If you're one of the nearly 10,000 long-time readers of this litigation consulting blog, you know that periodically, we list the recent articles that have proved the most popular. We measure popularity based on the number of times an article has been read, so these really are reader rankings. In today's article, I want to do something a little different. This time I'm listing not only the top three articles of the last quarter but also the current top three articles of all time (since 2011 when we started writing this blog). In a particular quarter, the top article may see a few thousands of individual readers reading it. However, an article on our blog for five or more years may see tens or hundreds of thousands of readers. Consistently, topics related to jury selection rank higher than those related to litigation graphics. I think this is because litigation graphics tend to be used primarily in large civil cases, whereas jury selection occurs in large and small cases and in both criminal and civil cases. These top articles should be interesting to many different types of readers. If you are interested in presenting at trial most effectively, the Netanyahu article should be studied carefully. If you participate in jury selection or hire people who do this kind of work, the voir dire article is a foundational piece. Top 3 Articles of Q2 2018: Netanyahu Persuades and Presents Better Than Most Trial Lawyers What Steve Jobs Can Teach Trial Lawyers About Trial Preparation How Much do Jury Consultants, Litigation Graphics, and Hot-Seaters Cost -- Honestly? Top 3 Articles Since 2011 (the life of our blog, The Litigation Consulting Report): 5 Questions to Ask in Voir Dire . . . Always The Top 14 Testimony Tips for Litigators and Expert Witnesses 10 Ways to Spot Your Jury Foreman
At A2L, we work on many disputes and trials of various types and sizes. Before starting work, we routinely provide our customers with estimates of what we think it will cost to engage us to conduct a mock trial, prepare trial presentations, assist in the development of the opening statement, and run the courtroom technology. While it’s never easy to estimate the final costs of fast-moving complex litigation, it's something that firms like ours and large law firms do every day. We've been doing it for 24 years, and we've even pioneered some innovative pricing strategies for litigation graphics and trial tech work. However, I've noticed two schools of thought when it comes to estimating, and one of them seems to lead to better outcomes. In shorthand, I'll call these two methods a top-down method and a bottom-up method. In my experience, the top-down method leads to more successful engagements, more wins, and much better and trusting relationships.
Every year going back to the start of this blog in 2011, I have paused to look back over the past 12 months of articles and see which were deemed best by our readers. Some articles have been read 90,000 times while others, often surprisingly, are only viewed a few dozen times. In this method of article ranking, every reader view is a vote. This year's top 21 list is consistent with recent years. Articles about storytelling and voir dire are the most read. The #1 ranked article, in particular, was very popular because it was not only about storytelling but features three top trial lawyers (all clients of A2L) talking on video about how they incorporate storytelling techniques into their advocacy. Enjoy these articles and please do encourage a friend to subscribe (for free) to this blog, The Litigation Consulting Report. Soon, we will have more than 10,000 subscribers. Each of these articles can be tweeted or shared on Linkedin using the buttons below the article. Click the titles to view the articles. 21. What Trial Lawyers Can Learn From Russian Facebook Ads 20. 5 Key Lessons You Can Learn From Mock Juries 19. How to Get Great Results From a Good Lawyer
Many people are familiar with mock trials, which are full-blown exercises before a trial in which witnesses are presented and arguments made before mock jurors, who proceed to render a “verdict.” The results of mock trials, as we have discussed here before, can be extremely helpful to litigators who want to know how strong their case is, which arguments and testimony to pursue at trial, and which ones to forget about. As Slate magazine wrote in an illuminating article in 2005: Either side of a case can hold a simulated trial, and they're used in both civil and criminal cases. But because these productions can cost quite a bit of money, they're most often used by lawyers who represent wealthy clients or companies in a civil suit. First, the attorneys find a random pool of mock jurors in the jurisdiction where the trial will be held. Participants are selected by random telephone calls, classified ads, or through an employment agency. (Anyone who has recently received a summons to serve as a real juror is immediately disqualified.) Another technique that is perhaps not as well known is the early-stage focus group. These are far less formal than mock trials. They are a bit like brainstorming sessions in which jurors tell trial lawyers, often in real time, what they thought about a particular piece of evidence or a particular argument. Focus groups have several advantages:
Dr. Robert Cialdini has identified six basic principles of persuasion. One of them is liking. If people like you, they are more likely to say yes. Why is that important to a litigator? Quite simply, any litigator wants to persuade a jury, judge or other adjudicator to agree with her, and if the adjudicator likes her, she is more likely to win her case. The key to getting someone to like you is to remember that it’s not just a momentary feeling but a sum of everything that the person thinks about you – and that the feeling is not permanent, but you can at any time do something to improve or to detract from the person’s feeling about you. As a litigator, you are always one misstep from losing the audience. Here are ten things you can do as a litigator that will make you more likable: Focus on how you are perceived. In 2015 Jimmy Fallon put U2 in disguise and had them play at the 42nd subway stop in New York City. Even with cameras around, and the odd fact that the lead singer sounded just like Bono, they were largely ignored. Jimmy then framed the band (again in disguise) as a local band wanting support. Suddenly, once it was known they are U2, everyone went crazy. The most remarkable part was seeing an adolescent looking at them when in disguise as if he is waiting for a car crash, but the next time you see him, after the reveal, he is dancing and completely loving what he is hearing. They music did not change, just the framing. How you appear to your audience will set the stage for how they react and their willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt. See also, Like It or Not: Likability Counts for Credibility in the Courtroom. Ask questions. It is human nature to be helpful, and we all have the desire to share what we know. When someone appears to need our help, we tend to like them more because we are the ones providing answers. Just remember HOW you ask them is crucial.
During one college summer, I used to engage in aikido, a martial art. In retrospect, it was all a bit goofy, but I learned some good lessons from it. In particular, I learned about a technique common to many of the martial arts and to conflict in general. This is the idea that you can use someone's momentum against them. If they are running at you, you can move to the side and trip them -- and they will fall. This requires far less energy from you. Similarly, in the courtroom, while there is no physical contact (hopefully), there is certainly a direction and a momentum in the way factfinders arrive at conclusions. We've written about the idea of confirmation bias before in articles like I’m Right, Right? 5 Ways to Manage Juror Bias and Font Matters - A Trial Graphics Consultant's Trick to Overcome Bias. It's a concept that I believe all trial lawyers must understand at least somewhat. In the courtroom, using the momentum of a juror’s beliefs to help further those beliefs is a master trial lawyer technique. A new study reveals just how important it is for high-level trial lawyers to understand this concept of persuasion. The study, reported in the open-access journal Computational Biology, confirms something that is a little sad. It turns out that most humans will continue believing something that they previously believed, even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary and even when it hurts us to continue believing it. It's a bit more nuanced than that, but this is the essence of it. In the courtroom, we regularly work with banks accused of fraud, companies that have allegedly polluted the environment, and tech companies accused of theft of trade secrets. Trial lawyers always have the temptation to simply try to straightforwardly show judges and juries evidence that clearly contradicts the beliefs that those factfinders arrived with. That only makes sense, right? After all, if someone says you put the pollution there and you didn't, you just tell them you didn't do it, bring evidence, and you're off the hook, right? Unfortunately, my experience and this study do not support that idea. All humans arrive with certain biases when they show up to trial – such as these: Bankers are greedy. Oil companies don't care about the environment. Tech companies will do anything to win. All too often, trial counsel puts a lot of effort into trying to disprove these beliefs. Instead, consider the aikido move, step to the side, agree with the momentum, and use it to your advantage as follows: Bankers are greedy, so why would they ever do something that risked their money? XYZ oil company has been more reckless with the environment than you or I, but given what they went through before, do you really think they are dumb enough to do it again? Sure, tech companies will do anything to get ahead, but can you imagine anything more humiliating to someone as competitive as ABC company as looking as if you're not as smart as the other guy? Nothing is worth that when you are a competitive tech geek. In other words, find a way to accept that either your factfinders walked in with a certain bias or that your opponent will help them form a bias during opening statements – and then run with it. There’s no better way to test this approach than in a mock trial setting. That’s where you can learn to anticipate the biases and get ahead of them. Common sense, that new study, and several decades of litigation experience bear this out. Other free A2L articles and resources related to confirmation bias, the overwhelming power of the opening statement, and the power of effective storytelling in the courtroom include: When Smart Ain’t So Smart - Cognitive Bias, Experts and Jurors 7 Ways to Overcome Cognitive Bias and Persuade Still Think Persuasion is About Talking While Showing Bullet Points? 5 Essential Elements of Storytelling and Persuasion 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 Good-Looking Graphic Design ≠ Good-Working Visual Persuasion I’m Right, Right? 5 Ways to Manage Juror Bias Persuasive Graphics: How Pictures Are Increasingly Influencing You 14 Places Your Colleagues are Using Persuasive Graphics That Maybe You're Not Font Matters - A Trial Graphics Consultant's Trick to Overcome Bias Why the President is Better than You at Creating Persuasive Graphics Law360 Interviews A2L Consulting's Founder/CEO Ken Lopez Are Jurors on Your “Team”? Using Group Membership to Influence Subscribe to this blog for free
A trial team might reasonably start a meeting with their litigation graphics consultants by saying, “We’re looking to you to help us design the best litigation graphics possible for this case.” It's a reasonable sounding goal to be sure. But what does it mean really? I think this means a lot of things. Ultimately, it must mean those trial presentation graphics will help win the case. Nothing else matters more. So, when you are talking to your trial graphics consultants, consider what you really intend to communicate about your goals. Here are nine things that I think define the best litigation graphics and how to get to them for your case. Eliminate the Mediocre Litigation Graphics: In my last article, I wrote about how the team with the most litigation graphics will not necessarily emerge the winner. The winner will be the team that refines its PowerPoint deck sufficiently to only show the best litigation graphics. See also 10 Reasons The Litigation Graphics You DO NOT Use Are Important. Your Notes Are Not Your Trial Presentation: All too often, litigators start building their trial presentation by creating text slides in PowerPoint. Typically, many bullet point style slides are left over that hamper persuasion and recall. See Still Think Persuasion is About Talking While Showing Bullet Points? and Don't Use PowerPoint as a Crutch in Trial or Anywhere We're Not Talking About Just Documents: Some people believe that when they've hired a hot-seat operator, they've hired a litigation graphics consultant. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, they have not. They've hired a technology expert with excellent courtroom experience. However, this person is almost certainly not trained in the persuasion sciences. See Why Trial Tech ≠ Litigation Graphics Beauty is Not the Goal: Most litigation graphics firms focus on form over function. I appreciate great design better than most people, but the best graphics are the ones that are the most persuasive, not the most beautiful. See Litigation Graphics: It's Not a Beauty Contest
Law360 is a top legal industry publisher owned by Lexis-Nexis. Its daily newsletters are a must-read for trial lawyers involved in big-ticket litigation. This interview, Trial Consultants Q&A: A2L Consulting's Ken Lopez, was originally published on April 28, 2017, and is reprinted here with permission. Links to A2L articles and resources have been added by A2L in this reprint. Q: What aspect of trial consulting do you and your firm specialize in? What is unique about your firm, compared to other trial consulting firms? A: Founded in 1995, our firm is a leading national litigation consulting firm that helps trial lawyers and other advocates more reliably win complex and high-dollar disputes. We are typically in trial year-round and deliver world-class client-pleasing results in three key service areas: jury research and consulting, litigation graphics consulting, and trial technology consulting. We have recently been voted #1 in each of these categories by major legal publications. The composition of our leadership distinguishes it from other trial consulting and litigation consultant firms. Unlike firms whose origins are rooted in the trial technology business, the engineering business or the marketing/public relations fields, our team is composed of experts in the persuasion sciences. These include former litigators from top law firms, attorney-artists and social science Ph.Ds with decades of experience working with judges and juries. We primarily serve AmLaw 100 law firms and their clients. However, the firm regularly works with boutique law firms and in-house departments. It counts amongst its clients nearly all top law firms and a large portion of the Fortune 500. Most people find A2L through its litigation and persuasion-focused blog, The Litigation Consulting Report. It has nearly 10,000 subscribers and was named one of the top ten blogs in litigation by the American Bar Association. Q: What was the most interesting or memorable case that you worked on? A: The average case at A2L Consulting is a business dispute between global companies with $100 million at stake where we provide jury consulting, a mock trial, litigation graphics, and courtroom hot-seat trial technology support. One of our most memorable cases was entirely — not average. Through a top trial lawyer, we were hired to work on behalf of a surviving family member of the 1996 crash of ValuJet Flight 592 in the Everglades. This was not a plane that exploded or quickly crashed. Instead, oxygen containers in the cargo area helped fuel a fire that caused smoke to fill the plane. Then, the oxygen-fueled fire burned through the passenger cabin floor from below. After some time, controls on the plane were destroyed by the fire. Then, the plane flipped and dove into the Everglades below. No one survived. It took a long time for the tragedy to unfold and the passengers had awareness of what was happened. We know this because the plane was equipped with recording devices in both the cockpit and the passenger cabin. The recording is confidential, but none of us who worked on this case will ever forget what we heard on that recording. To help the jury visualize the experience the passengers had, we could have created a 3-D animation to show what the experience inside of the cabin was like. Instead, we synced that chilling audio with an animation we created that helped tell the tragic story. Once the animation was admitted into evidence, the case quickly settled. Q: Which stage of the trial process is the most challenging, and why? A: While we support all phases of litigation from prefiling to appeal, our firm most often focuses its consulting efforts on the opening statement. Indeed, we speak and write about opening statements often. Perhaps second only to jury selection, the opening statement can make or break an entire case. It provides the framework and narrative upon which the judge or jury will hear the evidence. For many, consciously or subconsciously, the decision about the outcome of the case will be made during opening statement. Because the opening statement is so critical, the best trial lawyers expend enormous amounts of effort preparing for openings. I’ve seen some trial lawyers practice their opening more than 100 times over the course of a year. Not surprisingly, these trial lawyers tend to win their cases. In every type of litigation consulting we provide, the opening statement is a central focus. When we conduct a mock trial, the attorneys present their openings to mock jurors or mock judges. When our senior litigation consultants work with top trial lawyers to refine their trial presentation, we ask them to present their openings as part of that process. When we design a PowerPoint presentation for opening, we ask our clients to do run-throughs of openings. When we introduce one of our trial technicians/hot-seat operators to a trial team, we ask the first chair to practice opening statements so they develop a rapport with the trial tech. Indeed, sometimes, we are asked to draft an opening statement as part of our litigation consulting effort. Opening statements are the most challenging part of the trial process because they should be. Cases are regularly won and lost because of them. Q: How has trial consulting evolved over time? What major differences are there between the industry when you started and the industry now? A: Our firm, now a national litigation consulting firm with jury consulting, litigation graphics consulting and trial technology consulting practices all voted #1 by the legal industry, was started as Animators at Law, an animation and litigation graphics firm for trial lawyers focused on persuasion. Back in the mid-1990s when we started our firm, the idea of using demonstrative evidence/litigation graphics during a trial was new. Today, no serious trial lawyer would go to trial in big-ticket litigation without litigation graphics and nearly all would hire a litigation graphics consulting firm like ours. When we started our firm, PowerPoint did not exist. Most litigation graphics were printed trial boards. Today, trial boards are used as unique emphasis tools that supplement a PowerPoint trial presentation. The practice of jury research has changed too. It has evolved from a guru-dominated practice where gut instinct drove many decisions. Today, there is more scientific rigor among top jury research firms. They let the data speak for itself and supplement that data with advice based on experience. Of course, the trial technology practice has radically changed. In the 1990s, it barely existed. Now, the complexity of cases demands that an experienced trial technician/hot-seat operator run the technology, show the trial presentation and be ready to pull up evidence on a moment’s notice. Q: What are some of the biggest challenges when working with attorneys and their clients? A: One of my colleagues likes to say, “they call it the practice of law, but nobody is practicing.” I agree wholeheartedly. If I could change one thing about the way trial lawyers prepare for trial, it would be the way they practice. The correlation between open practice in front of peers and winning cases is unmistakable. Half of the time, trial lawyers practice extensively and seek feedback from litigation consultants and colleagues. These lawyers tend to win their cases. When we see a trial lawyer who wants to privately prepare their trial presentation on the eve of trial, we worry. It’s not that this approach can’t work. It often does. Instead, we simply recognize that the more a trial team openly practices, the more often that trial team wins.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Imagine a world in which the best trial lawyers work in small boutique litigation firms and charge clients half of current rates. Many people have imagined such a world for a long time, and even though we're not there yet, we're closer than we used to be. Today, a few of these smaller firms do exist. They are being run by some of the world's best trial lawyers, and these lawyers do in fact charge a lot less than they used to. However, this does not represent a new type of law firm; this type of firm has always existed. After a while, these firms either become large law firms with a refreshed culture of entrepreneurialism (e.g. Boies Schiller) or they get absorbed into a big law firm (e.g. Bancroft LLP into Kirkland & Ellis). Only a small handful of firms have found something of a middle ground and are able to deliver large law firm results without a lawyer headcount in the thousands (e.g. Bartlit Beck and Williams & Connolly). Working closely with boutique law firms as we do, I see that large companies are getting much of what they hoped for. They get exceptional lawyering, better rates, and that big-firm swagger that unmistakably contributes to winning cases. There are some gaps, however, and the best of these firms acknowledge it and fill it with litigation consultants. It turns out that sometimes the resources and scale of a large law firm are precisely what is needed to overwhelm and overrun an opponent. A large enough army can always overrun even the most elite small special forces team. However, this is only true if the elite group does not have a means of bringing in more support on a moment's notice. The best in-house departments see this nimbleness as a strength. Our litigation