We often hear from clients or prospective clients that it won’t help them if they look like a big company that is attempting to overwhelm or dazzle its opponents with technology. Jurors won’t buy that sort of stuff, we are told, even from a litigant that is actually a large company.

by Nina Doherty

The choice of a trial graphics firm is one of the most important decisions that a trial lawyer can make. Since experts widely agree that about two-thirds of jurors and many judges prefer to learn visually, it can literally make the difference between winning and losing your case. However, many lawyers still use the wrong approach to the selection of a trial graphics consultant. For example, they may choose a provider based on familiarity (“I know someone who does graphics . . .”), price (“the client has a tight budget . . . “), or proximity (“they’re right around the corner . . . “). There are better ways to choose a consultant. Think of hiring a trial graphics provider as similar to the hiring of an expert witness. If you are hiring an expert witness, you are delegating a portion of the case to someone who has specialized knowledge and experience that you may not. You would hire an electrical engineering expert witness to discuss the workings of a patented device. Similarly, you should hire a trial graphics provider, who is an expert in the field of information design, to create effective trial graphics for your case.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

Below is an article authored by a Senior Litigation Graphics Consultant at A2L Consulting. It is set for publication in PLI's Trial by Jury book. I think it does a great job of introducing the challenge of balancing color choice and culture in trial graphics. ******** Color Choice, Culture and Demonstrative Evidence -Theresa D’Amico Villanueva, Esq. About the Author:Theresa D’Amico Villanueva is a Senior Litigation Consultant for A2L Consulting, an attorney owned and operated provider of litigation consulting, graphics and courtroom animations, and litigation technology for litigators from all of the world’s largest law firms. Prior to her tenure as a litigation consultant, Ms. Villanueva worked as an attorney focusing on discovery for MDL and international products liability and toxic tort matters, and as in-house counsel handling title insurance claims, settlements and compliance with multi-state regulations. Ms. Villanueva holds a B.S. in Textiles and Apparel Merchandising and Design, with a business minor from West Virginia University. She received her Juris Doctor from Capital University Law School, where she was awarded Order of the Barrister. She is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. For further information, please contact Ms. Villanueva at 800.337.7697 x 115 or via email at: villanueva@A2LC.com Introduction It is long established that the use of visuals and technology in the courtroom increases understanding and retention. There are many attorneys across the country who will not even consider going to trial without being armed with creative and intuitive demonstrative exhibits to persuade and educate the jury. Color is a fundamental component of creating and developing trial graphics. Many litigators, however, still use conventional color schemes in their demonstratives. Their reluctance to change is likely because at some point the conventional wisdom became using a blue background with yellow text. Although this color scheme does work, it is no longer enough. Like an antibiotic, if it is overused, it loses its effectiveness. Similarly, this color scheme has lost its impact. As jury pools diversify, and as jurors become more sophisticated, they expect more from us. In turn, we need to become more creative if we intend to persuade our audience. We need to make our graphics relevant to those whom we are trying to persuade. We must truly consider our audience, who they are, where they live, and the environmental and cultural factors that influence their behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. Color is powerful. Studies show that color can evoke certain emotional responses: it can increase learning, grab our attention, and increase perception and focus. The right color choice, used in the right way, can influence and tilt the case in your favor. The Audience Many label Edward Tufte as the “Galileo of Graphics” and the “Leonardo da Vinci of Data.” His writings on graphics and presenting are among—if not the—most prominent of our day in regard to communicating visually to an audience. While his works do not directly relate to courtroom presentation, his ideas and theory of how to appeal to an audience are highly regarded; the underlying theme of his ideas is directly applicable to litigation presentations. According to Tufte, “The most important rule of speaking is to respect your audience.” This is certainly true when addressing a jury. Tufte argues that advocates should communicate with an audience in a clear and organized way: “Presentations largely stand or fall on the quality, relevance, and integrity of the content.” Organizing a case’s information and specifics in a clear way is not always an easy task. Furthermore, advocates also face the challenge of communicating in a way that will entice and intrigue our audience so as to keep their attention. There is a limited amount of time that we have the undivided attention of the jurors to present the facts. We need to use that time wisely and in a way that will keep the attention of our audience. Jurors today have high expectations when walking into a courtroom. Despite a jury’s expectation of technology and graphics to keep their attention, cluttering the screen with colorful—but ultimately not meaningful—graphics will likely alienate the jury. Whether verbal or visual, useless information is more likely to disengage the audience than it is to draw them in. In fact, too much information can detract from the message at hand. Once you have lost the attention of the jury, it is difficult to regain it; vital information is lost. Tufte advocates a direct presentation where the visuals supplement, rather than dominate, the presentation. Bright and even animated words on the page are not automatically relevant. Rather, a presentation is persuasive when it contains succinct and understandable arguments backed by the demonstratives that accompany the presentation. Thus, the colors and content of the visuals that you choose to represent your themes and case facts are an important factor in the development of your graphic exhibits. The use of technology and demonstratives in the courtroom is not only an integral part of a litigator’s arsenal of support, but also expected by most jurors. The modern fact finder expects much from the trial team when they walk into the jury box. We can attribute this in part to the ability of demonstratives to help the jurors understand the specifics of the case. This is also due to the ever growing use of technology in today’s television shows and their portrayal of the legal process. Television shows like Bones, C.S.I., and Law & Order give prospective jurors the impression that the intuitive officer easily solves a case with fancy technology and insightful comments. On television, viewers watch attorneys recreate the scene with computer images and simulations at trial. While these shows may depict more of the criminal legal process than the civil side of litigation, the expectation of drama and glamour in the courtroom remains. Thus, the legal profession faces the challenge of reaching its audience—the fact finders—in a way that will meet their expectations, hold their attention, and speak to the person as an individual. Jurors have high expectations. The use of graphics and technology has evolved such that we need to look for new and innovative ways to reach jurors. We know that repetition via auditory and visual techniques increases retention and comprehension. We are both visual and auditory learners. Studies show that jurors retain more information when they see and hear the evidence. One particularly well-known study—the Weiss-McGrath report—found "a one-hundred percent increase in juror retention of visual over oral presentations and a six-hundred percent increase in juror retention of combined visual and oral presentations over oral presentations alone." The report also showed that subjects who only heard information had a seventy percent retention rate after three hours and only a ten percent retention rate after 72 hours. Likewise, in subjects who only saw information there was a 72 percent retention rate after three hours and a twenty percent retention rate after 72 hours. However, when you compare these results to the results of the subjects who both saw and heard the same information, there was an 85 percent retention rate after three hours and a 65 retention rate after 72 hours. Retention is good. We want our jurors to remember our argument, and deliberate over our words. We also want to be able to reach the fact finder on a deeper subconscious level that melds with their understanding and perceptions in a way that persuades them to reach the conclusion we are seeking through our presentation. Color is an effective avenue for achieving this level of understanding.