The Litigation Consulting Report

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting This is the fifth and final installment in a series of articles focused on how defense counsel can overcome the increasingly popular Reptile trial strategy. In parts one through four, I offered an introduction to the strategy, I shared ten ways to recognize when the strategy is being used against you, I explained why the strategy does not actually work in the way that its authors describe, and I explained that despite the bad science, the Reptile trial strategy still works. In this post, I summarize how to overcome the strategy in both the pretrial and trial phases of a case. I rely heavily on the work of Jill Bechtold of Marks Gray and Steve Quattlebaum of Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull. They were my co-presenters at a recent defense attorney-focused conference devoted to repelling the Reptile strategy. One theme that clearly emerges from the 12 points below is that being a good defense lawyer is more important than ever. No longer is it enough simply to outlast your opponent. No longer is it enough to come up with a great theme and narrative just before trial. Because the Reptile strategy often begins with the complaint, a defense against it must start shortly thereafter -- or you will pay the price later. Spot the Reptile: It can appear as late as closing arguments, but more often than not, plaintiffs counsel will introduce the key themes as early as the complaint. See, 10 Ways to Spot the Reptile in Action. Read the Book: I hate to say this, but you probably should read it. It is Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution by David Ball and Don Keenan. Spot your Opponent on the Reptile Hall of Fame: https://edgeverdicts.com/ (paywall) Plaintiffs counsel with a record of using the Reptile strategy are listed here. Is one your opponent?

by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting In my previous three posts concerning the “Reptile” trial strategy, I provided an introduction to the strategy, I discussed how to spot it, and I discussed why the science that its authors claim supports the strategy is just plain wrong. As I have mentioned in previous articles, this trial strategy has been largely absent from the types of cases that we work on at A2L. However, with high-stakes pattern litigation on the rise, and with the increase in sophistication on the plaintiffs side in big-ticket litigation, the “Reptile” is something that medium and large law firm defense firms must be able to spot and to cope with. In this article, I will focus on the critical fact that, despite the bad science that its authors employ, the Reptile trial strategy still works. In other words, the “Reptile” advocates are tapping into authentic ways of persuading jurors. There are at least seven reasons for that. The “Reptile” advocates suggest using a strong theme that is constantly reinforced throughout the case from complaint to closing. That's just good lawyering, and a majority of lawyers still don't do this. See 14 Differences Between a Theme and a Story in Litigation. Similarly, they encourage focusing on a consistent strategy from the very beginning of the case. Few defense counsel do this throughout a case, and again, following this practice is just good lawyering. See Planning For Courtroom Persuasion? Use a Two-Track Trial Strategy. They encourage the use of narrative as a persuasion strategy. We've written about that many times, and they are right to encourage it, because it works very effectively. Our proposed narratives are based on real psychological science and theirs are not, but the use of narrative is a very good idea. See $300 Million of Litigation Consulting and Storytelling Validation.

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 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.