The Litigation Consulting Report

Imagine asking AI to turn your opening statement into a polished presentation. It returns a handsome deck: coordinated colors, matching title bars, tidy lists, and an illustration on every third slide. You might think you have just eliminated the need for a litigation graphics consultant. You have generated slides. You have not acquired the expertise that makes trial graphics persuasive. The hard part of trial graphics is deciding what jurors need to understand, what might keep them from understanding it, and how each visual will help you change that. A finished-looking deck does not answer those questions. In How Many Persuasion Errors Can You Spot in This Slide?, I deliberately assembled a terrible slide to illustrate familiar presentation mistakes. AI gives us a new reason to revisit that exercise: it can make those same mistakes look much more professional. My concern is the assumption that familiar presentation conventions must be effective. Common practice is a poor substitute for persuasion expertise. An attorney can ask for a professional-looking deck and receive exactly that, including familiar design choices a litigation graphics specialist would reject. The attorney may even praise the very features that need to change. The problem is deeper than proofreading the output. To recognize a persuasion error, you first have to understand persuasion. Legal expertise does not automatically supply expertise in visual attention, audience comprehension, or the coordination of graphics and spoken advocacy. Here are 22 reasons that using AI to build your own trial slides is a poor substitute for hiring specialists. 1. AI can make every slide look equally important The same title bar. The same layout. The same amount of text. A routine background fact and the central contradiction in the case arrive wearing identical clothes. Where is the signal that something important has changed? Consistency should help jurors follow the argument; it should not flatten its emphasis. A litigation graphics specialist designs those moments deliberately. An attorney evaluating the deck for consistency may approve the very sameness that undermines them. 2. AI can eliminate useful visual surprise A document excerpt followed by a photograph, a comparison, or a single consequential number changes the viewing experience. That change can be purposeful. As I argued in Could Surprise Be One of Your Best Visual Persuasion Tools?, variation belongs in the trial team's toolkit. A deck that treats uniformity as an overriding goal can design those opportunities away. Random decoration is no substitute for a deliberate change in emphasis. 3. AI cannot choose what to downplay without your strategy Sometimes an unfavorable fact needs to be acknowledged accurately without receiving a dramatic visual reveal. A restrained presentation may be appropriate. But that is a judgment about this case, this audience, and your credibility. If every slide is visually subdued, the presentation may also downplay your strongest evidence. Persuasion expertise is what distinguishes intentional restraint from an accidentally forgettable presentation.