I have had the great pleasure of working closely with hundreds of world's best litigators since 1995. One common theme they communicate is that they see simplifying their case, prior to walking into the courtroom, as part of their job. Today, I am writing to share about a 'new' tool designed quite precisely for this purpose. The new tool is a modern software version of a decades-old technique modeled on centuries-old principles. In general this tool facilitates the visualization of complex and interrelated ideas. Specifically, I am talking about a process called mind mapping. Mind mapping is a 60s-era-sounding term for an activity that seems, at first glance, like it must have certainly been born on the left-coast. In a sense, both of those things are true. It was in fact developed in the era between the 50s and 70s, and it was born on a left coast of sorts. However, this 'left coast' is really the western suburbs of London. Regardless of mind mapping's nonconformist origins, I believe it has a place in the toolkit of the modern litigator. After all, many thought-leading litigation trends were born in California or places like it (e.g. demonstrative evidence, jury research, courtroom animation, etc.). A small version of a 30 inch x 90 inch litigation mind map is shown below. I encourage you to download a full-sized .pdf version of the actual chart to get a feel for how it is laid out. This sample mind map is based on a group of cases where we have used mind mapping as a system for quickly understanding a complex case in a short period of time, brainstorming a trial presentation approach and laying out specific exhibits. In this chart, green circles represent likely demonstrative exhibits, red boxes represent problems with our case that require additional strategic attention and the yellow boxes contain the background information on the case, trial team and strategy. The same approach we take for trial graphics development can easily be taken by a trial team organizing a complex case with many experts, theories and potential trial strategies. In addition to the obvious organizational benefits, the beauty of using this approach is just how easily one can pick up where one left off. I have gone a month or more between deeply complicated meetings and been able to start precisely where we left off without spending time trying to re-teach the team everything that was discussed weeks or months before. This is one of those benefits that I think one has to experience to believe. While litigation-specific tools do exist that offer a some of the features in today's mind mapping software, I prefer using a flexible tool that works very well. I have used two products: 1) Tony Buzan's iMindMap (he is considered the father of modern mind mapping); and 2) Mindjet's MindManager. I prefer the latter, as I find it to be a bit more business-oriented. When working with our firm on trial presentation strategy, we will likely be using mind mapping either internally or overtly. However, we are interested in testing this approach with a trial team at the front-end of a case rather than within the time period we are more typically consulting with the trial team (6 months prior to trial). If you would be interested in testing this technique with your trial team, we are willing to do so gratis for a limited number of trial teams working complicated cases with at least $10 million at stake. The output will be a wall chart for your team that you can refer to on an ongoing basis.
I am happy to report that Animators at Law has seen one of its strongest quarters for litigation wins since our 1995 founding. Q1 is not yet over, and we have already helped clients achieve favorable outcomes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We expect that total to exceed $1 billion in favorable 2011 results in the next few weeks. Please join me in congratulating these Q1 high-achievers: Paul Taskier, Esq., Ken Brothers, Esq., James Brady, Esq., Eric Albritton, Esq., Danny Williams, Esq., Matthew Rodgers, Esq., Gary Hoffman, Esq., Ryan Flax, Esq., Jeremy Cubert, Esq., and the rest of the Dickstein Shapiro/Williams Morgan/Albritton litigation team representing Dr. Bruce Saffran in Saffran, M.D., Ph.D., v. Johnson & Johnson et al. This patent infringement matter was tried over seven trial days in January in the Eastern District of Texas using litigation graphics and litigation consulting from Animators at Law. After only two hours of deliberations, the jury reached a $482 million verdict for Dr. Saffran and included a finding of willful infringement. Judge Ward is expected to soon rule on enhanced damages. Animators at Law has worked with teams from Dickstein Shapiro since 1996. David Kiernan, Esq., John Hall, Jr., Esq., Samson Wu, Esq. and the rest of the litigation team from the Williams & Connolly/Hall Booth team for their representation of Georgetown University in Iacangelo v.Georgetown University et al. tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After a fifteen day jury trial, a defense verdict was reached. Animators at Law has worked with teams from Williams & Connolly since 1998. Animators at Law provided litigation graphics, litigation consulting and courtroom trial tech personnel. Alan Briggs, Esq., Rebecca Worthington, Esq. and the rest of the team from Squire Sanders' Washington, DC Office for their representation of Trident Enterprises in Trident v. Airtronic USA. The case was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. After a three day trial, the jury returned a million dollar verdict. Animators at Law provided litigation graphics, litigation consulting and pre-trial technology services. Other firms we have worked with recently include: Baker McKenzie Paul Hastings Skadden Orrick Foley Boies Schiller Dickinson Wright Hughes Hubbard The U.S. Department of Justice NAACP Legal Defense Fund Hogan Lovells K&L Gates If you would like to discuss using our graphics consulting or hot-seat personnel for an upcoming trial or hearing (Markman, class cert., PI, SJ, §337, etc.), please contact Alex Brown, Director of Sales and Operations, at 800.337.7697 /brown@a2lc.com.