consulting firm is often called upon to serve in this role. So here are 12 ways that we can make a litigation boutique as powerful as a very large law firm. We help keep prices down. If you're a big law firm, built into every hour billed is a cost for marketing, all those offices, and all that support staff. That is not true for a small firm. The small firm does not need to keep full-time staff on hand for services that are more efficiently outsourced (e.g. litigation graphics, trial technician services, and other trial consulting services). See 17 Reasons Why Litigation Consultants Are Better at Graphics Than Law Firms. We amplify the skills of the best members of the trial team. Part of our role for many of the top trial lawyers is to help them hone their skill set. See Your Coach Is Not Better Than You – in the Courtroom or Elsewhere. We amplify the skills of other members of the trial team. In the new litigation boutiques, there are often a handful of superstars, but there are always some lawyers who can benefit from learning the best practices of the best trial lawyers. Firms like A2L are in a unique position to transfer skills from one top trial team to another. See How to Get Great Results From a Good Lawyer. We free up the busiest trial lawyers to do what they do best. When you're one of the elite, management of your time is essential. Saying "no" and letting go becomes the new "yes." See How Valuable is Your Time vs. Litigation Support's Time?
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting The best defense lawyers come to A2L with their toughest cases. This means that some of the cases that arrive on our doorstep are essentially unwinnable. Although the trial team won't often directly say so, they will say, “The client considers a plaintiff's verdict for anything between zero dollars and XYZ dollars a win." In these cases, typically, there is no good settlement position. Our company is highly focused on winning cases. We just love doing it, and it is central to our culture. So it can be a tough adjustment for our team and our clients when we have to accept that we're going to lose. Surprisingly, there is a real art to this. Here are the trial strategies we recommend when taking a case to trial and your goal is not to win, but to lose an acceptable amount of money. Test the case with a mock jury (to be sure you lose). All cases with sufficient dollars or issues at stake benefit from research in a mock trial process. This is true whether it’s a bench trial or a jury trial. Often, when you are listening to your mock panel deliberate, you hear a line of reasoning that may take your argument in a new and positive direction. See 7 Reasons In-House Counsel Should Want a Mock Trial and 12 Astute Tips for Meaningful Mock Trials and 6 Ways to Use a Mock Trial to Develop Your Opening Statement. Test the case with a mock jury (to know why you lose). It's often surprising to me how independent panels of mock jurors will reason through a case the same way. There are patterns common to almost all juries. However, it is actually helpful to hear multiple panels from a mock jury separately reason through a case and pick the same good guys and bad guys and apply the same set of values to decide the outcome. See 10 Things Every Mock Jury Ever Has Said and Webinar: 12 Things Every Mock Juror Ever Has Said.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting As the first quarter of 2017 comes to an end, I have had the occasion to reflect on the origins and the success of the online publication that you are reading, The Litigation Consulting Report. In six years, I've watched as this publication grew from nothing at all to a subscription list that includes more than 9,000 members of the legal community (here's a free subscription link: http://a2.lc/trialtips). I am pleased and amazed to see that there are more than 300,000 visits to this blog annually. Periodically, we try to help organize the articles we publish by highlighting those "voted" best by your readership. By “voted,” I mean the articles that readers choose by reading them the most often. Readers “vote” with their computers, tablets and phones. Some articles are read thousands of times per day, and I find that remarkable. I want to highlight the top 10 articles from this quarter, in order, with the one marked as #1 being the most read article published this quarter. Interestingly, while the subjects of these articles range across various areas of our litigation consulting practice, those focused on storytelling in litigation are consistently at the top of our quarterly lists. Although we are not the only people who talk about storytelling as a fundamental element of persuasion at trial, we have been doing so for a long time, and we have marshaled scientific evidence in support of our conclusions. Please use the social sharing buttons to tweet out articles or share on your LinkedIn account: 10. Using Litigation Graphics in Bench Trials: How Different Is It From Jury Trials? 9. Still Think Persuasion is About Talking While Showing Bullet Points? 8. How to Get Great Results From a Good Lawyer 7. The Key Elements of a Good Narrative at Trial or Anywhere Else 6. 2017 Will be a Great Year for (Most Types of) Trials 5. 3 Excellent Ways to Use Top-Bottom Timelines in Trial 4. NITA Experts Agree: Jurors Want Lawyers to Show, Not Tell 3. The Value of Storytelling: A Current Case in Point 2. 7 Habits of Great Trial Teams 1. Three Top Trial Lawyers Tell Us Why Storytelling Is So Important
by Tony Klapper (former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting At A2L, we tend to work with the top litigators at some of the nation’s best-known firms. These men and women are obviously excellent lawyers, very good at what they do. They are also very busy. They always have another complaint to respond to, another discovery dispute to resolve, another brief to write or edit, another partners meeting to attend, another associate to evaluate, and another set of bills to review before a client sees them. So when it comes time to thinking about what trial presentation works best, some of these lawyers procrastinate and delay developing the story. This is a strategic error. As early as possible, you should be crafting your narrative and deciding what kind of jury research exercise you might want to do or what kind of graphics to show. These things can be the difference between winning and losing the case – and they deserve high priority. It’s not a matter of self-promotion for A2L; rather, it’s an understanding, which we hope all our team members share, that these aspects of trial are crucial and should not be deferred without a very good reason. That email to a client is important, and so is that meet and confer letter – but the essence of a trial presentation is even more important. And it has a time element that many lawyers may not be aware of. If they allow for a mock jury exercise months before the real trial, they can easily take what they have learned and apply it to their case. The sooner it is done, the better, because the lessons learned in a mock can help guide not only your ultimate trial narrative but also the evidence needed to support that narrative. If you wait too long, the admissible evidence may already be locked in because the discovery doors have closed. But working backwards to get the timing right requires careful planning and strategic thought — something that the over-stretched, busy partner might not make time for. But making time for the building blocks of your narrative is one of the most critical things you can do as a litigator—particularly when there is a very real risk of (or opportunity for) going to trial. If you are too busy, try to divide your team into those who handle the day-to-day “litigation” tasks and those who can allocate sufficient time to the big-picture trial thoughts. These, of course, cannot be completely placed in separate buckets, but if you start structuring your trial and litigation teams along these lines (with open and frequent communication between the two), you will end up making the time necessary to both properly litigate and properly try your case. One way of handling this that worked very well in matters that I was involved in during my 20 years of practice was to have the trial lead do the things that only he or she could (or should) do, and have his or her top lieutenant make sure that the day-to-day things get done. The lead trial attorney can review this work but need not be hands-on. That frees time to accomplish the essential task of trial preparation, well in advance. After all, a law firm is about client service, and that is certainly what the client in a high-stakes case would want. Other A2L Consulting articles discussing trial preparation, the timing of trial preparation, and best practices of leading trial teams include: 10 Criteria that Define Great Trial Teams The 14 Most Preventable Trial Preparation Mistakes The 13 Biggest Reasons to Avoid Last-Minute Trial Preparation 7 Habits of Great Trial Teams FREE DOWNLOAD: Storytelling for Litigators E-Book 3rd Ed. 16 Trial Presentation Tips You Can Learn from Hollywood Three Top Trial Lawyers Tell Us Why Storytelling Is So Important 3 Trial Preparation Red Flags That Suggest a Loss is Imminent How Long Before Trial Should I Begin Preparing My Trial Graphics? Top 7 Things I've Observed as a Litigation Consultant Sample One-Year Trial Prep Calendar for High Stakes Cases 7 Ways to Prepare Trial Graphics Early & Manage Your Budget Practice is a Crucial Piece of the Storytelling Puzzle 6 Triggers That Prompt a Call to Your Litigation Consultant Planning For Courtroom Persuasion? Use a Two-Track Trial Strategy 7 Reasons It's Okay to Procrastinate on Your Trial Preparation
by Tony Klapper Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting We’ve spoken here more than once about the fact that jurors, unlike most attorneys, tend to be visual learners who like to be shown, not told. The best way to show them what they need to know, as we have said, is through litigation graphics. Science has also taught us that the best way to keep a jury’s attention is by telling a story in the courtroom. These insights obviously have major implications for how trial lawyers should use the arts of persuasion in a jury trial. What about a bench trial or an arbitration? Here, the decisionmaker is trained as an attorney. Do we toss out all that we know about jury trials and proceed in an entirely different manner?
by Tony Klapper (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting
Share: