was incompatible with them being used to working the COVID schedule, which is in and of itself insane. I mean, you think back, there's so many problems with Louisville that people, , that only practice in Louisville think that they're so much more tech savvy and all that stuff. I mean, Louisville District Court is, I remember the first time I went there and I practiced in eastern Kentucky. I never saw any level of like the jackets. You, you know what a jacket is? Yes.

HughOh, yeah.

ChristineBut, that's the stupidest thing. Like a jacket is a coat. , But in Louisville, their files are in an envelope and they call it a jacket. And everything's done by handwriting, not electronic. Now y'all, one thing that's crazy is we were doing, arraignments video arraignments in 2010 in Eastern Kentucky, 15 years ago. Mm-hmm. And our jail is attached to the district court.

HughYou mean here in Jefferson County? In

ChristineJefferson, yeah. And they couldn't get together to figure out a system to do video arraignments during the Global Pandemic. They could go to the country [00:07:00] club.

HughSo for the viewers. Very important things happen at both the arraignment and the preliminary hearing

ChristinePrelim is significantly more important. Well, I mean, you are always gonna have the bond recommendations Yes. Whether you're going

Hughto stay in custody or not.

ChristineYeah. And the judge should be reviewing that. They should be, you do an intake when you get arrested and you get like a score that comes out should, which, you know, should go into consideration by law, by statute, and enacted by the legislature to determine what your bond should be. But really in Louisville I think that's why they have their little name plates. Like they, you know how you can take out your name plates in each division? Mm-hmm. 'cause they're going to different courtrooms. Sure. So it's not like, like if you go to division eight in, , family court, Brian Gate's courtroom is Brian Gate's courtroom. Mm-hmm. You know, in district court, if we're gonna have 16 judges that make $140,000 a year, we need to have 16 courtrooms. Right.

HughI mean, you would think that it. If it [00:08:00] was a full-time job, you would need 16 courtrooms for 16 judges. What. What type of backlog is there in district court? This is something that I'm not familiar with,

Christinehonestly. I don't know that I can even say articulately in a way that we actually have access to that data. I mean, you have people saying there's a backlog. You know, you've got, you've got our county attorney here that publicly talks to the media that says Louisville citizens won't have faith in the judges until they stop working part-time. And I'm paraphrasing, but this was a quote in the courier and I think WDRB when all of this was going down. But I don't know if you went out in the community, if anyone's gonna be like, oh yeah, I think they're doing a really good job of resolving cases, trying cases. You know, I don't think , that's the feel at all.

HughYeah. , I did find that it was, , I think the first criminal matters that I ever handled were here in Jefferson County. And so then when I went to other courts, they were handled so differently. I. That it was a little bit of a, a shock. And, and the, the jackets, I forgot all about the jackets. The jackets [00:09:00] just have a timeline of what's happened in the case. They start the handwriting, handwriting at the top, the next appearance. They write down what happened, and it just goes down in a line. And part of it is you don't know who's gonna be the prosecutor who's sitting there in the conference room to conference the case the next time you come back, especially if it's something minor and they can look at the jacket and see what was done. Mm-hmm. You know, it might be someone completely different. And that happens a lot in dependency, neglect, and abuse cases too, where they might have a assistant county attorney who is on the case. But any given day that you are there, it may be someone completely different. They just have to read through the file and sort of catch up. In order to negotiate and conference the case.

ChristineYeah. And also our prosecutors here, , they're not giving hardly any difference to make their own determinations, which is another huge problem in Louisville. Like they'll have a hard stance policy. And really, in my opinion, , that's touching on some ethical issues like attorneys have cases are nuanced. Do you know what I mean? . I'm trying to think of an example of one. When I was a public defender, I had a young [00:10:00] client that was poor that stole meds from Walmart and they had this policy that was, if you, your first offense for theft by unlawful taking was 30 days served. 10 . The facts of that, when we got into it, she was young and she had stole UTI medication 'cause she had a UTI and couldn't afford it. And it was like 10 days in jail is not the appropriate punishment for that. She was poor, she was in pain and she had no record whatsoever. That's not something that someone should go to jail for. When you're talking about somebody too that's going in and, you know, pocketing back at that time, big thing with like DVDs and selling 'em to pawn shops and stuff like that to use very different facts.

HughYeah. Yeah. But the same result because that's sort of just, this is the standard deal we give.

ChristineYeah. Now my prosecutor out there he did, he had a boss, but he did what he wanted to do. He did what he felt was right. And in Louisville, I think you'd have to, , it would take two and a half, three years to adjudicate a case where they were going to move off of whatever rule [00:11:00] that Mike o Connell has given them. Like, I don't even know what the current ones are at this point.

HughHow often do they change? Do you know?

Christine, I think it just depends. , It's obviously they're political. And so it's gonna be, if they get any sort of pushback, it's gonna be what the policy is from the public, Michael Connell's a perfect example. He's very politically powerful. , And I don't know him personally. , I've seen some interactions, , in the way that he's spoken to people, and that's not how I don't think it's appropriate. But his last election, he spent like $330,000 for a job that makes like maybe, I don't even know, probably a buck 50.

HughTo me. Weird. Very weird. Well, I mean, that's, most politicians aren't paid a lot at their, you know, in their salaries. I mean, look at Washington, their salaries are not super high, but they spend millions and millions of dollars. But that's crazy.

ChristineOh,

HughThere's all the power that comes with it. There's the power that ha, you know, that comes with, uh, you know, , your next job after that position. , But that's, I mean, that's part of our political process. I think it, because it exists, it attracts people that are seeking that [00:12:00] kind of power. And I don't think, and that's not unique to any one person or state, local or federal government. I think that's how politics works. Not saying it should, right? But.

ChristineI think I'm just still naive. I guess I always thought about that from DC's perspective, but I didn't think about it as much locally because you actually live here, so that's what Yep. Gets weird to me. But it seems like absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of the scale that it's on.

HughWell, I mean, I've always understood, you know, if you're, if you're sitting in Congress or even state legislature and you, you have that position that doesn't pay much in and of itself, but you're developing a network that you can use later for much more lucrative jobs and lobbying and, pushing for legislation for specific industries and things like that. I don't understand it as much at the local government level, honestly. Where that, you know, what that power gets you. It's, it's just not as direct to me.

ChristineI mean, it's just the ability to like micromanage a bunch of people. Maybe that's, that's the [00:13:00] power in and of itself. I don't know. Yeah.

HughI don't know. So who puts the pressure on for changes of those set policies that the prosecutors have to adhere to?

ChristineI guess it would just depend on what the talking point of the day is, you know? 'cause there was a time prior to 2020 where it was not politically advantageous to say anything negative about LMPD at all, especially from a prosecutorial standpoint. And then all of a sudden it became anything and everything that LMPD does wrong is leaked to the press. I mean, and the press wa they were eating that up. I mean, sure. That's all they wanted to report on was the misdeeds of LMPD. And I ain't saying there weren't problems within LMPD at all. No doubt , but the same problems that exist in that arena exist within the judiciary. Okay. Exist within any government entity like. Do you think there's any agency that a hundred percent of the people are good? [00:14:00]

HughNo, but there's no, there's no team, there's no organization, there's no, there's no family. There's no unit of people where everybody's a hundred percent good.

ChristineRight. I

Hughdon't think any one person, you know, there aren't any people that are 100% good.

ChristineAgree. So why is it so radical to say, Hey, we need to look at the judiciary. Like, why is , there's such a visceral, oh my gosh, how dare you say that? All these judges work hard.

HughOh, yeah. No, I, I agree. , I think judges are unique to a certain extent because of the law industry and the legal community being unique that we are, we are really regulated in what we can say, what we can say to the public, what information we can disclose. It wasn't long ago, in fact, toward the beginning of my career not long before I started practicing here in Louisville, you weren't allowed to advertise as an attorney at all. And if you did advertise it, , you could post your name, address and phone number [00:15:00] and that you were a lawyer and nothing else. You still, , can't have trade names, you have to just be the names of the attorney. , There's this whole assumption that the legal industry is completely different. And number one, I find that it insults the public's intelligence.

ChristineYeah, I

Hughmean, it used to be every advertisement had to say in big conspicuous language. This is an advertisement. No kidding. It's on a billboard. Yeah, it's on a TV commercial. Fortunately, that kind of stuff has gone away. The fact that you had to have every blog post or every change to your website pre-approved and pay for it, , by the Bar Association, that has finally gone away just because, , the, the pace of media , and things online. It just, it just wasn't practical. But so much of that still exists in, in, in that it's, it's completely taboo to talk about anything that's wrong within the industry. Mm-hmm. To talk about a judge, God forbid you talk about a bar association. I mean, it's the kind of thing that there are several rules that people would say, oh, you're getting kind of close [00:16:00] on this rule just by, by criticizing something and it's protected attorneys for a very long time, which I tend to believe most of the rules. Are protectionists of the industry. Yep. , The keeping people out, the gatekeeping and gatekeeping in a way that does not, and, and I'm referring to bar associations, law schools not referring to any metric that affects someone's ability to practice law, but just arbitrary gate gatekeeping to keep a certain amount of attorneys. And they've gotten it right and they've gotten it wrong at various different times, but I think there's just something that we're taught from the very beginning that you don't rock the boat. Mm-hmm. You don't speak out about anything. Which is interesting because we do in Kentucky have an ethical rule that if you see something that an attorney does wrong, you ha you are supposed to report it.

ChristineThe rat rule. Yeah.

HughYeah. Which is very strange because most other rules seem to be aimed at. [00:17:00] Maintaining the reputation of the bar of, of attorneys in general, of the practice of law, and especially the judges. And then we have the rat rule, right? And I'm guessing that, , most disciplinary things are handled very privately with attorneys, with the judges, so that the public doesn't see what's going on and what's been reported.

ChristineYeah, I mean the Kentucky Bar Association, , I tell people, and I have said this publicly, I said it about a year ago, , to new lawyers, I would want all new lawyers to understand the Kentucky Bar Association is not here to help you. It should be treated as someone that now, unless you have a whole lot of money and your, your mommy and daddy were lawyers. So I think you maybe had a little bit more friendship there. But you should understand that the Bar Association's job primarily, in my opinion, is to protect the bar and its power. Like just as a general status, not the individual attorneys. Yep. You know, a lot of frustration you get we had. I wanna say maybe a decade ago is when it started. We had all mass suicides from trial attorneys in Kentucky. Like [00:18:00] actually it made the New York Times because we had such a high rate trial. Attorneys were committing suicide but the Bar Association enacted so many rules about how we have to go to all these mandatory CLEs about like, don't jump. , Which aren't helpful at all I don't think. For your mental health. Do you think those are good CLEs?

HughWell, I think, I don't think any CLEI mean, there's a whole CLE industry. You have to get your hours in to get approved. You have to basically be something talking about something related to laws or regulations or HR or something, , abstractly, ethical. And the Bar Association says, yeah, this is fine. And then you. You have to, uh, nowadays, especially post COVID, you just hit play , on a video. I don't know that that's really helping, making people better attorneys. There are some very good ones. There are, yeah, the law update ones specifically where , you will watch for a couple hours , and the presenter will go through new changes in, in your specific, in a specific area of law that you practice in. Those things [00:19:00] are very helpful, but I by and large don't think that that requirement really furthers

Christinewell. This is a most

Hughpeople's legal knowledge and abilities.

ChristineYeah, I just do you get your hours? We just had to do 'em.

HughOh yeah,

ChristineI got mine. Yeah, of course. Barely. But, , I, this is a perfect example of how the Kentucky Bar Association, I don't think really cares about the mental health of practitioners. And I emailed them about this. We got an email over Christmas break that like, Hey, everyone have a great holiday. But remember these expire on December 31st at midnight. And so I actually moved on December 31st this year, which was great 'cause of that ice storm, but I was sitting at home with my moving, like, shit, I got two more free hours. I might as well get listening to it. , In what world did it need to expire on a holiday when we all should have been spending time with friends and family. And the bar association was like, well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but we have tons of other opportunities. But that's just so arbitrary.

HughYeah. I mean,

Christinewhat was the point of it expiring on December 31st? [00:20:00]

HughI can see the, I can see the decisions being made, the group of people around a conference table talking about 20 different things. And it was just, what do we wanna do? We want these to expire after a certain amount of time or at the end of the calendar year or whatever. And someone said, end of the calendar year, all right. And everyone said, yeah, that's probably, that's fine. And they said it and there probably wasn't a lot more thought about it

Christinebut it's just contrary to worrying about the lawyer's mental, like members of the bar. Yeah.

HughI, I agree. I agree. Especially 'cause

Christinewe're on a fiscal year. Ours are all due at June 30th.

HughYeah.

ChristineWe're not on a calendar year for requirements. Nope. But I digress. But I mean, that, that's gonna make the Bar Association mad. And I think there's probably, I think we do have some help if there's substance abuse issues going on. I do think Kela, well, you know, I, I don't even wanna go there today, to be honest.

HughAlright. , I've never had any issue I, I. I took great issue with the advertising rules back when you had to get pre-approval for anything. Yeah. And the web was exploding and I was new to [00:21:00] town and was developing my business through this new media of websites and, and digital marketing and was hamstrung and just couldn't figure out what possible benefit there was to the public of some of those rules where it just, it just didn't make any sense that we are so different than anyone else that you know, the medical industry, someone that, you know, you want to talk about if someone misinterprets something on a commercial for a medical product, that it really is life and death. Mm-hmm. That. We as attorneys need pre-approval to say, Hey, I'm a family attorney. This is what I do. Come talk to me. You know, that was, I just, I didn't understand that except for , the only thing, and I was told over and over and over again, oh, it's to protect the people that already have the business. This is just protectionists. It's always protectionists. It's always gatekeeping. Not actually protecting the public. But that, that's my opinion, my experience with it. I complied. [00:22:00] And when I complied, I had always dealt with very nice people and, you know, I didn't feel like I was having to wait for a very long time for anything.

ChristineI think it is a little weird that now you're like, you go from the rules 10, 15 years ago where you have to, everything is so micromanaged as far as advertising and now we have advertisers that can be like, fire your lawyer and hire us. Like, I think that's borderline crossing a line for lawyers to talk about other lawyers like that.

HughWhy?

ChristineWhat do you mean?

HughWhy is that any different? Or do you want a second opinion? I mean, I've seen those commercials You not happy with, you know, what's been offered? Get a second opinion.

ChristineOh, I don't know. I mean, I just think it's in general saying something disparaging without,

HughI don't think it's disparaging. You're not talking about anybody specific. I think when you see it, at least from my opinion, when I see that in the, I've really only seen it for, I think bankruptcies and

Christinepi,

HughPI like so injury stuff.

Christine[00:23:00] Mm-hmm.

HughI mean, we all know there are factories that are doing the PI stuff. They settle cases. They, they don't necessarily get top dollar, but they, they're not going to go to court. They handle it like a factory. If you want a decent amount of money for your injuries or whatever, and you want it to be fast and you want it to be handled very quickly with good communication, those places are great. Are there other attorneys who can get a lot more money for that exact same case? Absolutely. Because they handle it differently. Yeah. They're not looking at it as just another one. So we're sort of going through the pipeline. And there's also a lot of risk involved in that. Like the, the insurance companies have these built in costs that they know this is about how it works with this, you know, this law office that processes this. Many of our cases, we know what we can deal with with them. But you get somebody else, you may, you may, it may turn out worse, but you, it could be a lot better. I don't know that there's any. Reason why people shouldn't be able to advertise that? I don't think it's disparaging. I think [00:24:00] it's the truth.

ChristineOh, I don't know. It makes me feel a certain kind of way, but maybe that's my own indoctrination. And I was thinking about that last night a lot. Um, I had a person that was asking me questions, you know, uh, I get a lot of calls and a lot of dms and messages from people that want help, and I'm, I still tend to believe in the system. Um, but I do wonder if at some level we've just been so indoctrinated. And I guess what I mean is like when I went into education very briefly for six months, I was immediately like, this is insane. This is not effective. This is nuts. This is not helping children. And then the goal isn't even helping children, like, can y'all not see this? And great teachers out there? But I wonder if that's what people think about when they come into the legal profession because we're just like indoctrinated and it's just systemic and systematic, and this is how we do things.

HughWell, I mean, you, you talked about why it's not okay, why people think it's not okay to talk about judges or, and mm-hmm. But you feel you had that. Very reaction about attorneys advertising that, Hey, your attorney may not [00:25:00] be that great. Come see a second opinion, which is just normal in any other, yeah, in any other industry. That is perfectly normal. And frankly, you know, as well as I do, there are good attorneys, there are okay attorneys, there are bad attorneys.

Christine100.

HughAnd it is just, I don't know if, if, you know, the, we've been conditioned to think that attorneys are just this monolithic category of people and we're all the same and we treated the same and, and we we're not allowed to compete the way that other people in private practice or in private businesses are. But we are businesses. And I think, but I, but I think one of the ways that that has really done a disservice to attorneys is small practice and solos. Yeah. That have been conditioned to think that. They are their practice no matter what, they cannot see their company as a business. Mm-hmm. And [00:26:00] ultimately what happens is it also doesn't serve the public because when you can't run a practice like any other type of business, you are involved in everything. You have to continue to be involved in everything. There's not an exit strategy. It's not something that can be sold very easily because we have rules against people from outside of the legal industry having any ownership.

ChristineMm-hmm. And

Hughlaw firms. And the end result is attorneys work way past when they're actually able to do a good job with their clients because there's not an exit strategy and just it's much more stressful. People, people will continue to just sort of hit a wall and that other small businesses don't that would allow them to grow and have, you know, innovate or have delegate much better quality of life. Mm-hmm. Like, I think, I think ultimately it results in poor quality services. More, much more expensive services. Because if attorneys [00:27:00] could run businesses like a business, they could innovate, they could cut the cost down, which would then trickle down somewhat. I mean, it would be a higher margin, but it could bring legal costs down because that would be a great way to compete. Wait, I can do this in half the time with half the man hours. Mm-hmm. For half the price, I'm not going to charge the same amount and do that. I'm going to charge a lot less than competitors. 'cause you're going to clean up.

ChristineYeah.

HughAnd, and I think that, I think it would work out in the public's interest. Uh, but, you know, for whatever reason, uh, we wanna pretend that we're all the same, they are all the same skill level that we, there's something special about a law business that makes it incompatible with any, you know, running it like a regular business.

ChristineWell, and that's why I think AI is, I, I do not think solo practitioners in large firms understand how much AI is gonna change. And I was a part of a firm very briefly, and I saw, I'd say we've got two to five years left before law firms are predominantly run by ai. [00:28:00]

HughI if that, I think I came from, I, I've worked within two very, very specific industries, family law and, and environmental, but mainly international environmental, which is very, very niche, you know, to get my head around all the different areas of law that would have to be replaced by something I would have to think more about. But I can definitely list just pages of things that could be better handled by someone running. Artificial intelligence, you know, not running by itself because it just, no, no, no, no. Smart people coupled with artificial intelligence are orders of magnitude more efficient, more thorough, and can be far more professional than just a human. And you know, I think even in five years you're still not going to have AI that just sort of runs itself. It can run the processes, it can do the background work it, it can do the things that you [00:29:00] instructed it to do. But I mean, there, there's a huge role for the attorneys in that process. But so much of the legal industry, so much of I mean from contract review, document review, I, I've spent time in DC on document review teams where they were paying us to work. 90, a hundred, sometimes 105 hours per week. And we're talking about hundreds of attorneys at one firm. Mm-hmm. Just stuffed in the rooms, reviewing documents that now could be done in a matter of minutes, weeks of things that we did at, and I forget what they were charging the client hundreds of dollars an hour per attorney. I, I worked on the team teams as large as like 150 attorneys that were all in one large space sitting at, at tables doing document review that could be done in an hour or less.

ChristineYeah.

HughAnd we would be doing that for, for weeks or months on a project. And that stuff's going to change a lot of the small mom and pop practices that, that just [00:30:00] draft wills for people that draft deeds, that do real estate transactions. Those should disappear.

ChristineWell, I mean,

HughI mean, I'm not saying the job should disappear. Someone should be running it, but if the attorney likes that area of practice, then run it like a business. Mm-hmm. And let's pass those savings and the efficiencies down to the clients. The fact that we still have real estate transactions, that this is the biggest purchase that likely anyone ever makes in their life. And it's on a handwritten thing that it's insane. We, we fill out, that's like a, a form and it takes like six people sitting around a table to do it and weeks to get everything lined up and all of that stuff makes absolutely no sense when, you know, even before there were, and you know, artificial intelligence could be used to do it. I had helped develop software that could do an entire divorce, fully customize every single piece of it in about 1.7 seconds.

ChristineOh my goodness.

HughAnd but if you, if you did it the traditional way where we had to go [00:31:00] through it, it would be months. And just the processes. There are better ways to approach them there. There are much better ways to approach them, and I don't think it should ever replace people. I'm not advocating for that. I just think there are certain parts of our industry that are long overdue for innovation and change, and it's gonna disrupt and hurt a lot of people.

ChristineBut I think we've also like cut our nose off to spite our face being like, it will never happen to us, or we are elite as lawyers, therefore we don't have to lean in. And like you said, you know, make best case scenarios. But I think, uh, family court judges in particular, like AI as far as analyzing their decisions, just to see the discrepancies would be a game changer. It would truly be a game changer because I think a, I could look at the facts of the case, what was alleged, well, and see the parental alienation patterns, the silver bullet pattern. I could and

Hughwe're at the point where we could do that. I could I can think of. If you gave me a whiteboard probably from the ceiling to the [00:32:00] floor, I could sketch out exactly what we would need to put that together. The tools are there now to do it, which would be really cool and maybe something that we should do it, given the time we could dive into. But I mean, I, I think of it this way. Robots are not running hospitals, but doctors are supervising and controlling robots for very complex surgeries now. Mm-hmm. To much better results than a, you know, you can't just turn a robot loose to cut someone open and do the surgery. They're guided by someone who is really skilled, but there are things that are just technically better about the machinery and the computational power that helps them get outcomes that we could never have thought of before. Yeah. That existed. It would be the same thing with ai. It's just, it's, it's coming and the courts and the bar association and attorneys can try to. Regulate it out or educate people about the dangers of it all they want, but [00:33:00] it's time to innovate. Yep. And the ultimate, the ultimate benefit is going to be, to be to the public because it will bring costs down. It will make things happen much, much faster. It could reduce so much backlog through the court systems. There are systems that could be put in place that would work better than people do, but there's, you know, there are, there's fallout to that and it's not particularly popular to do that, but you harness a good attorney and a good legal mind with the technology could just scale up every single thing that a practice could do.

ChristineWell, if you had, uh, 39 AI judges, how many AI judges would be working right now?

HughNow 24 hours a day? Yep. That I would never, oh my Lord, that, that would be an absolute nightmare. Well, now what I could see would be. A tool to analyze the facts or to go through if they had a tool that would help them go through the stack of bank records. So, [00:34:00] you know, some cases that I have and I know that it's, it's ridiculous to expect even a judge who's working overtime all the time to go through and I try a case and I come in and the other side is alleging something's wrong with, you know, how someone is spending business money on personal things. In order to disprove that allegation, I have to bring in stacks and I mean sometimes boxes of documents. No court in the world is going to or should give me time to go through page by page, all of those, I mean just, you're not going to get that time in a divorce or in family court. And I don't expect that anyone has the time to have gone through those things, but. As a practitioner, that is the way to prove my case. That is absolutely, and the, the, the true black and white answer to the question mm-hmm. Is in there. And yeah, we can do some demonstratives, we can go through things like that. What's demonstrative? Oh, where you, uh, the best way to think of it's like a, a summary or, or a graphical representation of something, something that [00:35:00] summarizes or demonstrates in a, in, in some summary, fashion. A, a data set. It's like cohesive. Yeah. So I mean, the, the way that I would use it mostly would be charts. Yeah. Yeah. I would use charts or I would use, I. Summaries of bank statements. So instead of here, we need you to look through, you know, six pages of every single bank statement. Here is a demonstrative that has the date of the bank statement. It says what page it is in the stack. If you wanna go double check my work.

ChristineYeah, yeah, yeah. But it

Hughalso says, here's the amount in, here's the amount out, here's the final balance. And then I can put that together and show a pattern easier than someone having to make their own notes and go through thousands of pages.

ChristineAnd so you're saying AI would help with that analysis, and I agree a

HughAI could come through and, and find those patterns and change, change, all of those things. But imagine if you could write a evidentiary bot that you could give to, that you could use in court to make the demonstrative and. Answer questions and walk through a process in front of a judge that I

Christinethink we'll have that soon. [00:36:00] But imagine,

HughI don't know that they're, they're gonna allow that anytime soon.

ChristineWell, I think, we will, I think in Louisville we need to have, court should be open 24 hours a day. I mean, if we have 30, and I'm not saying full time obviously, like, but I don't understand how we have a million people, people here and we don't have a night court. Isn't that weird? Like, that's another thing. Our profession, you have night court. I know our profession's done a really shitty job of like leaning into the times, like, your hospital's open 24 hours a day. But I do think, and I think it would be a, I'd love to be a night court judge or something like that and just handle all of the arraignments. It would really keep the system. Going. But I definitely think utilizing AI to just get rid of this backlog and to at least just get data to analyze. 'cause like I said a hundred times, if these judges are working 40, 50 hours a week and they are doing the best that they can and they are on top of it, just show me you're doing that. You know what I mean? Yeah. Like why is that such difficult information to get?

HughYeah, I mean, I just keep going back to if it's gonna take [00:37:00] me between three and six months to get a hearing date on something that is rather urgent in a family law case, why is it that no one is sitting in the courtroom? Two of 10 family court judges yesterday, regularly? When that time could, could be open for hearings. There's no reason why that court couldn't be processing things through and not making people wait six months.

ChristineWell, and especially because, you know, and this is super, super, super controversial and this is something that in, in as far as the general public goes, but this is common sense to us. Like, and not common sense, maybe condescending, but this is common knowledge I guess. But judges aren't writing their own orders. No. Judges don't write their own orders. Like judges do not write their own orders. They have staff that write their orders. Sure. And it's so normal to us that it doesn't feel wrong to me. But then when I start to think about it, you know, I can see where the general public's, like we didn't elect a staff attorney. We didn't elect, you know, somebody that gets paid. God, I don't even know what they make, like 40 k [00:38:00] maybe.

HughWell, they also didn't elect, um, I think, I think it's more than that now. It went up. There was a big push. Well, thank God throughout. Yeah, I mean there was, there was a big push from, from all sides, and especially from the judges to increase the salary, but there were freezes on salaries through the AOC for so long. You know, people didn't elect AI either, though. I mean, so you have to look at how much is this somebody's else's judgment versus this person a tool that's articulating the judge's judgment. If the judge is the one that sits and sees the case and takes the notes and knows what factual findings he or she wants to make, knows the legal conclusions they wanna make, and then communicates that to the staff attorney to draft that and make it into something, I think that's what people would expect would work.

ChristineI think if that's happening, I think sometimes they're delegating to their staff attorney to make the decision.

HughOh, I know. I've been told, I've, I've hired and spoken with and interviewed a lot of staff attorneys in my day and know that that happens. I know that. Um, which is

Christineinsane. That's wrong. Yeah.

HughI've heard about judges [00:39:00] who. The staff attorney would have to change the judge's opinion and fight with them about it because it might be racially motivated or it might be, you know, mo motivated by some cultural bias that the staff attorney did not agree with and felt that couldn't rule like that and would, would have to fight over those decisions and oh my God. Sometimes would win. Sometimes they won't. Yeah.

ChristineOh, that's so too much. All right. Let's talk about quickly stamp signatures. How do you feel about that? I know that something like on the face, the first time I talked to somebody about that, I was like, duh, obviously they do that. They do that, they do that. And then I really started thinking about it and started thinking about like some of the problems in particular I saw out in eastern Kentucky with one person that had access to the judge's stamp. And so, I don't know. I am really torn about the fact that someone else has the authority to do the judge's signature, because I do think that creates an avenue for laziness that wouldn't exist otherwise. Like if they had to sign their name, [00:40:00] hopefully they read it. Yeah. But I think,

Hughyeah, I, I agree. But I mean, you just have to have controls in place. You have doctors are signing off on charts or reviewing x-rays and stuff from their house. It doesn't mean they're doing any worse of a job. There's like electronic signatures from attorneys. I, I mean, there was a whole category of things that I. Sort of pre-approve my signature to be on. If it was a motion to withdraw, if it was a simple entry of appearance, well, we're not, or things like that. We're not,

Christineand electronic signatures are different than the stamp.

HughNo, I agree. But I, we, we had a lot of decisions about this or discussions about this at, at my former job, we had a lot of uncontested divorces. The attorney review process was, I mean, the attorneys went through and approved of things, but then there was a second round where it just hit our boxes and we would just go blindly and lift up the sign here things and we would sign. It wasn't at another stage of review. You've already reviewed it. There's, you know, now there's not, but the judges don't

Christinehave that.

HughNo, I, I agree. But we decided that, we still decided against it [00:41:00] just because of the possibility of errors and things like that. I don't think I fell on the side of not doing it. I think I argued that we should allow our electronic signatures to be placed on things that we've already reviewed. It's just you gotta have something in place, or people are checking off. This has been reviewed, this has been approved. I mean the,

Christineit's, it's hard though too, because judges like, they have so much lawyers, we have so much power over people's lives, but judges have, yeah. But so much power. How, how

Hughdoes it change if a judge says, okay, this is what I wanna rule on, on this case, gives it to a staff member, they draft the order, then they just place it on the judge's desk for signature. I don't, I mean,

Christinewell, that would, so

Hughyou're having to rely on the judge who actually have read it first. And I would expect that they would before they'd sign off on anything. Oh, I don't

Christinethink they are. I mean, I don't even think the legislature with separation of powers would have the authority to require judges to read orders they signed. But I think our, their judicial [00:42:00] ethics would require them to read orders that they signed. I

Hughagree. And that's what I'm saying. I mean, there's, there's rules. And if you're not, but you think they're

Christinefollowing 'em.

HughI'm not saying, I'm thinking they're following all the rules. What I'm saying is that stamping a signature versus signing a signature. If a judge doesn't wanna read the order before it's signed, does it really matter who's putting the signature on it? No. Whether it hits the judge's desk and here's a stack of things, judge, you've already approved of these things. Signed them. And, and from a practical matter, I mean, I don't, you know, I don't know that I would go through and read them all if, if I had already approved what was there, and I would just go through and blatantly sign them. If I gave permission, just stamp my signature on it. Now, does that create the ability of a staff member who isn't regulated the same way to then do things with the judge's signature? That's a whole that's just a, that's a totally different thing. But then. As we sit here, nothing is stopping them from forging a judge's signature either. [00:43:00] Right? So I, I think this is one of, if someone's gonna break the rules of the law,

Christinethey're gonna break the rules. Yeah. I think that's one of the things too though, that like being in this world for, you know, a year and listening to people that aren't lawyers, it's caused people to lose faith in the system. And I think even as lawyers like. One thing I'll say that lawyers talk a lot of shit about is Supreme Court. They got no problems tweeting about Supreme Court decisions and what a mess they are or how amazing they are. They do that until the end of time, but they don't really do it when it comes to the local level. And I do think that that's another weird thing to analyze as far as why do they feel so comfortable talking negatively about something that doesn't directly impact their clients. But yet they're fearful to say anything negative about somebody that has direct

HughWell, think of how many cases, I mean how many cases did you have in front of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals versus how many cases you had in front of the regular Yeah. Family court bar.

ChristineWell, I mean, I know why they do it, it's because they're scared of being retaliated against. Sure. But I think that in and of itself is the problem. Well,

HughI agree, but that's exactly right. [00:44:00] Mm-hmm. I mean, if you are the attorney that's sitting out there, you know, talking about judges and then saying that and, and a client has a case in front of that judge, you're gonna lose the faith of your client.

ChristineYeah.

HughAre you

Christineready to get the hate? Are you ready to get on socials and start getting the hate comments like I get.

HughOh, I, yeah, I, I don't know. I, I wanna say yes, I'm ready, but I, when it starts happening really badly, then maybe I reconsider, I mean, not reconsider doing it, but reconsider how ready I actually was for it. But, no,

Christineit's so bizarre. We need to read some of the comments on here. And I will tell you, like you and I have had private conversations about how the last two, three weeks, like just the notion of some of the things that has been said about, like's been said about me publicly, by some people in the judicial arena. It's just super bizarre to have it happen in real time and see that we're striking such a nerve. Do you know what I mean?

HughYeah, no, that's been shocking to me that, um, the reaction and the reaction of course hasn't been to actually be there on the bench. It's been to block accounts, so we can't [00:45:00] see things. Yeah. Yeah. Or, you know, some, somehow the audio vis video service I. Slows down to a crawl. Yeah. To, we're getting copies of things so we can watch. You know, and I, I don't know, I, I, I'm less willing to just sort of speculate on why those things. I, I, I, I'm more comfortable raising the questions, but I'm super comfortable speaking out on things that I can see.

ChristineMm-hmm.

HughAnd the great thing about court in Kentucky is it is recorded. The public can see it unless it's a, you know, confidential case, which we're not gonna be showing confidential things that we're not allowed access to. But the things that I talk about that are happening are right there in video. Right. You know, if you want to hate on me for, for basically narrating something that you could go watch yourself. Yeah. Bring it on. Right. But I, I, you know, and if I'm factually incorrect about something, I'll absolutely own it and, and correct it. But the things that have brought me [00:46:00] into this position to want to talk about it, or the things I've actually seen, the things that I have probably hundreds of hours or at least hundreds of hours of video of, because when I practiced, I kept video of my cases. See, I didn't do that. We needed it for appeal. I

Christinedidn't

Hughdo that. I was so used to, you know, you come out of the case, you know, your evidence backwards and forwards. I would keep all of my hearing binders in order. I would have all of my stuff labeled because it would be months and months and months before you get a, an order. Mm-hmm. And once you're reading that order, you might have had 50 different court hearings. Yeah. And you, you're not going to remember, oh, did we present that evidence or who presented that? And I wanted to have it, but also I wanted the video. And in certain cases where, um, we had a client of means that would, would allow us to, to, uh, take these measures, we would have the, the hearing transcribed. And it would name the speakers and you see what the judge said and you'd see when evidence went in and it would, we would have our exhibits there with the transcript. So when the order [00:47:00] came out, I could look through and say, well that's absolutely wrong. That's absolutely wrong. Nobody presented that. That's not even the wrong name. That's not even the right name of the person. That's not an address that these parties own. I could look through and just find sort of the silliness there or you know, find the things where, you know, it would completely misquote someone. Well, so-and-so said this. I'm like, actually no, it was the other side's mother that said, you know, really? And I could go through and look at that and I could attack it. And

ChristineI get a lot of complaints that that's happening. Like a lot that's happening. I've never seen it like, well, I have seen it in two of the cases that have been sent to me, but that is crazy. So you saw that during your practice?

HughAll the time.

ChristineOh my goodness. But so one of the

Hughthings that made the most, the biggest impression of me that differentiated one court from another was how they handled it when you pointed those things out. Truth. So the ones that, you know, I would file something and I would ask for a correction 59, depending on the type of order it was. If it was a final order, we, the lawyers have a remedy that within 10 days you can file a motion to correct errors of fact or law. [00:48:00] And I would point out just incorrect factual findings and I would point exactly to the exhibit and where it was on the record, which you can't do in 10 days if you don't have that transcription or anything like that. And that was wonderful. Generally it's, uh, for whatever reason, very much looked down upon filing 59 oh fives or motions to correct. And earlier in my career, if you did it, people would just. Were blown away that you would file a motion to correct a judge. Now, the 10 day rule made it almost impossible to file a really good one. Yeah. 'cause you couldn't have gotten a transcript or anything back, back 20 years ago. But I would file it and some judges would look and say, yeah, I really need to get the orders out faster. I, I misremember that. I'll go back and look at the tape and I'll make that correction and then just no ego behind it. And they would go and then they would make corrections and. Oftentimes it would change a finding in the case mm-hmm. And change some sort of an outcome if there was a calculation error. That's some of the craziest things that I was seeing [00:49:00] in the last couple years were just horrible calculation errors or,

Christineoh, a judge not understanding gross income versus net income. I, that's like next level. Oh yeah. I think that's,

Hughthat's been around for the whole 20 years I was practicing, but that's insane. Or, not calculating some, the ordering someone to pay maintenance, but then calculating child support and not including the maintenance income in the child support calculation. I mean, I saw that in, in the last month of my practice and it's just, you're talking about just 1 0 1, but that was on a temporary order that you can't do a 59 0 5 for, so, you know, it's, it's, it's much harder to Correct. But there were some judges that you would, so I had one, the petitioner in the case who was not my client. Had kept one of the cars, it was in my client, the respondent's name. She was driving it across to Indiana over and over and over, amassing a ton of tolls. She was getting parking tickets and all these things, and they were [00:50:00] just showing up at my guy's door and he was having to pay them. She wasn't paying the insurance. And this was a divorce that for, because of the court processes, because of the, what the parties owed owned, and some of the claims in the case was taking a very long time. So this was, this was just becoming a big financial burden. So I filed a motion that, you know, either let my client keep the car that's in his name and switch, or just make the, the petitioner pay for the bills that she's running up while driving this car. Yeah,

Christineyeah,

Hughyeah. And so the judge said, okay, yeah, that makes sense. Issues an order that says the respondent has to pay for all of the things that are incurred from this car. Now it's the petitioner was driving it. It was clearly like. At the motion hour, it was clear. The judge said, okay, that actually makes sense. If you're gonna drive the tolls, you're gonna pay the toll. Yeah. In his order, the judge swapped the parties. So I filed a motion saying, would you please correct this and swap it? Opposing counsel and I had even talked, you know, saying, oh yeah, it's [00:51:00] clearly just swapped the parties. Oh no. Judge was mad that I filed a motion pointing out an error and not only didn't change it, he doubled down and made, uh, my client do more than in the original order.

ChristineCan I guess the judge?

HughSure.

ChristineGatewood. Yeah,

Hughthat would probably be accurate.

ChristineMy goodness, there's only one judge on the bench. Well, there's only two male judges, but there's only one male judge that would double down.

HughYeah, and it was just like you swapped the parties, but you were angry at me at motion hour and then decided to stick it to me and really stuck it to my client. And of course that's always a fun conversation to have. Oh, when you tell your client, the judge clearly mixed this up, I'll get it corrected. Not a big deal. There's a process for this. Judges can always correct their orders within a certain amount of time. This is just so straightforward. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then by me bringing that motion, uh, or, you know, I, you know, I'm, I'm not the judge. I don't know what, what made him angry, but saying that this is not correct. And then he [00:52:00] just getting an order that was much worse. And then bringing up the fact that you can't, you've, you've not, you've not corrected something. Yeah. You've completely changed this order. You've added some other things in it now, which you can't do. Then it just kept getting worse, spiral. And finally the client just sort of was like, leave it alone, because he's just making it worse for me. Well, and

Christinethen the other thing too with that is like the notion of now you've made this judge mad who is known for. Being easily provoked. I mean, I don't think that's controversial to say, but now you have an the other side that's winning on something they didn't win on before and shouldn't have won on. And their attorney was like, oh yeah, obviously this is gonna get corrected, but now that other party's not gonna wanna settle 'cause they're like, we're gonna win everything in front of the judge.

HughThat's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. And that's exactly what happens. And I've had attorneys say, you know, well, my client was willing to settle until the judge ruled on this, and now she thinks she has, or he thinks he has a much better Yep. Uh, chance at these other claims. And

Christineso the judges are making their lives worse. And I would

Hughsay, I would understand that if the [00:53:00] judge if the, if the ruling that makes them feel that way was correct.

ChristineRight, right,

Hughright. But, and, and the, you know, to their credit, most of the time opposing counsel in those conversations has said, oh, I, I get that. But it is what it is. Mm-hmm. The judge has now made them feel like, emboldened they're going to win. And, and we're not gonna, we're not gonna settle this case time and bold them to

Christineshop at the target in New Albany probably every day. What. Target, well, to go to New Albany, to that new target or whatever. Oh, to go to bridge To go back and forth. Yeah. And not pay the Charles. Yeah. Gosh. Oh my gosh. And then so I'll say today's Thursday, I've probably talked to 15, maybe 20 lawyers this week, which is a high week. I mean, I usually talk, I've got my like group of people, but I'm starting to get more and more and more attorneys reached out. But I did have one attorney reach out to me and say partic in particular, I made a video probably about six months ago that said Brian Gatewood paid a lot of money to get that job. I mean, he, he paid his husband works for Purnell Sausage and you know, millionaire, millionaire, blah, blah, blah. But he hates it. He seems like he [00:54:00] hates it. And this lawyer called me up and said, that's the most accurate video you've done. And you've done a lot of accurate videos and some of the shit you say I don't agree with. And, but it seems that every single time he's on the bench, he's angry to be there. Oh yeah. Uh, and I do think that's something that, you know. I wish he would realize if he did want this position, um, that maybe he sh that's the what he is like portraying to people and the people that will vote for him. And maybe he'll just realize, Hey, you know, I would like to be, I would like to present myself differently, you know, and that's in his hands, or do something

Hughdifferent for a living. I mean, we, for one, for a period of time, we had two judges who just clearly hated their job. At least that was the impression that I got. I was like, either they hate me or they hate their job. And one of them at least, was like very friendly with me, always like really cool with me outside of the court and who had been on the bench, in a different court and was always, you know, you know, always just acted very differently and was, was super pleasant to be in front of and got on the family court bench. It just, just acted like [00:55:00] they hated it. And I thought, I don't think it's me in that circumstance. No, no, no. Yeah, yeah. Maybe they ate their job. I, with Gatewood, I could never tell because I, I had it out with him on one. One case where he threatened to take my client's child then and there while we were sitting there, if I didn't remand something in a different action that was not in his court. And I called him out on it and tried to remove him from the case. And, and, uh, I, I think so. Yeah. He's got it out for you probably. Yeah. Well, I, I, I, it was months before I, he would make eye contact with me at a hearing. He would not even look over at, at my table. My client would be talking and he would be looking in some other direction. It was just kind of, kind of strange.

ChristineWell, it's like beyond like a child. And we have a lot of that in family court. See, this is how we get on our tangents and then we don't get to hear any of the fun little comments. But yesterday, so we did get a lot of comments about our, the public is loving the, going to court and seeing how many judges are working. They are sending comments. Uh, maybe they were having a long three martini [00:56:00] lunch.

HughOh Lord,

Christinecan you drink three martinis at one set?

HughWhat do you mean? Me personally? Like if I had like, in

Christineone setting, like three martinis,

Hughoh, I could easily drink three martinis, dude. I would buy it. Probably be a much more entertaining podcast.

ChristineOh my gosh. Well, actually I love a good vesper, but I mean, I would be drunk. Drunk. I would if I had three martini, like drunk, drunk.

HughOh, I would be too. I, yeah. I'm ashamed to say help. How sick That would probably make me.

ChristineOh no. I'm just like, but I guess that was old school.

HughThat's just straight up alcohol. That's just like alcohol in a glass,

Christinedude. And I, I mean, I love Mia Vesper, um, getting paid and not working. I wanna find my little buddy that just not happy with what we're doing. Clap, clap, clap. I love what you're doing. This is why they don't have time to look at evidence because they're at their vacation home. What do you think about that?

HughI don't know. I mean, I don't, I don't necessarily think all of our judges are, you know, I, I, I think there's this public perception that judges are all. You know, rich, snobby people that with vacation homes and, and some may [00:57:00] be, some may not be. They come from all walks of life. They definitely a lot of different backgrounds, uh, on the bench. So I, I don't know. Some may be,

Christineyeah,

Hughsome may be, some may be sitting at home. I don't, I don't know.

ChristineThen they schedule a hearing months out at which time you've millions of other problems with the opposing party, but you can't bring them up because they can't multitask to hear different topics at the same time. Now that's true. You wait months for a hearing and then while you're waiting for that hearing, there's so many, uh. Other problems that come up and then you gotta wait months for that hearing. You know what I mean?

HughOh yeah. No. By the time you were, uh, as a practitioner, it was, it was quite regular that we would have a hearing scheduled on one issue. By the time we could get in front of the court on that issue, something more important came up and we agreed, let, can we use this hearing to address something more important and then get a hearing later on for the thing that we originally got the hearing for, because just the passage of time.

ChristineAnd then I've got a huge fan that, um, he [00:58:00] comments on everything. S-Y-B-A-U. Do you know what that means?

HughShut your bitch ass up.

ChristineI did not know I had to Google it. I was like, and I even responded to him. It's like, oh my God, I love you. And I love that saying and like he, I don't know, it's just like I do. And then somebody said, which I didn't know either, that it's Burger's Week in Louisville. So I did a guess PO like before we did yesterday and did eight. And this person won, I'm not sure if it's burger's week in Louisville as well. I'm gonna say eight judges on the bench. So they won, maybe they were out supporting the community. I don't know.

HughThey said eight.

ChristineEight. Yeah.

HughI saw the, on the poll, 50% of people were. Got the correct range?

ChristineOh, I don't know. I haven't even checked. That was like only an hour after I posted it. See, I'm terrible at that. Yeah. It following I through, I

Hughthink it was 50% had the range of what, eight to 10 or something like that. So

Christineright now, and this poll will expire soon. Uh, 23% said zero to four. 53% were accurate. Said four to 10, 17% [00:59:00] said 10 to 25 and 7% said 25 to 39, which honestly, I don't know. One of my followers commented, I'd say, do you think there's ever 25 courtrooms open?

HughNo. Never.

ChristineI don't know. Maybe, um, if you could time it right. A Monday at 11 is what I would guess. 'cause you're gonna have, I think you're gonna have all 10 family court judges really?

HughMonday at 11.

ChristineYeah. Because that's gonna be, if you were to do the timing right with their paternity dockets. Because the ones that don't have that, although I don't know.

HughAnd then, I mean, you would never have circuit hearings unless it was just Absolutely, you know, something that had to be squeezed in because nobody will schedule 'em on Monday. 'cause you might have a motion hour in front of a different judge.

ChristineOh, they're having, well they're having some and they're having the child support ones, uh, with like the child support workers. Well, but you're gonna have this, you're gonna have the 13 circuit judges there, I'd say on Monday at 10, they're gonna all be there. So that would be, I'd be willing to, let's bet 23 of them, let's just say. So then that all you would need to get 25 would be three, [01:00:00] uh, district. And I'd say there would be the six courtrooms open. Okay. You said 25? Well, that's 23

Hughplus six. Okay. Okay. I'll, I will 29. I'll take you up on that. So Monday at 11. So my track record sucks. At this point. I need to redeem myself, but I think that's a good, I think that's, I, I think 23 is pie in the sky.

ChristineOkay. Well I think there'll be 25. I think there'll be 25 courtrooms open if we go Monday at 11.

HughYou 25, now you're going full 25.

ChristineYep.

HughAnd if you're wrong, if I'm wrong,

ChristineI'll owe you a three martini lunch. Oh Lord. And then we could just come back to court and see how that works out.

HughOh my Lord. Why don't we just come in here and hit record.

ChristineOh my goodness. Comedy

Hughgold.

ChristineYes. Literally. Or it would just be like sloppy and all the things would

Hughbe just like, like, like I'm going to lose all credibility

Christineon everything.

HughWake me up on when there's something to talk about.

ChristineOh my goodness. All right, y'all, judge e judge y.com. We are working. I'm hoping that by mid July we should have maybe some updates about just like a timeline for [01:01:00] what the plan should be. Does that sound about right? To have an update? Yep. Awesome. We appreciate y'all's love so much. And make sure to S-Y-A-B-U. Bye.

SpeakerYeah. Yeah. We need some. Justice. Justin found justice.