by Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D. Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Lawyers love words. Lawyers love words on slides - tons of words on slides. Some lawyers think that the more words they use on a PowerPoint litigation graphic, the better. They are wrong. Actually, using too many words on a slide will dramatically damage your effectiveness. This damage is not aesthetic in nature. This is not about your look and feel. It is scientifically proven damage that affects how well you inform and persuade your audience. Indeed, it can be said the higher your slide's word count, the lower your persuasiveness.
by Alex Brown Director, Operations A2L Consulting I hate selling. How many times do we hear this in our daily lives? Many of us have chosen our careers at least in part to avoid having to sell. I bet that many law students thought they’d never again need to be in a position to sell something. Then they became litigators. Whether you believe it or not, as a litigator your whole essence is to sell. But no: You believe that selling is manipulative, annoying, and even boring. Think of Steve Jobs. Whenever Jobs stood up at an internal meeting, interview, or software release event, he was passionate and had a story to tell. He believed that to be truly successful, you must be able to sell. Selling – one might simply call it persuasion -- is not just for salespeople and their prospects. Heck, he started the idea of selling while not selling as seen in his innovative ad from 1997, “The Crazy Ones.” Here is the rare unaired version read by him.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting It's been another great quarter of publishing blog articles on A2L's Litigation Consulting Report Blog. This quarter, there were more than 45,000 blog post views, and we are just about to cross the 7,000 subscriber mark. I find those metrics incredible. Since we post 2-3 articles every week, I've heard from our readers that it is sometimes hard to keep up with the latest articles. To help remedy that and organize the information better, roughly six times a year we publish a mini-retrospective at the end of the quarter, at the end of a year and/or to celebrate blogging milestones. This quarter, I'm listing the top nine articles from April, May and June of 2015 reverse sorted by the number of times each article was read. This way, this list serves as an excellent reader-curated guide to the very best articles we have published recently. Voir dire and jury selection-focused articles continue to be very popular with our readers. Also, articles about persuasion, opening statements and a discussion of the Reptile Trial Strategy are getting a lot of views and shares. For the first time in memory, there are four different A2L authors represented on a best-of list. Below is a list of the top nine articles from A2L's Litigation Consulting Report Blog as determined by your readership. Each article has both LinkedIn and Twitter share buttons that allow it to be shared with your network. Enjoy! 9. 5 Ways to Maximize Persuasion During Opening Statements - Part 2 8. One Voir Dire Must Do and One Voir Dire Must Never Do 7. 12 Reasons Litigation Graphics are More Complicated Than You Think
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 We publish a lot of articles on this blog here at A2L Consulting. Sometimes we publish so many that it’s not easy to decide which ones to read first. That's why once a quarter we do a mini-retrospective of the best articles based on what our readers choose to look at. Our theory is that the more people that read an article, the more compelling and the better it is. All these articles relate in some way to persuasion: Why expensive-looking litigation graphics are better than inexpensive-looking ones, why you are less persuasive when you are using clichés, how people obtain trial experience these days when most cases don’t go to trial. We think this also helps our readership sort through the very best of our content by relying on the votes of 6,600 fellow subscribers as indicated by their reading habits.
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. 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 Persuadius I love great design. While it is becoming somewhat more common than it used to be, it’s still rare – and it’s even rarer in the courtroom. To be clear, my definition of great design includes everything from an interface like what one sees in a Tesla to the adaptive reuse of a historic structure to a well-crafted litigation graphic that tells a story clearly and without the need for further explanation. One place we don't expect to see great design is in parking signs, when we are parking the car and trying to figure out where to park and where not to park. I live in Washington, D.C., where they have some signage that would seem to violate every principle of great design. This one pictured here is a classic, and you probably have some just like it in your town. Does that look familiar? Well, one pilot program in Los Angeles is trying to change all that and make parking signs inspiring from a design perspective. Each sign contains a simple chart that is immediately clear to almost anyone. Green and red overlaid with symbols helps provide a clear message. Here’s an example below.
I spotted an interesting blog post over the weekend that criticized a New York Times article about the Israeli-Arab conflict for using charts and data in a misleading way. I've written about cheating with charts before in several articles, but my 2012 article, 5 Demonstrative Evidence Tricks and Cheats to Watch Out For, in particular, offers some good lessons and has been read by thousands of people. Although it is taken from a very different context than courtroom litigation, the blog post about the Middle East and the Times contains good lessons for both offense and defense when it comes to creating or refuting litigation graphics. The authors levy five key complaints against the New York Times article and its use of graphics to support a narrative.
Share: