The Litigation Consulting Report

Very often, trial lawyers face what feels like an impossible dilemma. The case that they want to present is extremely complex, intensely tedious or worse yet, both.

Demonstratives can frequently be used very effectively in product liability litigation, in which the issue is whether a product was manufactured negligently, causing harm – or in some cases, whether a product that was manufactured and used properly still caused harm to a consumer that leads to liability on the part of the manufacturer or seller.

Many litigators have developed the excellent practice, while preparing to try a major case, of running all or some their case before a mock jury and then debriefing the jury to see what worked and what didn’t, and to fine-tune their trial presentation accordingly. A mock trial is an excellent investment of money and time when the matter is large and significant enough to permit it. Not only can you test mock jurors’ reactions to alternative arguments and themes but also their reactions to the trial graphics you are considering for trial. As we found in a now well-known three-year study about the differences in the way litigators and jurors naturally communicate, more than two-thirds of jurors prefer to learn visually, and only a very small percentage prefer to learn by only listening. Until recently however, most mock trials tested only arguments, themes and sometimes some rudimentary demonstrative graphics. Increasingly however, we are setting up mock trials, testing alternative arguments and themes, AND we are creating sophisticated trial-ready litigation graphics for BOTH sides of the case. For the right case, this approach offers a more accurate predication of how the entire trial presentation will be received. It is a mock trial best-practice.

Electronic presentation tools such as PowerPoint and Trial Director have changed the way in which lawyers and trial consultants present evidence to juries. These programs and others like them are so flexible and helpful in presenting numerical data, timelines, biological processes, the workings of machinery, and other information that in many ways they have displaced the old-fashioned methods such as printing words and graphics on foam core trial boards.

As one can imagine, automobiles are the subject of a good deal of complex litigation these days -- whether the case has to do with the validity of a patent for use in the manufacture of an automobile, the possible liability of an auto manufacturer for an accident, a class action claiming a design defect in a certain model of car, or another legal issue. Automobiles present interesting challenges for the trial graphics consultant. On the one hand, nearly everyone has driven a car, and many people think of themselves as fairly knowledgeable in auto mechanics (while they would not fancy themselves as computer or jet-engine experts, for example). On the other hand, today’s vehicles are incredibly complicated items with sophisticated computer systems and electronics.

In our 16 years in the trial presentation business, and after consulting on more than 10,000 cases, we still hear litigators concerned that their trial presentation/litigation graphics might somehow look “too slick” and will distract the jurors, or will somehow focus attention on the relative wealth of our client who is able to afford “fancy graphics.” In the early 1990s, this was a valid question. No one had used PowerPoint, no one had a cell phone – let alone a smart phone -- few people had personal computers, and most of those had black screens with green text. That is no longer the case. Technology has penetrated into every part of the United States and indeed into most of the world. A 2011 report from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project indicates that 85 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone, 52 percent own a laptop computer, four percent own a tablet, and only nine percent do not own any of these or other devices covered in the study. Those numbers will only increase. According to Robert Gaskins, the creator of PowerPoint, more than 500 million people worldwide use PowerPoint, with over 30 million PowerPoint presentations being made every day. Trial consultant Robb Helt, at the end of a trial in rural Arkansas, was able to talk with the jurors about the use of trial presentation technology/trial techncians in their just-completed trial. Helt found that the theory that jurors are uncomfortable with technology had been “blown away” by this “down home” jury. These jurors were not only comfortable with trial presentation technology – they expected to see it.

by Ken Lopez Very often, trial attorneys in complex cases need to explain extremely difficult and elusive scientific concepts to jurors who are not well versed in science. The lawyer’s job is to convey the science correctly to the jury so that they can make a rational decision – yet not to bury the jury under a blizzard of scientific terms and concepts that they will never understand. The answer is to use visuals in the form of photographs, schematic diagrams, animation, timelines, demonstrative evidence, document call outs or whatever is suited to the situation, and to explain them in terms that jurors who are not specialists in the scientific subject can understand.

by Ken Lopez No trial presentation exhibit specialist can perform any better than his or her tools. Although the judge and jury aren’t usually aware of what software the trial consultant is using, the choice of presentation software is essential to the success of the consultant, and ultimately to the success of the case. Over the last decade, presenting demonstrative evidence has usually meant using PowerPoint. In the hands of an expert trial consultant, PowerPoint is an extremely flexible tool. As we said earlier this year, for talented information designers, PowerPoint is a blank canvas that can be filled with works of presentation art. Among major law firms, PowerPoint still maintains nearly a 100 percent market share. After all, if something has been shown to work over and over again, there is every reason for a trial lawyer to continue using it rather than trying something new and unproven.