The Litigation Consulting Report

Courtroom animation is often indispensable for the purpose of showing jurors how technical processes work, how scientific principles come into play in a case, or how a legal concept applies in practice. In addition, by applying trial consulting principles, litigation animation can also be used to keep a jury engaged and interested. Too often, when a case involves complicated technical issues, the jurors’ attention will wander, and even an excellent set of witnesses or a brilliant closing argument will not win the case, because the jurors just haven’t been focusing all along. Ray Moses of the South Texas College of Law made this point well in a comprehensive online guide to prospective criminal defense attorneys. “Modern day jurors - most of 'em are either geeks or baby boomers - receive and process information through increasingly sophisticated visual media. Every trial lawyer, particularly defenders, must learn how to use technology to engage the jury. The persuasive force and eloquent power derived from using visual and aural displays of information in electronic form, e.g., computer-generated exhibits, at trial simply cannot be ignored,” Moses wrote for the Center for Criminal Justice Advocacy. An excellent example is the highly complex legal concept of reinsurance. Not every lawyer knows what reinsurance is, and certainly most lay persons on juries have no idea. (It is insurance purchased by an insurance company from another insurance company as a means of transferring risk from the first company to the second company.) A juror, hearing the term “reinsurance” being bandied about at the trial, can easily conclude that this is something he or she can’t understand or make a judgment about and can thus close himself out to a lawyer’s arguments. Clearly, trial lawyers need a way to keep jurors engaged and involved when complicated financial transactions involving reinsurance are at issue in the courtroom. These cases can be worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to the client. At Animators at Law, we developed a PowerPoint for a trial that helped make a specific reinsurance transaction easier to understand and that was intended to engage a jury’s interest. In this case, we wanted to show that “Washto,” a reinsurance company, had created a subsidiary into which it had placed many of its bad investments. It then transferred those bad investments to “Greek Re,” which had acquired Washto, thus saddling Greek Re with the bad investments.

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.

When a major company is the target of a purported class action filed by consumers who say that they are representative of a large group that have common claims against the company, the issue of class certification becomes a crucial one. The viability of the case often stands or falls on the issue of certification.

Still think PowerPoint is a trial presentation tool primarily for bullet points and text? Allow me to show you otherwise! Like a good salad, PowerPoint is all about the ingredients you put into it. Bad ingredients (e.g. text only, bullet points, clip art, poor color choice, etc.) equal bad PowerPoint trial graphics. Good ingredients (e.g. technical illustration, well-designed backgrounds, quality transitions between slides, animation, etc.) equal winning trial graphics. Since the introduction of the 2003 version, PowerPoint has been a go-to tool for patent litigators in claim construction hearings, tutorials, at the ITC and in patent infringement trials. Out of the box, PowerPoint is simply a blank canvas that allows text, clip art and basic shapes to be combined on a slide. However, in the hands of an information designer at a trial consulting firm, it is a powerful tool indeed. Like a master painter with high quality paints, skill and experience, the blank canvas of PowerPoint can be filled with true works of information art in the hands of a skilled information designer. The movie below contains four examples of patent infringement trial graphics created by Animators at Law. Three of the four examples were created for jury trials or Markman hearings. One example was built for a §337 ITC hearing. All examples combine technical illustration and PowerPoint animation in a clever way. The examples are:

I have had the great pleasure of working closely with hundreds of world's best litigators since 1995. One common theme they communicate is that they see simplifying their case, prior to walking into the courtroom, as part of their job. Today, I am writing to share about a 'new' tool designed quite precisely for this purpose. The new tool is a modern software version of a decades-old technique modeled on centuries-old principles. In general this tool facilitates the visualization of complex and interrelated ideas. Specifically, I am talking about a process called mind mapping. Mind mapping is a 60s-era-sounding term for an activity that seems, at first glance, like it must have certainly been born on the left-coast. In a sense, both of those things are true. It was in fact developed in the era between the 50s and 70s, and it was born on a left coast of sorts. However, this 'left coast' is really the western suburbs of London. Regardless of mind mapping's nonconformist origins, I believe it has a place in the toolkit of the modern litigator. After all, many thought-leading litigation trends were born in California or places like it (e.g. demonstrative evidence, jury research, courtroom animation, etc.). A small version of a 30 inch x 90 inch litigation mind map is shown below. I encourage you to download a full-sized .pdf version of the actual chart to get a feel for how it is laid out. This sample mind map is based on a group of cases where we have used mind mapping as a system for quickly understanding a complex case in a short period of time, brainstorming a trial presentation approach and laying out specific exhibits. In this chart, green circles represent likely demonstrative exhibits, red boxes represent problems with our case that require additional strategic attention and the yellow boxes contain the background information on the case, trial team and strategy. The same approach we take for trial graphics development can easily be taken by a trial team organizing a complex case with many experts, theories and potential trial strategies. In addition to the obvious organizational benefits, the beauty of using this approach is just how easily one can pick up where one left off. I have gone a month or more between deeply complicated meetings and been able to start precisely where we left off without spending time trying to re-teach the team everything that was discussed weeks or months before. This is one of those benefits that I think one has to experience to believe. While litigation-specific tools do exist that offer a some of the features in today's mind mapping software, I prefer using a flexible tool that works very well. I have used two products: 1) Tony Buzan's iMindMap (he is considered the father of modern mind mapping); and 2) Mindjet's MindManager. I prefer the latter, as I find it to be a bit more business-oriented. When working with our firm on trial presentation strategy, we will likely be using mind mapping either internally or overtly. However, we are interested in testing this approach with a trial team at the front-end of a case rather than within the time period we are more typically consulting with the trial team (6 months prior to trial). If you would be interested in testing this technique with your trial team, we are willing to do so gratis for a limited number of trial teams working complicated cases with at least $10 million at stake. The output will be a wall chart for your team that you can refer to on an ongoing basis.

At Animators at Law, roughly 60% of our work involves patent litigation graphics. These patent cases run the gambit from light bulbs to software to semiconductors to drug eluting stents. Since a jury is often called upon to decide the key issues in the litigation they must understand the underlying technology. There is no substitute for well-crafted graphics in a patent jury trial involving technology. Our firm has been creating litigation graphics in intellectual property litigation since 1995 often utilizing our former patent litigators has graphics consultants. While our delivery medium is often PowerPoint, the underlying graphics or animation are usually created in a more sophisticated illustration software tool. We routinely use visual analogies as a teaching and persuasion technique. Specifically, we use analogies that relate complex subject matter to something familiar or easily grasped by the fact-finder. We have used stadiums to relate scale in a bench trial where the federal judge was a season ticket holder, the Statue of Liberty to convey the severity of the turbulence and an out of business service station to explain expenses involving the storage of nuclear waste. In the patent litigation graphic below, our challenge was to explain a protection MOSFET or metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor. In non-technical jargon, a MOSFET is a switch used to control the flow of electronic signals. We ultimately needed the jury to achieve a much deeper understanding than this definition, however, and this meant starting with a basic understanding of how a MOSFET works. In the movie, you can see that we have used PowerPoint animation and a plumbing analogy to lay the foundation for an understanding of a MOSFET, transistors and semiconductors. After all, like a valve attached to your sink, a MOSFET is simply used to control flow.

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.

After the introduction of PowerPoint 2003, PowerPoint became the dominant trial presentation tool used by litigators. It has largely replaced printed large format trial exhibit boards in most high stakes cases. However, PowerPoint also introduced a problem that deserves our attention. Instead of graphic designers creating well-designed printed trial boards, litigators and their support staff could now create exhibits on their own. Some did create great presentations, however the vast majority of trial and corporate presentations came to be dominated by the dreaded bullet point and text-heavy slides. Comedian Don McMillan covers this and other PowerPoint-related topic best: What is problematic about the bullet point and text-heavy slides in PowerPoint trial presentations is not what you might first think. Yes, bullet points almost surely lead to boredom. Sure, they are not a particularly effective technique for emphasizing key messages. Worse, as Don McMillan notes, it can be excruciating when someone reads their bullet points and text. However, worst of all is something called the redundancy effect. This scientifically validated concept is the true enemy of the effective litigator deploying legal graphics.

by Ken Lopez The term information design is less than fifty years old. The use of specialty trial graphics in the courtroom started less than thirty years ago. Only very recently have the terms been used in the same sentence. That is, only recently have individual practitioners of both arts emerged. Wikipedia describes information design as "the skill and practice of preparing information so people can use it with efficiency and effectiveness. Where the data is complex or unstructured, a visual representation can express its meaning more clearly to the viewer." I would call it simply the effective and efficient presentation of information. Applied to the litigation graphics consulting industry of which I am a member, I would add the word persuasive. This is true since the job of the modern litigation graphics consultant is to persuade not merely to present information.

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:

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.