The Litigation Consulting Report

Labor law is a highly diverse and complex area. It can involve everything from claims for overtime pay to computer fraud and abuse act cases (CFAA) involving swindling employees to trials involving the allegedly illegal firing of an employee to complicated pension benefits issues. As labor and employment cases get more complex, the use of computer graphics during trial is also on the rise. A recent description of an academic program in labor and employment studies notes that “the field of labor and employment law has never been more dynamic and challenging than it is at the beginning of the 21st century. Over the past forty years, sweeping changes in the interplay between the American work place and the law have affected the everyday lives of nearly all members of society.” Labor cases often go to trial these days, and especially in cases that involve large numbers of employees, lawyers on both sides of a labor law case will often find courtroom graphics extremely useful to show trends, patterns, events that took place over a long period of time, or the real-life impact of a company’s policy or practice. For example, overtime cases involving hundreds or thousands of employees are finding their way to court. These usually involve summarizing lots of wage and hour data on just a few courtroom graphics. This is what happened in this PowerPoint set of scenarios (below) involving a company’s employees and the hours that they worked over a period of years.

We have have created courtroom presentations in banking cases almost since our very beginning nearly 17 years ago. From savings and loan litigation in the 1990s to IPO litigation stemming from the 2001 dotcom meltdown to ongoing banking fraud and bankruptcy litigation connected with the 2008 financial crisis, we have helped jurors understand complicated financial concepts that are at the heart of most banking litigation. We have discussed earlier this year how a good trial consultant can make complex financial concepts comprehensible to jurors by using courtroom presentations that relate to a juror’s basic understanding of life and personal experience. See our discussions of collateralized debt obligations and of securities litigation. The same can apply to courtroom presentations for seemingly complex banking litigation. Since nearly all jurors have bank accounts and have used ATM’s, they have a basic sense of what banks do. So it often is not a long stretch for them to have an intuitive notion that banks are involved in complex ATM networks, that they sell profitable investment products to clients, or that they manage and move large sums of money. What is more difficult is explaining the details of how these things work. In a straightforward courtroom presentation graphic below, we showed that the total revenue of a bank far exceeded the gross national product of Guatemala. We used a supermarket scale and money bags – a basic concept that any juror can follow – to make an indelible impression on the jurors.

Very often, trial lawyers face what feels like an impossible dilemma. The case that they want to present is extremely complex, intensely tedious or worse yet, both.

Demonstratives can frequently be used very effectively in product liability litigation, in which the issue is whether a product was manufactured negligently, causing harm – or in some cases, whether a product that was manufactured and used properly still caused harm to a consumer that leads to liability on the part of the manufacturer or seller.

Electronic presentation tools such as PowerPoint and Trial Director have changed the way in which lawyers and trial consultants present evidence to juries. These programs and others like them are so flexible and helpful in presenting numerical data, timelines, biological processes, the workings of machinery, and other information that in many ways they have displaced the old-fashioned methods such as printing words and graphics on foam core trial boards.

As one can imagine, automobiles are the subject of a good deal of complex litigation these days -- whether the case has to do with the validity of a patent for use in the manufacture of an automobile, the possible liability of an auto manufacturer for an accident, a class action claiming a design defect in a certain model of car, or another legal issue. Automobiles present interesting challenges for the trial graphics consultant. On the one hand, nearly everyone has driven a car, and many people think of themselves as fairly knowledgeable in auto mechanics (while they would not fancy themselves as computer or jet-engine experts, for example). On the other hand, today’s vehicles are incredibly complicated items with sophisticated computer systems and electronics.

In our 16 years in the trial presentation business, and after consulting on more than 10,000 cases, we still hear litigators concerned that their trial presentation/litigation graphics might somehow look “too slick” and will distract the jurors, or will somehow focus attention on the relative wealth of our client who is able to afford “fancy graphics.” In the early 1990s, this was a valid question. No one had used PowerPoint, no one had a cell phone – let alone a smart phone -- few people had personal computers, and most of those had black screens with green text. That is no longer the case. Technology has penetrated into every part of the United States and indeed into most of the world. A 2011 report from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project indicates that 85 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone, 52 percent own a laptop computer, four percent own a tablet, and only nine percent do not own any of these or other devices covered in the study. Those numbers will only increase. According to Robert Gaskins, the creator of PowerPoint, more than 500 million people worldwide use PowerPoint, with over 30 million PowerPoint presentations being made every day. Trial consultant Robb Helt, at the end of a trial in rural Arkansas, was able to talk with the jurors about the use of trial presentation technology/trial techncians in their just-completed trial. Helt found that the theory that jurors are uncomfortable with technology had been “blown away” by this “down home” jury. These jurors were not only comfortable with trial presentation technology – they expected to see it.