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.

There is an old expression that a camel is a horse designed by committee.

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.

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.

Pharmaceutical companies can be embroiled in many types of litigation. Very often, because of the length of time and the tremendous investment of money that it takes to develop a new drug and bring it to market, these cases can be crucial to the company’s continuing financial health.

Litigation involving architecture usually involves some failure in the construction process, a dispute over lease terms like sight lines or common areas, an insurance claim involving an allegedly negligent design, or the responsibility for a building damaged in a natural disaster. Since most jurors are familiar with architecture to some degree, what usually has to be explained is the legal meaning of seemingly everyday terms, the process of design and construction, or the common customs of the architectural and construction businesses. That's where legal graphics often enter the picture.