The Litigation Consulting Report

by Ryan H. Flax, Esq. (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting Ryan Flax joins A2L Consulting on the heels of practicing Intellectual Property (IP) law as part of the Intellectual Property team at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, a national law firm based in Washington, DC. Over the course of his career, Ryan has obtained jury verdicts totaling well over $1 billion in damages on behalf of his clients and has helped clients navigate the turbulent waters of their competitors’ patents. He has leveraged his significant experience in cases related to a wide array of technologies, including medical devices and systems, semiconductors, biotechnology, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, software, and more. Most recently, Ryan was part of the Dickstein Shapiro team that brought 2011’s largest patent verdict totaling (so far) close to $600 million, which is also the 6th largest patent verdict in history (Bruce Saffran, MD, Ph.D. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.). It was during this experience that Ryan realized the excellent fit between his considerable expertise and skill sets as a patent law specialist, and his penchant for designing highly effective trial presentation materials through his collaboration with A2L Consulting. Ryan made the move to A2L Consulting to become A2L’s Managing Director, Litigation Consulting. Ryan earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Wake Forest University and his Juris Doctor degree from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. Between his undergraduate studies and law school, Ryan was a Laboratory Scientist conducting DNA research at the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

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.

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

Expert witnesses can be an extremely valuable portion of your case. If they are well-prepared, convincing and convey a clear, uncomplicated message to the jury, their testimony can lead directly to a verdict in your favor. If they are unconvincing and don’t communicate well, they are at best useless and at worst damaging to the case. The essential problem is that expert witnesses – whether they are testifying on engineering, scientific, financial, or other issues – tend to be very intelligent and knowledgeable. At the same time, however, they are prone to using terms that are well above the jury’s experience and educational levels and thus these experts are prone to be dismissed by some jurors as ivory-tower types who have nothing useful to say. We believe our firm plays several important roles helping expert witnesses get prepped for trial. Since our goal is winning by telling a clear and convincing story, the value of expert testimony must be maximized in each case. Expert witnesses are an essential piece of the litigation persuasion puzzle. Here are our seven tips for preparing expert witnesses and expert testimony to the best effect possible:

Many litigators have developed the excellent practice, while preparing to try a major case, of running all or some their case before a mock jury and then debriefing the jury to see what worked and what didn’t, and to fine-tune their trial presentation accordingly. A mock trial is an excellent investment of money and time when the matter is large and significant enough to permit it. Not only can you test mock jurors’ reactions to alternative arguments and themes but also their reactions to the trial graphics you are considering for trial. As we found in a now well-known three-year study about the differences in the way litigators and jurors naturally communicate, more than two-thirds of jurors prefer to learn visually, and only a very small percentage prefer to learn by only listening. Until recently however, most mock trials tested only arguments, themes and sometimes some rudimentary demonstrative graphics. Increasingly however, we are setting up mock trials, testing alternative arguments and themes, AND we are creating sophisticated trial-ready litigation graphics for BOTH sides of the case. For the right case, this approach offers a more accurate predication of how the entire trial presentation will be received. It is a mock trial best-practice.

In our 16 years in the trial presentation business, and after consulting on more than 10,000 cases, we still hear litigators concerned that their trial presentation/litigation graphics might somehow look “too slick” and will distract the jurors, or will somehow focus attention on the relative wealth of our client who is able to afford “fancy graphics.” In the early 1990s, this was a valid question. No one had used PowerPoint, no one had a cell phone – let alone a smart phone -- few people had personal computers, and most of those had black screens with green text. That is no longer the case. Technology has penetrated into every part of the United States and indeed into most of the world. A 2011 report from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project indicates that 85 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone, 52 percent own a laptop computer, four percent own a tablet, and only nine percent do not own any of these or other devices covered in the study. Those numbers will only increase. According to Robert Gaskins, the creator of PowerPoint, more than 500 million people worldwide use PowerPoint, with over 30 million PowerPoint presentations being made every day. Trial consultant Robb Helt, at the end of a trial in rural Arkansas, was able to talk with the jurors about the use of trial presentation technology/trial techncians in their just-completed trial. Helt found that the theory that jurors are uncomfortable with technology had been “blown away” by this “down home” jury. These jurors were not only comfortable with trial presentation technology – they expected to see it.