The world is watching in shock as a nuclear drama unfolds in northeastern Japan. In only a few days, most of us have somehow come to accept that there are degrees of a nuclear meltdown and that explosions at a nuclear power plant may not always point to a cataclysmic outcome. A week ago, those beliefs would have been unthinkable. Then, nuclear power was a binary condition: it was either safe, clean and efficient, or it was Chernobyl, with no in between. Even in the safest of times, generating power through nuclear energy presents major challenges. One of the key challenges is handling the inevitable nuclear waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel. After conducting extensive studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Government thought it had found an answer. In 1983, the U.S. Government contracted with operators of nuclear power plants to begin picking up nuclear waste starting in 1998 and storing it in a central facility. The U.S. Government had then agreed to become the primary shipping and storage mechanism for the nuclear power industry. The plan was to store nuclear waste at the now defunct Yucca Mountain storage facility located about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Ultimately, fears of geologic instability at the site combined with election-year politics doomed the project. So, instead of one underground facility located on the site where 904 atomic bomb tests have already been conducted, America is left with more than 100 storage sites around the country where nuclear waste is stored in pools or barrels. When the U.S. Government breached their agreement to pick up the nuclear waste, operators of nuclear power plants sued. In this line of cases, the question is not whether a breach has occurred, but rather how much it will cost the facility to store the waste if that is even possible. Animators at Law has been involved in quite a number of these spent fuel cases typically heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Below are some litigation graphics from these cases. The animation below shows the removal of a reactor pressure vessel. When a plant must be closed due to age or due to an inability to store more waste, the reactor pressure vessel may be removed. The boiling water reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant use a similar reactor pressure vessel. Originally created in PowerPoint using dozens of technical illustrations played in succession, this litigation animation shows two methods of removing the reactor pressure vessel that contains the plant's nuclear core. The trial exhibits below are shown as a screen capture of some PowerPoint litigation graphics. These trial exhibits analogize the problem an automobile service station would have if its used oil collection stopped to the spent nuclear fuel storage problem faced by nuclear power plant operators. Further, it helps make the case that costs do not stop with storage (as the U.S. Government contends) but also include indirect and overhead costs related to storage (e.g. security, accounting and management). Animators at Law has helped its clients recover hundreds of millions of dollars in spent nuclear fuel litigation cases, and effective litigation graphics have been key to this success. For more on how nuclear power works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power To learn more about the crisis in Japan or to make a donation: http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html
Part 2 of 2 ( go to part 1) I will begin by reiterating key elements of the first post in this this two part series. More than 20 years ago, the Justice Department began filing lawsuits against a large number of coal fired power plants based on a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR). The NSR process calls on power plant operators to seek EPA review and approval before making modifications to their power plant that would significantly increase emissions. An exception exists routine maintenance. Since Congress neglected to define routine and significant, litigation has followed over these definitions. Animators at Law has worked on many of these cases and created trial graphics and legal animations. I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation used in the opening of an NSR bench trial in 2003. We worked on behalf of the power plant owner in this matter. We faced multiple challenges such as: conveying the scale of the plant; explaining the plant's operation; showing how the projects in question were not large; showing how these projects were in fact routine maintenance; showing how none of the projects increased emissions. After the Justice Department opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks, we had to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. With billions of dollars at stake, Animators at Law prepared a large number of trial boards and legal animations for the case. In part one of this post, I shared how Animators at Law compared the size of the facility to Busch Stadium using legal animations. Below is an example of how we combined technical illustration with a legal animation overlay to provide an overview of the plant, to explain how the plant worked and to again emphasize scale. Below is a trial exhibit used in an NSR trial that effectively compared the routine maintenance of the bridge to the routine maintenance at a coal fired power plant. We think it was a very effective analogy and a leading environmental publication agreed and remarked on its use. Below is another legal animation showing some highly skilled 3-D modeling and animation used in another New Source Review Case. The 3-D model was used in other legal animations and graphics to explain the unique geography of the plant.
Part 1 of 2 (go to part 2) In the 1990's the DOJ/EPA initiated litigation against a large number of coal-fired power plants based on the New Source Review (NSR) process under the Clean Air Act. Among other things, the NSR process requires operators of coal-fired power plants to seek EPA review and approval to make modifications to their plant that would increase emissions. Exceptions exist for routine maintenance at the plant and any emission increase must also be significant. Unfortunately, Congress neglected to define routine and significant. Animators at Law has been called upon to create legal animations and other information design focused trial graphics in a number of these cases. These cases typically have billions of dollars at stake, and the more EPA-friendly the current presidential administration, the more cases get filed. In this two-part post, I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation created for use in opening in one of these NSR bench trials. We worked on behalf of the power plant operator in this matter, and we faced a Government trial team who came armed with their own legal animation. Throughout the history of NSR cases, the Government has taken the position that any big change at the plant requires EPA approval. This includes large parts that are changed routinely. It turns out, however, that most parts in a plant this size are large, and the government argues that by maintaining the plant, one is extending its operating life thus increasing emissions. The Government opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks. Our challenge was to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. We knew two things that were helpful in this bench trial. First, the government was comparing our parts to semi-trucks. Second, the judge was known to visit the old Busch Stadium where the St. Louis Cardinals played and where semi-trucks were often parked outside. The message delivered by the clip below in opening was: yes, we changed big parts, but everything at our plant is big, thus we must ask, big compared to what? Is a semi-truck really that big compared to not one Busch Stadium but twenty? I think this legal animation reflects a good use of information design to convey scale when billions of dollars where at stake.
At Animators at Law, roughly 60% of our work involves patent litigation graphics. These patent cases run the gambit from light bulbs to software to semiconductors to drug eluting stents. Since a jury is often called upon to decide the key issues in the litigation they must understand the underlying technology. There is no substitute for well-crafted graphics in a patent jury trial involving technology. Our firm has been creating litigation graphics in intellectual property litigation since 1995 often utilizing our former patent litigators has graphics consultants. While our delivery medium is often PowerPoint, the underlying graphics or animation are usually created in a more sophisticated illustration software tool. We routinely use visual analogies as a teaching and persuasion technique. Specifically, we use analogies that relate complex subject matter to something familiar or easily grasped by the fact-finder. We have used stadiums to relate scale in a bench trial where the federal judge was a season ticket holder, the Statue of Liberty to convey the severity of the turbulence and an out of business service station to explain expenses involving the storage of nuclear waste. In the patent litigation graphic below, our challenge was to explain a protection MOSFET or metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor. In non-technical jargon, a MOSFET is a switch used to control the flow of electronic signals. We ultimately needed the jury to achieve a much deeper understanding than this definition, however, and this meant starting with a basic understanding of how a MOSFET works. In the movie, you can see that we have used PowerPoint animation and a plumbing analogy to lay the foundation for an understanding of a MOSFET, transistors and semiconductors. After all, like a valve attached to your sink, a MOSFET is simply used to control flow.
Daniel Pink's 2005 bestseller A Whole New Mind changed the way business leaders thought about the future. His futurist thinking of six years ago presciently describes the current economic transition the U.S. is facing. He also gave business strategists a vocabulary to discuss the emerging conceptual economy, and he inspired young business minds to focus less on traditional and easily outsourced MBA studies and focus more on deeper problem-solving business pursuits. Most importantly, he highlighted our firm, Animators at Law (now A2L Consulting), as an example of one of those companies already living in the conceptual economy.
After the introduction of PowerPoint 2003, PowerPoint became the dominant trial presentation tool used by litigators. It has largely replaced printed large format trial exhibit boards in most high stakes cases. However, PowerPoint also introduced a problem that deserves our attention. Instead of graphic designers creating well-designed printed trial boards, litigators and their support staff could now create exhibits on their own. Some did create great presentations, however the vast majority of trial and corporate presentations came to be dominated by the dreaded bullet point and text-heavy slides. Comedian Don McMillan covers this and other PowerPoint-related topic best: What is problematic about the bullet point and text-heavy slides in PowerPoint trial presentations is not what you might first think. Yes, bullet points almost surely lead to boredom. Sure, they are not a particularly effective technique for emphasizing key messages. Worse, as Don McMillan notes, it can be excruciating when someone reads their bullet points and text. However, worst of all is something called the redundancy effect. This scientifically validated concept is the true enemy of the effective litigator deploying legal graphics.
Fifteen years ago, I was asked to write an article for Intellectual Property Today magazine on the future of litigation technology. The O.J. Simpson trial was fresh on our minds, the use of computer animation in the courtroom was still rare, trial exhibits were not often used in litigation and the Internet was just coming to life. The question I ask you is, how well did I predict the future of litigation technology? Bull's-eye, missed-the-mark, on the right track or too soon to tell? The full text of this 1996 article is reproduced below: The Future of Litigation Technology (originally published September 1996) By Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D. President & CEO Animators at Law In Ray Bradbury's futuristic short story The Veldt, a virtual reality (VR) room has replaced the television as a device for entertainment and education. The room is capable of simulating any environment that the user desires with lifelike detail. However, like any technological tool, there is a downside to the room when it is abused. By the end of the story, the rebellious children of the house use the room to bring about the deaths of their parents by seemingly fictitious lions. Although written nearly fifty years ago, the VR room described by Bradbury may offer today's attorneys a glimpse into the future of litigation and provide some important lessons about the uses of litigation technology. Virtual reality environments are the logical outgrowth of today's high tech litigation tool, computer animation. Indeed, they are essentially real-time computer animations played in every direction of the user's vision. They give the viewer the impression that they are within a computer generated world in which they are free to move about. In sophisticated VR worlds, a user may manipulate or interact with objects in the simulated environment. For example, one could pull levers on a machine or open doors in a room. Inasmuch as today's litigators benefit from efficiency and persuasive power of computer animation, the litigators of the future will likely be able to use some form of virtual reality to help them win their cases. However, the technology will have to first grow to accommodate the formal nature of the courtroom. One cannot help but laugh at the thought of twelve jurors, a federal district judge and the litigants donning virtual reality helmets in Darth Vader-like fashion. Though it may at first sound silly, the need for this technology in the courtroom may be more urgent than one might initially think. Early in the O.J. Simpson criminal case, nineteen jurors took a $114,617 bus field trip to visit the various locations discussed throughout the subsequent trial. While police helicopters buzzed over the fourteen vehicle caravan and two hundred and fifty officers regulated traffic, court personnel attempted to shield the jury's eyes from two hundred billboards proclaiming Mr. Simpson to be either guilty or innocent. The stated purpose of the trip was to give the jury a sense of the size of the space of the crime scene and other relevant locations. However, for much less than the cost of this jury's trip, a virtual reality environment could have been constructed. In this environment, what the jury would have been able to see could have been cleansed of the shouts of bystanders, the signs of protestors and a life size O.J. Simpson statue clothed in a football uniform. The VR model could have been accurately constructed to simulate the space, the lighting and the obstacles present at the scene of the crime. Uses for this type of technology by the intellectual property litigator are limitless. For example, a virtual reality environment could be used to allow a litigator, judge or juror to manipulate sophisticated machinery or look inside and around a patented device. Possible future uses in intellectual property litigation will probably mirror today's corporate and government applications of the technology. Currently, Volvo uses virtual reality in accident simulations; Matsushita uses it to accurately simulate airflow, lighting and acoustics within a structure; architects use it to allow clients to visit a building before construction begins; the Army uses it to train soldiers and Kaiser-Permanente uses it in the treatment of patients with a fear of heights. In addition to virtual reality, the future of litigation technology is being explored in Courtroom 21 at the William & Mary School of Law. In this litigation laboratory, real-time court reporting, courtroom display systems, computer animation, video conferencing and many other litigation technologies are regularly on display. Organizations like Courtroom 21 are clear leaders in pointing a direction toward the future of litigation. Perhaps, it will be in a courtroom like this where the first virtual reality simulator is installed. It could be used not only for litigation but also as a training tool for young attorneys who wish to challenge a simulated opponent in a mock trial. An important fact to remember about virtual reality, computer animation or other litigation technologies is that they are becoming less expensive every year. What cost hundreds of thousands five years ago may today cost less than ten thousand dollars. This theme has been at the core of this series of three articles and cannot be overstated. Despite consistently positive reactions by juries to computer animation and a likely positive reaction to virtual reality, a litigator must always be careful not to intimidate the jury. All presentations should be as easy to understand as possible. Just as Bradbury teaches that an entertaining room is not a replacement for good parenting, a litigator should know that litigation technology is not a replacement for skilled legal preparation. A jury can see through and ignore the most technologically adept presentation when the underlying arguments lack sound legal foundation. Regardless, when your day comes to use virtual reality or another litigation technology, one would hope that instead of Bradbury's lions, you find that you are the shark at the top of the courtroom food chain. Contact Us for a FREE strategic consulting session and conflicts check or to make a tentative reservation for a hot-seat trial technician. originally published September 1996, Intellectual Property Today Magazine
by Ken Lopez The term information design is less than fifty years old. The use of specialty trial graphics in the courtroom started less than thirty years ago. Only very recently have the terms been used in the same sentence. That is, only recently have individual practitioners of both arts emerged. Wikipedia describes information design as "the skill and practice of preparing information so people can use it with efficiency and effectiveness. Where the data is complex or unstructured, a visual representation can express its meaning more clearly to the viewer." I would call it simply the effective and efficient presentation of information. Applied to the litigation graphics consulting industry of which I am a member, I would add the word persuasive. This is true since the job of the modern litigation graphics consultant is to persuade not merely to present information.
Whether a $5 million trial or litigation involving hundreds of billions of dollars, Persuadius (formerly A2L) almost always uses document call-out trial exhibits as part of its trial presentation. They are a time-tested and effective tool for highlighting key portions of a document in evidence. Sometimes, these call-outs are done on the fly by the Trial Director by our on-site trial technicians, and sometimes, these are created using PowerPoint. Regardless of the tool used, care should be taken to consider the most persuasive design for the point a litigator is trying to make. All too often, stock designs that highlight black text in electronic yellow highlighter or faux-torn paper tear-outs are used to emphasize key text. Sometimes, these approaches are adequate. Other times, you are missing out on a key opportunity to persuade. Persuadius (formerly A2L) was hired by The U.S. Department of Justice to produce a group of trial exhibits to defend against injury claims in a rescue helicopter landing. One key case theme required us to emphasize that it was the duty of the hospital to stop traffic rather than anyone on the helicopter or at air traffic control. We arranged the key call-out language inside a stop sign shape to make this point. When combined with emphasis by the litigator, I believe the message of "STOP" was unforgettable. Articles related to practice, trial preparation and trial presentation that you may also like include:
Animators at Law spent three years studying how attorneys and the general public prefer to communicate and learn (visual, auditory or kinesthetic). The study results were surprising. It turns out that practicing attorneys and the general public actually prefer to learn and communicate differently. For litigators, the impact is enormous. As a result of this scientifically valid study and our 16 years of experience as an industry pioneer, we believe trial exhibits are essentially a requirement and not an mere communication enhancement for any high-stakes litigation. You can download the FREE study results here or by clicking the button below. In this study you will learn:
Animators at Law is now offering flat-fee pricing for both demonstrative evidence consulting services AND trial technician/courtroom hot-seat consulting services. Animators at Law pioneered flat-fee arrangements for trial graphics consulting in 2009. Now, this popular pricing model is offered coast-to-coast for trial technician/hot-seat services. Gone forever are the days of unpredictable trial technician invoices and uncomfortable conversations between inside and outside counsel. With this flat-fee pricing model, Animators at Law clients are now enjoying:
WASHINGTON, DC — Animators at Law, a leading national provider of litigation support services, announces that it has produced what it believes to be a record-setting series of e-briefs (also called electronic briefs). The firm reports that in its latest e-brief project, it created over 60,000 hyperlinks in over 4,000 pages of court briefs referencing 5,000 additional documents in under three weeks of work. Animators believes this sets a record for the most complex ebrief created in the shortest amount of time for a federal court filing. E-briefs, or electronic briefs, are electronic versions of traditional court filings (e.g. motions, briefs, complaints, etc.) where cited documents (i.e. letters, cases, exhibits, etc.) are hyperlinked from the main filed document instead of being provided in paper form. Filed on a DVD or USB flash drive, e-briefs allow a judge and opposing counsel to review thousands of pages of information much more quickly than in paper form. Since tens or hundreds of thousands of pages are not printed and delivered, ebriefs are considered a much more environmentally sensitive approach to large litigation filings. Animators at Law has produced e-briefs for almost fifteen years making it one of the first firms to create an ebrief. Because of its magnitude, this latest project required large teams working 24/7 with specialized training and software to complete the task that was ordered by a federal judge in a prominent intellectual property dispute. Animators was able to complete the project in no small part due to the use of ACCESS, the Animators Client Collaboration and External Sharing System. An online litigator-friendly collaborative workspace with highly interactive features,this tool enabled Animators at Law and its client to send over 100 gigabytes of data back and forth across the country. Because it allows for multiple simultaneous uploads and downloads and offers AES-256 security, ACCESS eliminated the need to send thousands of files in hundreds of different emails or via an unsecured hard drive. Animators at Law’s CEO, Ken Lopez, added, “Completion of this record-setting e-brief project capped off a series of impressive Animators at Law accomplishments in 2010. The launch of ACCESS has enhanced how litigation teams review draft trial exhibits and exchange documents with our on-site trial technicians. We have continued to grow and enhance our team and, as a direct result of those upgrades, we ended the year by doubling our fourth quarter year-over-year sales. We are very proud of our work on behalf of over 100 major law firms and corporations in 2010 and look forward to continued growth in 2011.” About Animators at Law Founded in 1995, attorney owned and operated Animators at Law provides litigation consulting, litigation graphics & litigation technology to major law firms and corporate legal departments worldwide. To date, Animators at Law has worked with more than 95% of the largest U.S. law firms and consulted on more than 10,000 cases with more than $2 trillion cumulatively at stake. The firm is well known for its high-profile work in the tobacco, transportation, pharmaceutical and energy industries. Statistically, half of Animators at Law's engagements are patent-related and most of those are tried in the Eastern District of Texas. Contact Us: Alex Brown Director of Operations brown@a2lc.com 800.337.7697
Share: