by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Last week, I spoke at an annual gathering of defense attorneys whose subtitle was “Lawyers and Other Reptiles.” What's going on? Who are these reptiles? It’s an interesting story. This conference was planned as a way to bring together defense attorneys around the nation who want to learn how to turn aside a frequently used set of trial tactics championed by David Ball and Don Keenan in their "Reptile" series of books and webinars. Ball is a North Carolina-based jury consultant, and Keenan is an Atlanta-based plaintiffs trial lawyer. According to Ball and Keenan’s publicity materials, the “reptile” concept is “the most powerful tool in the fight against tort reform.” Ball and Keenan say that through their books, DVDs, seminars and workshops, “the Reptile is revolutionizing the way that trial attorneys approach and win their cases.” The proof, they say, is in the numbers, as more than $6 billion in verdicts and settlements have resulted from these tactics since they launched them in 2009.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting I've seen litigator ego contribute to the winning of cases and the losing of cases. Unfortunately, however, I've seen more cases lost because of it than won because of it. What do I mean by the ego of a litigator? If you've worked around litigators (or litigation consultants for that matter), you already know what I mean. For anyone else, I'm referring to all those first-chair litigators in trial-related situations who put themselves ahead of the client's best interests. The best definition I have found of “ego” is "the idea or opinion that you have of yourself, esp. the level of your ability and intelligence, and your importance as a person." In litigation, we see how ego can play both good and bad roles. Sometimes the presence of ego leads to good outcomes, as it is at least in part ego that allows a litigator to ignore the advice of a client who may be too close to their problem. More often, however, we see ego show up in ways that are counterproductive for the client. For example, in situations where:
by Alex Brown Director of Operations A2L Consulting Commitment (and Consistency) (see Part 1 about reciprocity here) In 1971, Charles Kiesler wrote a book called The Psychology of Commitment. In it he describes various experiments designed to understand human motivations. Kiesler referred to one of his experimental results as “the boomerang effect.” The idea is that if a person has committed to something and is then attacked for his position, he or she is likely to increase his or her commitment, even if the commitment was not at all strong in the first place. This brings up related questions of how and why people become more extreme in their attitudes. Is it simply to justify their past behavior, or is it because people really want to be right? In many circumstances, a person might seek out others as social support or find outward behaviors that justify his or her position. Basically, if you get someone to commit to something, they will usually stick to that commitment while under attack and will look for allies to their cause or position. As Cialdini notes, when a commitment is made public, one is likely to stick to it. In view of this, it should be obvious why this finding can make an important persuasion tool for litigators. We strongly believe that you can win or lose a case in opening statements. In an opening statement, it is your responsibility to:
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting I'm absolutely thrilled to announce the release of A2L Consulting's latest free litigation e-book, The Opening Statement Toolkit. You may download this book with no strings attached right now by clicking here. In this 219-page book, you will find 66 articles curated from A2L's massive collection of posts related to litigation and persuasion. Each article relates to opening statements in some way. From organizing the opening to the use of storytelling techniques to persuade, the book contains an amazing array of tips that will prove valuable to the novice litigator and the veteran alike.
by Ryan H. Flax, Esq. (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting We have discussed four important tips for maximizing persuasion during your opening statement (See parts 1, 2, and 3). The last tip is the use of demonstrative evidence in connection with the statement. You need to be aware that most people, other than lawyers, are visual preference learners. Most lawyers, in contrast, are auditory or kinesthetic preference learners.1 Most people teach the same way they prefer to learn – so lawyers typically teach by lecturing, since that is most comfortable for them. But this strategy does not help with the majority of jurors, who would prefer to be taught visually, at least in part. So bridge this courtroom gap with demonstrative evidence, including litigation graphics.
by Ryan H. Flax, Esq. (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting In our two previous posts, we discussed two important roles that an opening statement can play: making you and your client appealing to the jurors, and telling a convincing story. Here are two other key functions for an opening statement.
by Ryan H. Flax, Esq. In our most recent post, we discussed how important it is to use an opening statement to make jurors like you as a person and thus embrace your client’s case. Another key theme of opening statements is storytelling. Everyone is always advising lawyers to use storytelling to be more persuasive. So, why isn’t it happening more? Maybe no one is reading these publications. Or perhaps when preparing for trial, we’re mired in details and chronology. In law school, we’re taught how to deal with this Venn diagram involving the intersection of the law and the facts. Never are we taught that the real intersection we care about involves human beings, how they think, how they learn, and how their influenced.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Unfortunately, I have the memory of an elephant when it comes to life's uncomfortable moments. One of those occurred during undergraduate school at the University of Mary Washington almost 30 years ago. Like it was yesterday, I remember reviewing my professor's notes on a graded paper. Burned in my memory is the red-pen-circled-notation, "cliché." At the time I really didn't understand why using a cliché would be a problem. After all, it's just a linguistic shortcut, and having my professor deduct points for it struck me as splitting hairs. At the end of the day, a cliché is really just a culturally entrenched phrase that shortcuts language and allows us to speak more efficiently, right? Well, not exactly. Clichés are really the place where good metaphors go to die. That is, what was once a useful language shortcut becomes so overused that it is negatively labeled a cliché. So, what's all the hubbub about when it comes to using clichés in litigation for persuasion? It turns out that by taking the easy way out and using a cliché, you will significantly harm your courtroom persuasion efforts.
by Ryan H. Flax (Former) Managing Director of Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting If you can win the battle of opening statements, you'll likely win your trial. Up to eighty-percent of jurors will make up their minds about your case during opening statements. In this webinar you'll learn the top-five ways to maximize persuasiveness during opening statements. From how to tell compelling stories to visually supporting your key arguments, this one-hour will reveal the best secrets from courtroom persuasion experts. Ryan H. Flax, Esq., A2L's Managing Director of Litigation Consulting is an accomplished litigator who helps trial teams perfect their trial story and trial presentation using the latest persuasion science. Even if you can't make it to the live event, you'll receive access to the recorded version just for registering.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting We East Coasters have a love-hate relationship with snow, and the snow moving into the Northeast today may be one for the record books - particularly around Boston. It will dominate the news for days - and it probably should. An incredibly large number of people will be impacted by this particular storm. Under or next to that red line on the map where the storm is forecast to hit, you'll find roughly 20% of the U.S. population living on roughly 3% of the country's land, half of the hedge funds, one third of the headquarters of Fortune 500 firms and — in the states under the red line, about 35% of the country's and, hard as it may be to believe, about 25% of the world's lawyers! A blizzard disrupts our lives. It can feel tedious, it creates confusion, and it generates a lot of hard work — sort of like a trial. Not all trials are blizzard-like, but some surely are. Here are 21 ways some trials are like a blizzard and how to avoid white-out conditions in your courtroom.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting A successful trial lawyer is one who is able to persuade a jury or judge of the truth of his or her client’s case. In order to do that, a lawyer must connect with people on an emotional level. The only way to do that is to tell a compelling story. Stories are the way in which people learn and the way in which they organize reality. Law school may prepare lawyers to build a case around the law, but it doesn’t teach the science or art of persuasion. Sitting in a jury and analyzing evidence is likely one of the most complex things a juror will ever do, so you need to make it easier for them and as entertaining as possible. You need to hook them early and keep them engaged.
by Elise Jefferson, MA A2L Consulting An intriguing and complex aspect of civil litigation is the use of damage awards as a means of achieving justice. This remains an inexact science; no one can predict the amount of money that a jury is going to award the plaintiff if liability is found. However, a good deal that is worth knowing has been learned about what goes into that decision. For example, studies have examined damage awards when jurors are asked to award a specific amount, as well as how jurors’ perceptions of the plaintiff’s motives for suing can affect damage awards. Although it can be difficult to predict how much money a jury may award, it is still important to consider the various theories that attempt to explain what influences jurors when determining damages. Following are four theories that reflect the current state of the art.
Share: