by Ryan H. Flax (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting & General Counsel A2L Consulting It’s always interesting to me how humans view and judge each other. We all do it almost all of the time, in every interaction with other people. We even do it when we don’t even interact with others, for example, while driving or watching TV. We develop little dramas and characters in our minds to make sense of the world around us and its characters. This is particularly important in my profession, where my goal is to help litigators frame their case or showcase their client in a compelling and engaging way for judge or jury. I’ve just watched the video below and it highlights how important it is to frame our clients’ character correctly when we want a decision maker to see things our way. That “correct” way of introducing our client is whatever way will result in a decision in our favor – Ask: what would make the judge or jury feel our client should prevail?
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting In my last post, 7 Bad Habits of Law Firm Litigators, I wrote about the problems caused by litigators who, even when they have an adequate budget, design their own PowerPoint slides for trial. I've seen this result in: demonstrative evidence being excluded for using inappropriate tactics; demonstrative evidence being used for outright misconduct; opportunities being missed to use persuasion tricks of the trade; lawyers getting stuck in a chronological recitation of the facts; an overall lack of anything memorable or creative being presented; the use of out-of-date techniques like bullet points that damage credibility; and many other things that, as I said a few Halloween's ago, can lead to a deMONSTERative evidence nightmare. Well, there's new problem to add to this list of challenges faced by litigators who design their own slides, and it was just revealed by a brand new study conducted by the Missouri School of Journalism and the Washington Post.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Since first being exposed to the group psychology work of Wilfred Bion 15 years ago, I've been completely fascinated by it. I think his theories perfectly explain the behavior of every group that I've ever encountered. From boards that I sit on to groups on reality TV shows, they all behave in the same predictable ways, especially when placed under pressure. I think the author Robert Young captures the essence of the group dynamics model Bion describes when he says, "My experience was that, sure enough, from time to time each group would fall into a species of madness and start arguing and forming factions over matters which, on later reflection, would not seem to justify so much passion and distress. More often than not, the row would end up in a split or in the departure or expulsion of one or more scapegoats." I've written about Bion's work before in 5 Signs of a Dysfunctional Trial Team (and What to Do About It) and When a Good Trial Team Goes Bad: The Psychology of Team Anxiety. These articles and Young's article from the Human Nature Review provide a good introduction to Bion's group dynamics model. Here are the key aspects of Bion’s group dynamics model. In Bion's framework, groups are always functioning in one of two modes. Either they are working or they are operating dysfunctionally (he called this later state the Basic Assumption State). Both groups rely on a leader, and the members interact with the leader in predictable ways. In the working group, the group gets things done. They understand the meaning of the task at hand and cooperate to get it done without unnecessary emotional distress. In the dysfunctional group, much less gets done, and the group moves through a progressively worse set of dysfunctional behaviors triggered by some anxiety or pressure. Initially, the dysfunctional group will attempt to look to the leader to make the anxiety go away by treating the leader as a type of wise superhuman. If that fails to make the anxiety go away, two or more members of the group will begin to conspire to replace the leader or form a new group, If that does not work, fighting and/or departures will begin. All of this is subconscious, but once you understand the patterns, you'll see them everywhere. Knowing where you are in the process of dysfunction can be one of the most valuable tools a manager, leader or consultant can have. I bet you can guess another group that behaves in predictable ways that I have an interest in — that's right, juries. And they certainly behave in ways that solidly fit Bion's group dynamics model. If you understand how this works, you can use this knowledge during jury selection. Our team has seen thousands of juries deliberate. That's unusual since jury deliberations are secret. Of course, when we see them deliberating, often four juries at a time, it is behind the one-way mirrors of mock trial facilities. The behavior we see from jury to jury is remarkably consistent. We've detailed some of these behaviors in the article 10 Things Every Mock Juror Ever Has Said and the webinar and the podcast 12 Things Every Mock Juror Ever Has Said. Furthermore, an article by A2L's Managing Director of Jury Consulting, Dr. Laurie Kuslansky, called 10 Ways to Spot Your Jury Foreman is a useful background piece for those interested in this area of study.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting I want to share the results of an interesting study that I recently read. I believe that it has implications for how we present information in the courtroom. It appears in the October 2015 Journal of Experimental Psychology, and is entitled Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth. As experts in the persuasion business, we have long known about the power of repetition. We use it as a specific rhetorical technique during opening statements. We incorporate repetition when creating demonstrative evidence. We even choose to repeat the same message in many different formats (trial boards, PowerPoint, scale models) to reach different types of learners. We do this because repetition helps people remember things, it signals that something is important, and it helps presenters be more persuasive. Studies have long shown that the more we hear something, the more likely we are to believe it. This is why some people believe that Vitamin C helps stave off a cold or that you should drink eight glasses of water per day to maintain good health. Both of these statements lack any scientific basis. We've just heard them so often that many have come to believe them. Think about the assertions we are already hearing over and over in this election season. Hillary Clinton hid something in her email. Donald Trump declared bankruptcy four times. Carly Fiorina was a bad CEO. Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts. I don't know how much truth there is in any of these statements, but I do know that the more I hear them, the more I tend to believe them. That’s the power of repetition. Psychologists call this the illusory truth effect, and it's why we counsel our clients to use repetition throughout a case. When people don't know anything about a particular topic, the illusory truth effect tells us that the more they hear an assertion, the more they will believe it.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Well, no one ever said a trial was like a day at the beach. Except that there are a lot of similarities, if you look hard enough. I'm just back from an annual two-week family vacation at the Outer Banks of North Carolina. My wife and I have seven-year-old triplet girls. My friend says that doesn’t sound too much like a vacation, and his point is well taken in many ways. Although anyone who has done this type of trip with young kids will have some memories that seem as if they came from a Norman Rockwell painting, there are plenty of stressful or crazy moments. Fortunately, with time, the human brain can focus on the good memories. This type of vacation time is chaotic, stressful, and, yes, fulfilling. And that reminds me an awful lot of what I do every day — high-stakes litigation. Let’s consider how these two events are similar. 1) Other stuff comes up. I worked one 16-hour day at the beach. I had to. Two other managers were traveling, and one was slammed. I had to pitch in even if it was from 350 miles away. A long trial is no different. Often, you have to focus on other clients for a bit and you must plan for that possibility at trial. 2) Breakdowns happen. My clunky old Range Rover broke down at the beach. My wife was not pleased, but I’m always prepared for such an event. I have towing coverage that brought the car home, and I enjoyed driving on the beach in a four-door Jeep Wrangler instead. Things break down at trial too, often at the least opportune times. If you're not mentally prepared for that, if you haven’t planned for it, you're going to look bad at trial. See, 12 Ways to Avoid a Trial Technology Superbowl-style Courtroom Blackout. 3) Surprise is the key. My daughters are well behaved, but they need to see the unexpected from time to time, whether it’s an unusual shell on the beach or a funny kind of ketchup bottle. If they don’t have that, they become moody and distracted. Judges and jurors react similarly at trial. If you don't surprise them, they become bored and antsy. Learn the power of surprise. See, Could Surprise Be One of Your Best Visual Persuasion Tools?
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
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting As I discussed in Part 1 of this series, the “reptile” trial strategy is quickly spreading among plaintiffs counsel. Some plaintiffs counsel have, in fact, claimed that the strategy has resulted in verdicts totaling more than $6 billion in the past few years. In a large room of defense attorneys to whom I made a presentation last week, more than half reported having seen the strategy used in one of their cases. I think that may just be the tip of the iceberg. It appears that many defense counsel are being subjected to the strategy and don't know it is happening to them until it is too late. In light of this fact, below are 10 ways to spot the strategy. In subsequent articles, we will discuss what to do to counter it. From the very start of your case, look for any of the following 10 phenomena: You encounter themes suggesting that the community needs to be protected from the defendant; e.g. “Walking past stores on Main Street is part of what it means to be American.” The behavior of the plaintiff or other contributing or mitigating traits of the plaintiff are ignored, and instead the plaintiff works hard to keep the focus on the defendant or even an idealized defendant. Plaintiffs introduce a discussion of “safety rules” throughout all pre-trial phases of the case; e.g. “Do you agree that keeping the public safe is a key role of your train operators?”
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 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.
Share: