The Litigation Consulting Report

The billable hour is expensive. So why are so many litigators spending it doing graphic design?

Pharmaceutical product liability trials are some of the most difficult cases a jury will ever be asked to decide. They are built on science, filtered through fear, and decided by people who usually know very little about either. That is what makes jury consulting for pharmaceutical product liability trials so important.

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:

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.

A Year-End Retrospective Based on Reader Viewership What Persuasion Looked Like in 2025 Every year, certain ideas quietly rise to the top—not because they’re trendy, but because they work. In 2025, Persuadius readers gravitated toward articles that challenged conventional trial habits: over-reliance on logic, cluttered visuals, bullet-point thinking, and storytelling that tells instead of shows. The most-read pieces this year shared a common theme: persuasion is less about adding more information and more about shaping how jurors understand what matters. Below is our list of the 15 most-read Persuadius articles of 2025, ranked by reader viewership. Together, they offer a revealing snapshot of what litigators are rethinking—and refining—about storytelling, jury persuasion, trial graphics, and courtroom strategy. 🔝 The Top 15 Most-Read Persuadius Articles of 2025 1. The Paradox of Persuasion: Why Logic Often Fails in the Courtroom This article explores why purely logical arguments frequently fall flat with jurors, despite lawyers’ instinct to “prove” their case rationally. Drawing on cognitive science and real-world trial experience, it explains how persuasion is more often driven by meaning, emotion, and narrative coherence than by facts alone. 2. 5 Alternatives to Persuasion-Killing Bullet Points A direct challenge to one of trial lawyers’ most ingrained habits, this piece shows how bullet points dilute persuasion and fragment juror understanding. It offers five concrete visual and narrative alternatives that communicate ideas more clearly and memorably in the courtroom.

In high-stakes litigation, a great trial graphic doesn’t merely “support” the narrative — it is the narrative. It is the difference between jurors leaning in or tuning out, between a judge following your logic or silently asking themselves, What is counsel even trying to say? After more than thirty years of building litigation graphics for some of the most sophisticated trial teams in the country, I’ve noticed a pattern: the teams who win consistently follow the same three core rules, whether consciously or not. Conversely, the teams who struggle with persuading lay decision-makers tend to violate these rules — sometimes subtly, sometimes flagrantly. These rules are not aesthetic preferences. They are grounded in cognitive psychology, attention span research, and the simple reality that most jurors don’t think the way lawyers do. Here are the three rules: Every litigation graphic should be understandable without explanation, and each should convey only one short sentence of meaning. Never — not once — read the long-form text on a litigation graphic.

Science tells us that when persuading with words, pictures can make us many times more persuasive. Half of our business is rooted in this basic truth. But I believe there’s a way to go further and be even more persuasive. It’s something I call Persuasion Pairing. What Is Persuasion Pairing? By Persuasion Pairing, I mean carefully and cleverly combining a short phrase or word with a reinforcing picture or other sensory element. It’s more than just a visual metaphor. Done well, it’s like a supercharged persuasive tool—a verbal hook plus a visual anchor that makes a message unforgettable. Consider a scene from Molly’s Game, a true story of a competitive skier turned celebrity poker game matriarch, masterfully acted by Jessica Chastain. At one point, the skiing course is described as being “like skiing down the side of one of the great pyramids.” That line instantly paints a picture: steep, intimidating, and unforgettable. Years later, I’ve never forgotten it. That’s Persuasion Pairing in action. Here's the 10-second clip from the movie below.

On the night of Friday, July 4, the Guadalupe River in Texas rose more than 26 feet in just 45 minutes, triggering catastrophic flash floods throughout the Hill Country. Communities near Kerrville were overwhelmed. Camp Mystic, a beloved girls’ camp, was among the hardest hit. As of this writing, more than 100 lives have been lost, and over 160 people remain missing.

In legal proceedings, trial graphics are crucial for conveying information effectively while persuading the audience. They serve as a bridge connecting complex legal data with clear, engaging visual presentations.

Mastering courtroom presentations involves more than just knowing the law; it requires understanding how to engage your audience without overwhelming them. I've talked about the redundancy effect/ split attention effect many times, including earlier this month. See 5 Alternatives to Persuasion Killing Bullet Points From Our Litigation Consultants. I think this may be the most common trial presentation mistake I see from even the very best trial attorneys. Understanding the Split-Attention Effect in Courtroom Presentations The split-attention effect occurs when an individual's focus is divided between multiple sources of information, leading to cognitive overload and decreased comprehension. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in environments where the processing of information is critical, such as in educational settings, business meetings, and most notably, in courtrooms. This can be especially problematic in a courtroom as jurors and judges are tasked with understanding complex legal arguments and evidence, which often involve intricate details and nuanced interpretations. When attention is split between spoken words and litigation graphics, such as PowerPoint slides, charts, or physical evidence, the likelihood of misunderstanding or missing critical information increases significantly. This can result in jurors and judges forming incomplete or incorrect conclusions, which can ultimately affect the outcome of a trial.

Bullet points undermine persuasion. Scientific evidence supports this, and my colleagues and I have consistently emphasized this over the past 15 years in this blog through articles such as: 12 Reasons Bullet Points Are Bad (in Trial Graphics or Anywhere) The 12 Worst PowerPoint Mistakes Litigators Make Don't Use PowerPoint as a Crutch in Trial or Anywhere Why Reading Your Litigation PowerPoint Slides Hurts Jurors 5 Ways to Maximize Persuasion During Opening Statements - Part 4 12 Ways to SUCCESSFULLY Combine Oral and Visual Presentations Powerful PowerPoint Presentation Tips: Ditch the Bullet Points! Still Think Persuasion is About Talking While Showing Bullet Points? How Many Persuasion Errors Can You Spot in This Slide? 11 Lessons Trial Lawyers Can Learn From Jay Z's Lawyer Video Presentation But wait, Ken, you just used bullet points in the opening paragraph of this article!!! Yes, I did. Quite purposefully. I want you to imagine reading that same list while I'm reading it to you almost simultaneously, but not perfectly synched with your reading. Are you imagining trying to read faster than I was speaking? That's common—judges and jurors (or any audience) often try to outpace the speaker. You might have felt tempted to ignore what I'm saying and just focus on reading. Or, you might think, "I'm smart and can multitask by listening and reading simultaneously." Maybe so, but wouldn't it be better to choose either to read or to listen? This isn't about competing; it's about persuading effectively. The issue here concerns trial lawyers who utilize bullet points on PowerPoint slides. You're familiar with the scenario. They glance at their slide as you read it, and then they read the bullet point aloud to you. This isn't a one-time occurrence. They might repeat this process hundreds of times throughout a single trial.