I’ve been hesitant to share this method for a long time because I was afraid my smart readership wouldn’t take it seriously.

As I’ve gotten older, though, I’ve come to appreciate really simple tests that explain a lot. Some of these simple tests might sound strange, but they’re useful rules I can actually live by.

1. If my clothes don't fit, the dry cleaner did not shrink them.
2. The best measure of my losing or gaining weight is changing punch holes on either my belt or my watch.
3. If I've ever had to pay lawyers to deal with you, we can no longer be connected on social media.
4. Keys. Wallet. Phone. Watch. And somehow I still forget.
5. And if you can connect major points in an opening statement with "and then," then it's not done yet.

I’ve written a lot about persuasive storytelling techniques for judges and juries over the years, including:

• Dan Pink, Pixar, and Storytelling for the Courtroom
• Folktales Reveal a Powerful Persuasion Tool for Trial Lawyers
• Ten Ways to Maximize Persuasive Courtroom Storytelling (Part One)
• Three Top Trial Lawyers Tell Us Why Storytelling Is So Important
• and of course, Storytelling for Trial Lawyers

So it’s that fifth simple rule that I’m writing about today.

The so-called “And-But-Therefore” rule of storytelling was popularized by the writers of South Park.

Yes, South Park. That’s why I haven’t brought it up before.

But it’s so good.

The “And Then” Problem in Trial Storytelling

The creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have talked publicly about a simple storytelling test they use when writing episodes.

They argue that between every major story beat, you should ideally be able to insert either:

• “but”
• or “therefore”

—not “and then.”

Why?

Because “and then” merely describes a sequence of events.

“But” introduces conflict.

“Therefore” introduces consequence.

That distinction matters enormously in persuasion.

Consider this weak opening statement structure:

The company launched the product, and then customers complained, and then the FDA investigated, and then the CEO resigned.

Nothing is technically wrong with it. But it feels flat because events are simply being stacked next to each other.

Now compare it to this:

The company launched the product, but early safety warnings were ignored.
Therefore, customers were harmed.
But instead of issuing a recall, executives minimized the problem.
Therefore, regulators intervened.

Now we have causation.

Momentum.

Escalation.

The story pulls the listener forward.

Jurors Crave Causation, Not Chronology

One of the biggest storytelling mistakes trial lawyers make is confusing timelines with narratives.

A timeline answers:

“What happened next?”

A persuasive story answers:

“Why did what happened next become inevitable?”

Read that again. It's so important.

Jurors are not simply trying to memorize facts. They are unconsciously searching for meaning, motivation, cause, and consequence.

That is why so many opening statements feel informational rather than persuasive. They often become long chains of “and then.”

• The witness said this, and then…
• The company sent this email, and then…
• The plaintiff responded, and then…

A jury may follow the sequence perfectly and still feel emotionally disconnected from the case.

“But” and “therefore” force advocates to connect the dots.

And forcing yourself to connect the dots is often where persuasion actually begins.

The Hidden Power of “But”

“But” may be the single most important word in persuasive storytelling.

Why?

Because conflict creates attention.

Human beings are prediction machines. The moment a listener senses conflict, contradiction, danger, hypocrisy, or tension, attention increases automatically.

That’s why effective trial themes often contain built-in tension:

• “Safety was their top priority — but only when people were watching.”
• “The contract looked clear — but the fine print changed everything.”
• “The technology was revolutionary — but nobody tested it under real-world conditions.”

Conflict is memorable.

Conflict is emotional.

Conflict creates narrative gravity.

“Therefore” Is the Word of Accountability

If “but” creates tension, “therefore” creates responsibility.

“Therefore” forces causation.

It pushes the advocate to explain why one decision logically led to another consequence.

That’s critical in litigation because legal persuasion is often fundamentally about causation.

The best opening statements do not merely present facts. They create a chain of inevitability.

The defendant ignored warning signs. Therefore, disaster became predictable.

The witness concealed information. Therefore, trust collapsed.

The company prioritized speed over safety. Therefore, people got hurt.

The partners were known liars. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before he would be betrayed.

That structure feels persuasive because it mirrors how human beings naturally process blame, responsibility, and consequence.

A Surprisingly Useful Editing Test for Opening Statements

Here’s the practical takeaway.

Take your opening statement outline and look only at the transitions between major ideas.

If most of them can honestly be summarized as:

“and then…”

you probably have more work to do.

But if the transitions naturally become:

“but…”
“therefore…”

you may finally have a genuine story instead of a chronology.

And yes, it’s slightly ridiculous that one of the best storytelling lessons for trial lawyers may have come from South Park.

But persuasive ideas should be judged by whether they work — not by where they came from.

Final Thought

Many trial lawyers think storytelling in litigation means making the case more entertaining.

It usually doesn’t.

More often, effective courtroom storytelling means making causation clearer.

“But” creates tension.

“Therefore” creates consequence.

And together, they transform disconnected facts into persuasive narrative.

That’s not comedy writing.

That’s persuasion.

Related articles offering even more advice about storytelling for courtroom persuasion:

• The Top 10 Tricks for Using Storytelling for Persuasion in Litigation
  
• Crafting Compelling Legal Arguments Using Storytelling Techniques
• The Science of Storytelling: How Trial Graphics Can Help You Tell a Compelling Narrative
• 14 Differences Between a Theme and a Story in Litigation
• Portray Your Client As a Hero in 17 Easy Storytelling Steps
• Give Jurors the Words: Building Arguments They Can Carry into the Deliberation Room
• 21 Secrets From an Opening Statement Guru