The Litigation Consulting Report

I want our readers to be among the first to hear some good news and download a free copy of a useful guidebook. A2L Consulting was voted a Best Demonstrative Evidence Provider by the readers of the National Law Journal. We are very proud. It's the second time in less than a year we have been honored with a similar distinction. At the end of 2011, the readers of LegalTimes also voted and named A2L the Best Demonstrative Evidence provider. I believe that this guide just published by the National Law Journal is a valuable one to keep. We all know one thing about litigation: you only get one shot to get it right, and thus it is critical to hire the right support team. The NLJ's best of guide is a good guidebook for anyone looking to hire a litigation support firm or other legal services firm. Frankly, it's a credible reader-driven survey that's been missing for a long time. I think the NLJ's work is especially reliable and useful since over 450 companies were nominated and votes were only tallied for known members of the legal industry. Below is a link to download the guidebook. I hope you'll take a moment to leave a comment below or ask a question. Thank you for your support of A2L Consulting and The Litigation Consulting Report.

In Part 1 of this article, we discussed how to use litigation consultants to win a case when there are no budget constraints. Here in Part 2, we tackle the opposite end of the budget spectrum: how to best use litigation consultants when budget is severely constrained. The good news is that in any case that has more than $1 million at stake or is a possible example of pattern litigation, there is a litigation consulting strategy that can fit the budget and deliver high value, regardless of budget. While every case has different needs, and there is a big difference between bench and jury trials, here is a prescription for utilizing litigation consultants in a tight budget. The primary cost difference between a small litigation budget and a large litigation budget will be the amount of time spent on testing and varying strategic approaches to the case. In a tight budget scenario, rather than relying on feedback from mock jurors and judges to help guide which themes to emphasize and the best ways to explain elements of the case, you will likely have to rely heavily on gut instinct. Of course, that is not always a bad thing.

At A2L, we have the privilege of working with experts in many diverse and highly technical fields, such as software patents, polymer patents, semiconductor patents, medical device design, environmental remediation, construction, financial disclosure, economic damages, transportation safety, corporate management and many more.

Whenever a litigation team presents a document in a graphic way to the jury or other fact-finder at trial, there is an occasion for a document call-out. A “document call-out” is a term of art that means taking a document that is in evidence at trial and highlighting some key portion of it for easy reading and to draw the viewer's attention to the key language.

We have previously discussed how valuable timelines used as legal graphics can be in the presentation of facts at trial. As we have noted, most cases involve the placing of events along some sort of time sequence, and timelines, if they are well designed, can give jurors a straightforward introduction to the facts of a case. In fact, we recently released an e-book describing best practices for the use of timelines and legal graphics at trial.

A recent study about the best use of litigation graphics during trial reveals some new insights. This study was conducted by Persuasion Strategies, a litigation consulting firm that is part of Holland & Hart, a law firm. The study team was led by Ken Broda-Bahm, a leader in the art of visual presentation in the courtroom. With a doctorate in speech communication that emphasizes rhetoric and legal communication, Dr. Broda-Bahm is a genuine expert in jury consulting.

Because maps are used by jurors constantly in their daily life and because they are so frequently used to represent common locations and processes, they are one of the most frequently used and most effective types of demonstrative evidence. Whenever something can be conveyed geographically, through the use of space, it is worth considering the use of a map. Even though maps don’t always represent the highest and newest technology, their importance cannot be underestimated. In the words of Ray Moses of the Center for Criminal Justice Advocacy, which was formed in Texas as a grass-roots training resource to help new lawyers in becoming competent criminal trial practitioners: “Visuals (graphics) such as time lines, charts, illustrations, maps, etc. are sufficiently important to communicating your message that you owe it to your client and yourself to learn how to incorporate visuals into your presentation.”

In most trial presentations, the trial timeline is often the single most critical demonstrative exhibit used at trial. Much like an effective opening statement, the trial timeline: Orients the viewer; Provides a framework around which facts can be organized; Allows for easy comparison of events occurring in sequence or simultaneously; Builds trust and credibility by sharing a believable story; and even persuades when built correctly.

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.