The Litigation Consulting Report

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting There are a handful of large law firms that have in-house graphics departments and use them as profit centers with their corporate clients. When a big case is on its way to trial, the large firm develops its own litigation graphics, and the law firm bills the client for in-house graphics in the same way (albeit at a lower rate) that lawyers are billed out. By and large, I think the law firms win and the clients lose in these scenarios. You would think that having an in-house litigation graphics department might make some sense. After all, the corporation being represented by the large law firm likely has an in-house marketing department. That works out pretty well, right? As someone who has watched the insourcing and outsourcing ebb and flow of law firm litigation graphics departments over the past three decades, I have seen one thing remain constant: High-end outside litigation graphics firms are radically better than in-house law firm graphics departments. Here are some reasons why: The vast experience gap: A firm like A2L may go to trial 50 or 100 times per year - and those are mostly big-ticket cases. No large law firm comes close. Large law firms typically have fewer than a dozen big-ticket cases across many offices. Common sense would tell anyone that the creative staff working on one or two cases in their office probably get less experience toward being a master of their craft compared to those artists working on dozens of cases per year. See, With So Few Trials, Where Do You Find Trial Experience Now? Law firms rarely retain good talent: Most litigation graphics artists worth their salt are either working for firms like A2L or freelancing for a firm like ours. We're always hiring full-time and contract litigation graphic artists with true intellectual curiosity, considerable artistic talent, and the ability to work wonders in PowerPoint. See, 16 PowerPoint Litigation Graphics You Won't Believe Are PowerPoint. Outside litigation graphics firms are a better value: When you have $10 million or even $10 billion at stake and getting the most persuasive litigation graphics may vary your graphics spend by $5,000, isn't the best value the choice that gives you the best chance of winning? See, 12 Reasons Litigation Graphics are More Complicated Than You Think. No adjustment for venue: In a firm like ours, jury consultants are mingling with the litigation graphics team. Juries in the Southern District of New York are different than those in the Northern District of California. Our information designers understand this and know to question the jury consulting team about varying their message accordingly. Very often, our customers have no idea they are getting this value, but I'm fairly certain they are not getting it from their in-firm departments.

by Tony Klapper (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting I recently had the opportunity to make a presentation at a federal judges’ conference in New Jersey that brought together judges and lawyers from that state. About 300 lawyers attended, as did about two dozen federal judges. The subject of my presentation was storytelling and its role in trials. After my presentation was over, I informally polled the judges in the room on their views concerning the importance of visuals at trial and the role of storytelling. Every single one of the judges, with the possible exception of one bankruptcy judge, indicated that he or she thought that the use of demonstratives was a critical part of any trial presentation. This is a notable indication, if an unscientific one, that judges, who are key decisionmakers in any courtroom, understand the role of visual persuasion. I would add a caveat. They are judges, after all, and I have little doubt that they will sua sponte reject a trial lawyer’s effort to tell a story visually that in the judge’s view is inherently unfair to the other side. Judges will control what goes on in the courtroom when it comes to the use of demonstratives as part of your narrative, as they will in every other aspect of a trial. That means that, as we said in our most recent post, trial lawyers should always have a backup plan in mind, a “Plan B” in case the judge views their original approach as objectionable. But the results of my informal poll are consistent with what we at A2L have been saying for the past several years here. Jurors are human beings who learn best when they learn visually, and they understand a case the most instinctively if it comes to them in the form of a story. Other articles about bench trials, mock bench trials, using demonstrative evidence with judges, and visual storytelling from A2L Consulting include: 21 Ingenious Ways to Research Your Judge 7 Things You Never Want to Say in Court 10 Suggestions for Conducting Mock Bench Trial Consulting Exercises Using Litigation Graphics in Bench Trials: How Different Is It From Jury Trials? 11 Surprising Areas Where We Are Using Mock Exercises and Testing Storytelling at Trial Works - But Whom Should the Story Be About? Winning BEFORE Trial - Part 3 - Storytelling for Lawyers 12 Ways to SUCCESSFULLY Combine Oral and Visual Presentations 3 Articles Discussing What Jurors Really Think About You 11 Tips for Winning at Your Markman Hearings 5 Essential Elements of Storytelling and Persuasion 11 Tips for Preparing to Argue at the Federal Circuit 5 Keys to Telling a Compelling Story in the Courtroom Preparing for ITC Hearings Three Top Trial Lawyers Tell Us Why Storytelling Is So Important

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Over the past three decades I've heard hundreds of lawyers say, “I won't need many graphics because my case is not very visual.” Usually, that's followed up with “It's really a case about documents” or “It’s a dispute over who said what,” or “It’s just about what someone's actions were.” Fortunately, there’s a clear and straightforward answer to these objections: What drives the need for visuals in a case is not the underlying subject matter. It’s your audience's need to see things as well as hear them. In effect, every case is a visual case today. So instead of wondering whether your case lends itself to litigation graphics, you should probably be asking yourself whether you are substituting your judgment about the need for visuals for your audience's core psychological needs. Remember, lawyers tend not to be visual learners themselves, while many or most jurors will be in that category. One trial lawyer said this particularly well in this short video about why litigation graphics are important.

Timelines are a frequently used, time-honored trial technique that we have discussed in these pages more than once. Since human beings like to focus on a story – what happened first, what happened next, and so on – timelines have the power to summarize, in a simple and straightforward way, the entire narrative of a case. But not all timeline graphics are created equal. Here are three ways to use what we call “top-bottom” timelines that most successfully take advantage of their power to persuade. In the first type of “top-bottom” timeline, the chronological portion of the line, in years, months, days, whatever is relevant, sits in the middle. At the top lie the actions of your client, tagged at the appropriate time when they occurred. Below the line are the actions, or inactions, of the other side in the litigation. Let’s say the case centers around a construction contract, and your point is that a subcontractor’s inaction caused a critical delay in the completion of the contract. Above the line are the actions of your client, the main contractor – the days when it began work, when it completed certain key steps of the project, when it contacted the subcontractor for progress reports. Below the line are the actions of the subcontractor, which diminish in number and in significance as the deadline approaches. The jury can look at the timeline and immediately draw a distinction between your client’s actions (good and appropriate) and the other company’s actions (few and showing evidence of foot-dragging).

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting We recently asked three top trial lawyers about what makes them so successful in the courtroom. They are quite a successful trio. One of them is Bobby Burchfield of King & Spalding, whose bio notes, “Mr. Burchfield has never lost a jury trial.” That's an especially impressive track record as he's been in practice more than 30 years. So what does winning take? Well, as we saw in previous clips from the same interviews, these trial lawyers believe, as we do, that storytelling is at the heart of building a successful case. Furthermore, as all demonstrative evidence consultants and most trial lawyers will tell you, combining persuasive visual evidence with persuasive oral communications produces a truly synergistic persuasive effect. Persuasion is a rare circumstance where 1+1 really does equal more than 2. Of course, as we have long counseled, just because something is projected on a screen does not make it helpful at a trial. In many cases, as in the case of lawyers who use bullet points to summarize their arguments on screen, some visuals actually make you less persuasive. If yours looks like the image here, then you are certainly doing more damage than good. For more on why that's true, please see our articles 12 Reasons Bullet Points Are Bad (in Trial Graphics or Anywhere), The 12 Worst PowerPoint Mistakes Litigators Make, and Why Reading Your Litigation PowerPoint Slides Hurts Jurors. In this three-minute clip, we hear from the best of the best -- Bobby Burchfield of King & Spalding, Rob Cary of Williams & Connolly, and Patrick Coyne of Finnegan. And we certainly don't hear them talking about the power of bullet pointed lists. Instead, you hear these trial-tested litigation experts talking about the use of animation, the value of timelines, and the importance of showing real evidence to ground your argument in credibility. Burchfield said, “People learn both by seeing and by hearing, and if you can combine those two in one presentation, the more sensory perceptions you combine, the better off you are. Timelines are powerful persuasive tools. A timeline shows from left to right who did what and to whom. Sometimes you show in a timeline above the line what your client knew and below the line what your client didn’t know. It can be a powerful story to show contrasting events that were going on simultaneously. This helps the jury put the entire case into context.” Cary noted, “When a jury can see something that visually displays the evidence, that cloaks you in credibility. That’s critical in earning their trust.” Coyne pointed out, “People are predominantly visual. Most people need an image. They need it to tie things together. Ken [Lopez] and his people did a fantastic animation for us. The judge turned to the other side and said, ‘If I credit this animation, you lose. Do you know that?’ It was a very compelling animation. That’s what I mean by appealing to the judge by giving him a visual that explains what you’re trying to say.” Watching lawyers like these work is a pleasure and their teams score high on our assessment of what makes a great trial team. Other articles related to persuasion in trial, the use of bullet points, and trial presentation best practices from A2L Consulting: Don't Use PowerPoint as a Crutch in Trial or Anywhere 6 Trial Presentation Errors Lawyers Can Easily Avoid 12 Reasons Bullet Points Are Bad (in Trial Graphics or Anywhere) 10 Criteria that Define Great Trial Teams How Much Text on a PowerPoint Slide is Too Much? 5 Ways to Maximize Persuasion During Opening Statements - Part 4 Free A2L Consulting Webinar: Persuasive Storytelling for Litigation The 12 Worst PowerPoint Mistakes Litigators Make 12 Ways to SUCCESSFULLY Combine Oral and Visual Presentations The Effective Use of PowerPoint Presentation During Opening Statement 16 PowerPoint Litigation Graphics You Won't Believe Are PowerPoint

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting When I speak to an audience about the work A2L does (other than trial lawyers from large law firms), I sometimes hear the question, “Is the kind of work A2L does fair?” That is, is it fair to have trial consultants support a trial team and use the latest in persuasion science to advocate only one side of a case? In a group setting, my lawyerly answer is usually something like, “What does ‘fair’ mean to you?” Then we litigate the nuances of fairness. What I really think, however, is that the work we do definitely tips the scales of justice in our client’s favor. Is that fair? Probably. After all, ferociously advocating one’s position using all available tools is one of the hallmarks of our justice system. But what if, as is typical, one side has a larger litigation budget than the other. Is it fair to have a firm like ours on one side and not the other? I've heard others reply to this question by comparing the vast differences in trial lawyer quality and arguing that the system is designed to smooth these talent gaps out. I don't have a specific answer right now, so I I'll simply say that I think it's a fair question. Trial consultants do influence outcomes of cases, sometimes to an enormous degree. Indeed, a branding firm, after surveying our customers and staff, once recommended that we use “Unfair Advantage” as our firm motto. I never really fell in love with the motto, and we didn’t end up really using it, but I understand the sentiment completely. In more than 20 years and thousands of cases, I’ve never seen one that was not improved by the input of a trial consultant. I've seen losing cases turned to winners and damages swing in the billions of dollars. Consider 12 advantages that trial consultants offer – ones that your opposition might say are just not fair. A Fresh Pair of Eyes: Trial lawyers who like to get their answers questioned outperform those who are not open to much input. Trial consultants offer a safe place to bounce theories, narratives, demonstratives, voir dire strategies, trial presentation strategies and more off smart people who are on your side. See 7 Reasons a Fresh Pair of Eyes Are Beneficial Before Trial. An Experienced Pair of Eyes: If you've been in the litigation industry for decades like me, you've watched as trial lawyers who used to go to trial every year now go to trial only every three, five or even eight years. Meanwhile, trial consultants have moved in the opposite direction and often see dozens of trials per year. So high-performing clients and high-performing trial lawyers very sensibly rely on trial consultants to enhance the trial experience of the team. See With So Few Trials, Where Do You Find Trial Experience Now? Practice: One of my former colleagues turned judge was so right about this: “They call it the practice of law but nobody is practicing.” Trial consultants help trial teams practice effectively. This is critical because so few trial teams are really practicing. Those who don't practice in front of peers underperform others. Those who do, outperform most trial lawyers. It's so obviously correlated with good outcomes, I believe that the quality of practice is a reasonable proxy for the outcome of a case. See 3 Ways to Force Yourself to Practice Your Trial Presentation.

by Tony Klapper Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting We have written many times about the fact that scientific studies have shown that nonlawyers (who are the vast majority of jurors) tend to be visual learners, and tend not to be auditory learners or kinesthetic learners –people who learn by experiencing. Lawyers (who are the ones who present facts and tell stories to jurors) tend not to be visual learners and are often drawn from the ranks of auditory or kinesthetic learners. Of course, this can present an intrinsic problem that we have discussed before. If most lawyers like to tell but not show, and our audience, the jury, prefers to be shown something and not to be told, we may completely fail to connect with our audience. It’s not just psychologists and other students of human behavior who say so; it’s also people who devote full time to understanding trial advocacy. The National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA) is a fantastic organization that represents the “gold standard” of trial advocacy. In addition to putting on outstanding CLE programs for newbie and experienced litigators, NITA also publishes many great books from scholars who have thought long and hard about advocacy.

by Tony Klapper Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting At first glance, antitrust cases seem like unlikely venues for the successful use of litigation graphics. Antitrust law has the reputation for being arcane, abstract and statistical, and to some extent the reputation is justified. After all, this area of law deals with the workings of supply and demand and other economic questions, and the issue is often whether competition (or potential competition) in a market has been suppressed in some way. These matters aren’t remotely within the daily experience of jurors. How can a litigator use graphics in antitrust cases to make them make sense? It can be done. Earlier this year, a well-written article in Law360 (paywall) noted that “explaining the details of an antitrust case to a jury can be a daunting task, but lawyers who build a compelling narrative and communicate with a straightforward style stand a good chance of bringing the jury around to their client’s point of view, experts say.” The article suggested that “many jurors are visual learners, so economic evidence is most likely to stick when the spoken testimony is supplemented with visual aids.” We agree.

by Tony Klapper (former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting If anyone thought the era of toxic tort litigation was coming to an end, they were wrong. The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced its priority list of 10 chemicals, including asbestos, that it is considering banning under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Although it remains an open question how aggressive the Trump administration will be with safety regulations, the reality is that regulatory lists like this, and the inevitable studies that follow, often become a treasure trove of “support” for a plaintiffs’ bar eager to add scientific credibility to their legal claims. This presents challenges for defense lawyers – especially given the continued currency of quasi-scientific principles or principles that are fine for regulators to rely on, but have no place in today’s courtroom, such as the “precautionary principle.” This is most evident with the mantra of “no safe dose” that asbestos lawyers and some environmental groups trumpet as justifying liability for even the most meager and infrequent of chemical exposures. Of course, toxicology, epidemiology and other scientific disciplines have exposed the fallacy of principles like “no safe dose” (after all, Paracelsus teaches us that “dose makes the poison – more about this later). But the appeal of the seemingly aphoristic “no safe dose” is tough to counter in court when an effective advocate plays to a jury’s fears and is buttressed by governmental pronouncements that, albeit for different reasons, embrace the notion that there is some theoretical, modeled risk from exposure to virtually any chemical. So the task for the defense bar is how to convince juries to reject these and other fallacious concepts that serve as easy, digestible substitutes for the more complex elements of true causation.