Trial preparation has a way of turning capable lawyers into reluctant experts in everything. One minute you are refining a cross-examination. The next, you are moving text boxes around a slide, troubleshooting a video, or trying to turn three years of discovery into an opening statement someone can follow in thirty minutes. Several of our most-read articles this year ask whether all of that belongs on the trial lawyer’s desk. Others tackle an equally demanding problem: what happens inside a juror’s head when the presentation begins? How do you hold attention, challenge an early assumption, or help someone understand why one event led to another? 10. Simplifying Your Opening Statement to Its Core You know the case. Can a juror explain it after hearing your opening? Part two of our Persuasion Occasion podcast series with Perkins Coie examines the work of reducing an opening statement to its essential story. It asks lawyers to think about what jurors will understand, retain, and eventually repeat. For a trial team staring at an overgrown draft, this is a useful starting point: identify the central idea before deciding which details deserve to stay. 9. The Simplest Storytelling Trick for Persuasion Might Have Come from South Park An unlikely source offers a remarkably practical editing test. Look at the transitions between the major events in your opening. Do they amount to “and then,” or can you connect them with “but” and “therefore”? This article explores how conflict and consequence give a story momentum. It is especially useful when an opening contains all the necessary facts but still feels like a recitation. Try the test on one page of your outline and see where the connections need work. 8. How to Break Juror Confirmation Bias (Using a Surprisingly Simple Trick) What might make a juror pause before fitting the next fact into an opinion already formed? Part three of our Perkins Coie podcast series explores the possibility of using a carefully chosen visual surprise or moment of difficulty to encourage closer attention. The article presents this as a technique to consider selectively; it also acknowledges the potential for distraction. Its most useful question is whether your presentation invites jurors to examine an assumption they might otherwise leave untouched.
The billable hour is expensive. So why are so many litigators spending it doing graphic design?
Part 4 of the Persuasion Occasion podcast series with Perkins Coie (see parts 1, 2, 3, and the full podcast on Spotify) Trial consultants love stories. Unfortunately, facts occasionally insist on participating. One of my favorite persuasion lessons comes from an antitrust matter involving the proposed merger of two of the largest airlines at the time. The case never produced quite the courtroom drama we imagined. The matter settled a couple of weeks before trial, and like many high-stakes cases, the final resolution came before every argument could be fully tested in court. Yet one demonstrative from that matter taught me more about persuasion than many cases that actually went to verdict. The exhibit was almost embarrassingly simple. It wasn't a 3D animation. It wasn't a sophisticated economic model. It wasn't a dazzling piece of trial graphics. It was a slowly scrolling list of airline bankruptcies. Just a list. One name after another. Many of them familiar. Eastern. Pan Am. TWA. Braniff. People of a certain age recognize these names immediately. They were once household brands. Today, they're gone. And as the list continues to scroll, something interesting happens. You start to see the airline industry differently. Here's my explanation below:
Part 3: Insights from the Persuasion Occasion Podcast with Perkins Coie Most trial lawyers understand confirmation bias in theory. Fewer know how to actually break it in real time—inside a courtroom, with a jury that has already made up its mind. That’s exactly where this next insight comes in. In my conversation with David Biderman and Jasmine Wetherell on the Persuasion Occasion podcast from Perkins Coie, we got into a technique that sounds counterintuitive at first… and then becomes hard to ignore. The Problem: Most Jurors Decide Early—and Stay There If you’ve tried cases, you’ve felt this. Jurors don’t wait until closing argument to decide. They decide early—often during opening statement—and then spend the rest of the trial doing something very human: They filter. They listen for what confirms their initial impression… and quietly dismiss what doesn’t. That’s confirmation bias, and it’s one of the most powerful forces in the courtroom. Once it locks in, persuasion becomes exponentially harder. The Counterintuitive Solution: Make Them Work Here’s where things get interesting. During the interview, I floated a technique I haven’t seen widely used—but I believe has enormous potential: If you want a juror to really process something… make it slightly harder to process. Not confusing. Not sloppy. Just enough friction to force engagement. I've included that video conversation below:
In Part 1, I explored a counterintuitive truth: fear often beats logic in the courtroom. That conversation—featuring litigators from Perkins Coie—pulled back the curtain on how juries actually process information, not how lawyers wish they did. But there was another idea in that discussion that may be even more important. And it’s one that the very best trial lawyers in the world quietly rely on: They strip their cases down to the bare essentials. The Dirty Secret of Great Trial Lawyers There’s a misconception that great lawyers win because they are more sophisticated, more detailed, more exhaustive. In reality, the opposite is often true. During the podcast, I referenced two of the most effective trial lawyers alive—Mark Lanier and David Boies—and what they do differently: They make cases almost impossibly simple. Not because they can’t explain the complexity. Understand the jury can’t absorb it. As I explained in that conversation: They take cases down to their basic elements… just what you need to know. They drop all the names, every extraneous piece of data. That’s not dumbing it down. That’s precision. Here’s a short clip from the podcast interview:
The other day, I did a simple experiment in a room full of lawyers from the Los Angeles Bar Association. Roughly 200 people. I showed a few slides in a row. Same layout. Same structure. Same visual rhythm. Same title. Then I showed a fourth slide. Same design. Except for one thing: There was a typo on it. A pretty obvious one. Then I asked the room: “How many of you noticed the typo?” About five hands went up. Five… out of two hundred. The uncomfortable truth It wasn’t that the audience wasn’t smart. It wasn’t that they weren’t paying attention. It’s that their brains had already decided what my slides were going to say—and stopped really looking or reading. That’s not a presentation problem. That’s a human cognition problem.
You might be waking up today to a world that looks like it’s been quietly buried in snow. Sidewalks vanish. Cars turn into white shapes. The usual landmarks of daily life—curbs, steps, driveways—are suddenly indistinct.
Cognitive biases are a natural part of being human, and jurors are not exempt from these biases when serving in a court of law. The impact of these biases on how jurors receive and interpret expert testimony cannot be underestimated, as it can ultimately shape the outcome of a trial.
Confirmation bias is a pervasive cognitive bias that affects individuals in all areas of life, including the court system. It is crucial to understand the nature and effects of confirmation bias in order to mitigate its impact on jury trials. By recognizing and addressing confirmation bias, we can work towards winning cases more predictively.
I notice something about audiences in the PowerPoint presentation era. They seem to get easily disengaged part of the way into a presentation. This tendency is especially problematic in a courtroom setting since judge and juror visual attention is critical for courtroom persuasion.
A fascinating new study in the field of social psychology indicates that the type font in which an argument is presented has an effect on how convincing it is. For trial graphics consultants and litigators alike, this is potentially very big news.
Share: