The Litigation Consulting Report

In a trial in which harm to the environment is at issue, the major challenge for any litigator is to present complex scientific information in a way that is easy for an average person to understand. For our litigation graphics consultants, this is true whether we are helping to represent an alleged polluter against a landowner or other person who alleges environmental damage, or whether it’s an insurance coverage case in which our client is asking an insurer to cover a claim under a business insurance policy. In many cases, the task is further complicated by the fact that environmental harm occurs over a period of years or even decades. In such situations, it is crucial to show not only how the damage occurred initially but how it became more serious, or less serious, over a period of time.

I am happy to report that Animators at Law has seen one of its strongest quarters for litigation wins since our 1995 founding. Q1 is not yet over, and we have already helped clients achieve favorable outcomes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We expect that total to exceed $1 billion in favorable 2011 results in the next few weeks. Please join me in congratulating these Q1 high-achievers: Paul Taskier, Esq., Ken Brothers, Esq., James Brady, Esq., Eric Albritton, Esq., Danny Williams, Esq., Matthew Rodgers, Esq., Gary Hoffman, Esq., Ryan Flax, Esq., Jeremy Cubert, Esq., and the rest of the Dickstein Shapiro/Williams Morgan/Albritton litigation team representing Dr. Bruce Saffran in Saffran, M.D., Ph.D., v. Johnson & Johnson et al. This patent infringement matter was tried over seven trial days in January in the Eastern District of Texas using litigation graphics and litigation consulting from Animators at Law. After only two hours of deliberations, the jury reached a $482 million verdict for Dr. Saffran and included a finding of willful infringement. Judge Ward is expected to soon rule on enhanced damages. Animators at Law has worked with teams from Dickstein Shapiro since 1996. David Kiernan, Esq., John Hall, Jr., Esq., Samson Wu, Esq. and the rest of the litigation team from the Williams & Connolly/Hall Booth team for their representation of Georgetown University in Iacangelo v.Georgetown University et al. tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After a fifteen day jury trial, a defense verdict was reached. Animators at Law has worked with teams from Williams & Connolly since 1998. Animators at Law provided litigation graphics, litigation consulting and courtroom trial tech personnel. Alan Briggs, Esq., Rebecca Worthington, Esq. and the rest of the team from Squire Sanders' Washington, DC Office for their representation of Trident Enterprises in Trident v. Airtronic USA. The case was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. After a three day trial, the jury returned a million dollar verdict. Animators at Law provided litigation graphics, litigation consulting and pre-trial technology services. Other firms we have worked with recently include: Baker McKenzie Paul Hastings Skadden Orrick Foley Boies Schiller Dickinson Wright Hughes Hubbard The U.S. Department of Justice NAACP Legal Defense Fund Hogan Lovells K&L Gates If you would like to discuss using our graphics consulting or hot-seat personnel for an upcoming trial or hearing (Markman, class cert., PI, SJ, §337, etc.), please contact Alex Brown, Director of Sales and Operations, at 800.337.7697 /brown@a2lc.com.

Daniel Pink's 2005 bestseller A Whole New Mind changed the way business leaders thought about the future. His futurist thinking of six years ago presciently describes the current economic transition the U.S. is facing. He also gave business strategists a vocabulary to discuss the emerging conceptual economy, and he inspired young business minds to focus less on traditional and easily outsourced MBA studies and focus more on deeper problem-solving business pursuits. Most importantly, he highlighted our firm, Animators at Law (now A2L Consulting), as an example of one of those companies already living in the conceptual economy.

Animators at Law spent three years studying how attorneys and the general public prefer to communicate and learn (visual, auditory or kinesthetic). The study results were surprising. It turns out that practicing attorneys and the general public actually prefer to learn and communicate differently. For litigators, the impact is enormous. As a result of this scientifically valid study and our 16 years of experience as an industry pioneer, we believe trial exhibits are essentially a requirement and not an mere communication enhancement for any high-stakes litigation. You can download the FREE study results here or by clicking the button below. In this study you will learn:

Animators at Law is now offering flat-fee pricing for both demonstrative evidence consulting services AND trial technician/courtroom hot-seat consulting services. Animators at Law pioneered flat-fee arrangements for trial graphics consulting in 2009. Now, this popular pricing model is offered coast-to-coast for trial technician/hot-seat services. Gone forever are the days of unpredictable trial technician invoices and uncomfortable conversations between inside and outside counsel. With this flat-fee pricing model, Animators at Law clients are now enjoying:

Below is an article authored by a Senior Litigation Graphics Consultant at A2L Consulting. It is set for publication in PLI's Trial by Jury book. I think it does a great job of introducing the challenge of balancing color choice and culture in trial graphics. ******** Color Choice, Culture and Demonstrative Evidence -Theresa D’Amico Villanueva, Esq. About the Author:Theresa D’Amico Villanueva is a Senior Litigation Consultant for A2L Consulting, an attorney owned and operated provider of litigation consulting, graphics and courtroom animations, and litigation technology for litigators from all of the world’s largest law firms. Prior to her tenure as a litigation consultant, Ms. Villanueva worked as an attorney focusing on discovery for MDL and international products liability and toxic tort matters, and as in-house counsel handling title insurance claims, settlements and compliance with multi-state regulations. Ms. Villanueva holds a B.S. in Textiles and Apparel Merchandising and Design, with a business minor from West Virginia University. She received her Juris Doctor from Capital University Law School, where she was awarded Order of the Barrister. She is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. For further information, please contact Ms. Villanueva at 800.337.7697 x 115 or via email at: villanueva@A2LC.com Introduction It is long established that the use of visuals and technology in the courtroom increases understanding and retention. There are many attorneys across the country who will not even consider going to trial without being armed with creative and intuitive demonstrative exhibits to persuade and educate the jury. Color is a fundamental component of creating and developing trial graphics. Many litigators, however, still use conventional color schemes in their demonstratives. Their reluctance to change is likely because at some point the conventional wisdom became using a blue background with yellow text. Although this color scheme does work, it is no longer enough. Like an antibiotic, if it is overused, it loses its effectiveness. Similarly, this color scheme has lost its impact. As jury pools diversify, and as jurors become more sophisticated, they expect more from us. In turn, we need to become more creative if we intend to persuade our audience. We need to make our graphics relevant to those whom we are trying to persuade. We must truly consider our audience, who they are, where they live, and the environmental and cultural factors that influence their behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. Color is powerful. Studies show that color can evoke certain emotional responses: it can increase learning, grab our attention, and increase perception and focus. The right color choice, used in the right way, can influence and tilt the case in your favor. The Audience Many label Edward Tufte as the “Galileo of Graphics” and the “Leonardo da Vinci of Data.” His writings on graphics and presenting are among—if not the—most prominent of our day in regard to communicating visually to an audience. While his works do not directly relate to courtroom presentation, his ideas and theory of how to appeal to an audience are highly regarded; the underlying theme of his ideas is directly applicable to litigation presentations. According to Tufte, “The most important rule of speaking is to respect your audience.” This is certainly true when addressing a jury. Tufte argues that advocates should communicate with an audience in a clear and organized way: “Presentations largely stand or fall on the quality, relevance, and integrity of the content.” Organizing a case’s information and specifics in a clear way is not always an easy task. Furthermore, advocates also face the challenge of communicating in a way that will entice and intrigue our audience so as to keep their attention. There is a limited amount of time that we have the undivided attention of the jurors to present the facts. We need to use that time wisely and in a way that will keep the attention of our audience. Jurors today have high expectations when walking into a courtroom. Despite a jury’s expectation of technology and graphics to keep their attention, cluttering the screen with colorful—but ultimately not meaningful—graphics will likely alienate the jury. Whether verbal or visual, useless information is more likely to disengage the audience than it is to draw them in. In fact, too much information can detract from the message at hand. Once you have lost the attention of the jury, it is difficult to regain it; vital information is lost. Tufte advocates a direct presentation where the visuals supplement, rather than dominate, the presentation. Bright and even animated words on the page are not automatically relevant. Rather, a presentation is persuasive when it contains succinct and understandable arguments backed by the demonstratives that accompany the presentation. Thus, the colors and content of the visuals that you choose to represent your themes and case facts are an important factor in the development of your graphic exhibits. The use of technology and demonstratives in the courtroom is not only an integral part of a litigator’s arsenal of support, but also expected by most jurors. The modern fact finder expects much from the trial team when they walk into the jury box. We can attribute this in part to the ability of demonstratives to help the jurors understand the specifics of the case. This is also due to the ever growing use of technology in today’s television shows and their portrayal of the legal process. Television shows like Bones, C.S.I., and Law & Order give prospective jurors the impression that the intuitive officer easily solves a case with fancy technology and insightful comments. On television, viewers watch attorneys recreate the scene with computer images and simulations at trial. While these shows may depict more of the criminal legal process than the civil side of litigation, the expectation of drama and glamour in the courtroom remains. Thus, the legal profession faces the challenge of reaching its audience—the fact finders—in a way that will meet their expectations, hold their attention, and speak to the person as an individual. Jurors have high expectations. The use of graphics and technology has evolved such that we need to look for new and innovative ways to reach jurors. We know that repetition via auditory and visual techniques increases retention and comprehension. We are both visual and auditory learners. Studies show that jurors retain more information when they see and hear the evidence. One particularly well-known study—the Weiss-McGrath report—found "a one-hundred percent increase in juror retention of visual over oral presentations and a six-hundred percent increase in juror retention of combined visual and oral presentations over oral presentations alone." The report also showed that subjects who only heard information had a seventy percent retention rate after three hours and only a ten percent retention rate after 72 hours. Likewise, in subjects who only saw information there was a 72 percent retention rate after three hours and a twenty percent retention rate after 72 hours. However, when you compare these results to the results of the subjects who both saw and heard the same information, there was an 85 percent retention rate after three hours and a 65 retention rate after 72 hours. Retention is good. We want our jurors to remember our argument, and deliberate over our words. We also want to be able to reach the fact finder on a deeper subconscious level that melds with their understanding and perceptions in a way that persuades them to reach the conclusion we are seeking through our presentation. Color is an effective avenue for achieving this level of understanding.