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, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting I am not advocating that you spend more to develop top-notch demonstrative evidence. What I want you to do is make sure that the litigation graphics that you do use look like you paid a million bucks for them. Make sure you’re getting what you’re paying for. Let me explain why. Recently published and widely reported research out of the University of Cincinnati relating to treating Parkinson’s disease shows that the placebo effect is a real thing and a powerful psychological phenomenon. Interestingly, what the study also shows is that it matters greatly to those experiencing a strong placebo effect how much they believed the pseudo-pharmaceutical cost. Amazingly, seemingly-more-expensive drugs turned out to be much better “drugs” in effect (even though they were not drugs at all). The more a patient believed a drug cost (here the artificial difference was $100 vs $1,500 per dose), the more effective it was at treating their symptoms of Parkinson’s. Perception of cost was capable of influencing physical and psychological behavior and responses on a subconscious level. Wow.
by Ryan H. Flax (Former) Managing Director of Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting Do I really need a local jury consultant? It's a question that I hear our clients struggle with frequently. The answer is maybe you do, maybe you don't. The gut instincts of many are that a jury consultant who regularly works in the jurisdiction will provide special insights that trial counsel, often admitted pro hoc vice for purposes of trial, could use to persuade the jury more effectively and have first-hand knowledge that will help in jury selection because of specific, local nuances. I understand the instinct, since - when going to trial - you naturally want every single advantage, and it's natural to fear that there are some things you just don't know about your potential jurors, your judge, the courthouse or the local community. While I understand the rationale, both emotional and logical, I've come to believe that such beliefs are now outdated and reflect pre-Internet thinking. Much like the need for 8-glasses of water a day, waiting an hour after eating to swim, or humans using 10% of their brains, I think these beliefs about local jury consultants are mostly stubborn old wives' tales. The reality is that human beings make decisions following the same principles, regardless of where they may live, and the psychology of persuasion, as well as individual and group decision-making does not need to be reinvented from place to place. What you need and can rely on is the best consultant with the best skills, regardless of their location. I'd like to offer seven ways of working through this challenge with a solution for you, whether you believe a local jury consultant helps or whether you believe hiring the best jury consultant is best for your case.
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.
by Elise Jefferson, M.A. A2L Consulting
Group dynamics play a significant role in shaping our behaviors and attitudes towards others. This is evident in the phenomenon of in-group bias, where individuals tend to show favoritism towards others who share their identity. In the context of a legal case, understanding and leveraging this bias can be advantageous in swaying the jury's decision in favor of your client.
I notice something about audiences in the PowerPoint presentation era. They seem to get easily disengaged part of the way into a presentation. This tendency is especially problematic in a courtroom setting since judge and juror visual attention is critical for courtroom persuasion.
Keeping a clear and concise line of communication is essential for any successful interaction, whether it’s between client and lawyer, or between individuals in their everyday lives. However, the nature of communication between lawyers and their clients is quite different from other forms of communication. In this blog post, we’ll explore the differences between lawyer communications and the type of communication you might encounter elsewhere.
Share: