As litigation has become more complex and technology has advanced over the years, a new profession has emerged – that of trial technician. This profession is relatively new in the legal marketplace, so much so that the title still varies considerably: These individuals can be called trial consultant, courtroom technology specialist, hot seat operator or simply trial tech. By any name, trial technicians perform three key litigation tasks: Organizing and preparing documents, video and other evidence to be used at trial. Setting up the war room and courtroom electronics consistent with local court rules. Running the trial presentation software and equipment during trial so that trial counsel can see any document, video or exhibit on a momentʼs notice and so that the presentation runs so flawlessly that the fact-finder focuses only on the evidence, not the method of presentation. Excellent trial technicians are not easy to find and are rarely available on short notice. Animators at Law has offered trial technician services to litigation teams around the world since the mid-1990s. This article summarizes some of what we have learned in 16 years, but, for a more comprehensive 20-point pre-engagement checklist, I encourage you to download our free whitepaper: 20 Things You Must Know Before Engaging Your Next Trial Technician, Trial Consultant or Hot Seat Operator. There are several key considerations to appreciate when hiring a trial tech for your next litigation matter. First, quality varies widely, as does price. One should expect to pay between $125 and $400 per hour with an average rate of $200 per hour. Hours worked per day will usually be between 10 and 20 during trial. To help trial teams manage cost predictably, our firm recently pioneered flat rate pricing for trial technician services. In selecting a trial tech, there is no substitute for real courtroom experience. Experienced trial techs have survived technology failures, power failures and weather-related failures many times over. Great trial technicians have successfully run dozens or hundreds of trials and hearings and can provide the names of those cases and names of the attorneys involved. When interviewing, as you would for any vendor, check at least three references. Great trial technicians are often in the center of the court but are never the center of attention. Part of the trial tech’s skill set must be an ability to comfortably disappear into the background. When he or she is doing the job right, no one is looking at him or her. Outstanding trial technicians must be true Renaissance technology people. Not only must they be able to authoritatively run the latest versions of trial presentation software like Sanction or Trial Director, they must be able to sort out complex versioning issues with PowerPoint, diagnose hard drive problems, mass-rename files, handle unheard-of image formats and much more. Again, experience makes the difference. For more information about this emerging profession and a pre-engagement hiring discussion checklist, see our free downloadable article offering a 20 point trial technician skill set and trait guide. Trial technicians add an enormously disproportionate amount of value to a trial team with the budget to hire one. Instead of focusing on the availability of documents and evidence, the proper functioning of courtroom and war room technology and overcoming technological hiccups in real time, litigators can focus on careful strategic trial preparation of arguments, experts and witnesses. With some carefully planned discussions, litigation teams evaluating the addition of a trial technician to the courtroom support team can virtually guarantee success.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and when it comes to effective storytelling, no statement more aptly applies. One of the biggest challenges attorneys have when telling their story is conveying to their audience the complex ideas and legal concepts in their case in a manner in which the information will be understood. Leading up to trial, an attorney is frequently faced with this question: how do I get my audience to understand information imperative to my case and how do I make it memorable? One of the key roles an attorney takes on when faced with a legal proceeding is that of a teacher. One must teach the fact-finders the facts and the laws that apply to the case and why the stated interpretation of the facts and the laws is the correct one. That is where trial graphics and other trial presentation techniques come in – taking complex case themes and legal concepts and turning them into simplified visual models that are more easily understood and digestible to the average fact finder. With this requirement of effective communication of case facts being ever present, graphics and animations have become vital tools in the modern litigator’s arsenal. I dare say there are few attorneys these days that go to court without some type of demonstrative evidence or technology; whether it is graphics or documents loaded into a trial presentation database. Many areas of law lend themselves particularly well to the use of graphics. For example, patent litigation virtually requires the inclusion of memorable trial graphics. The technology in a patent can be (and often is) very complex. For the non-expert the content is difficult to understand and even more challenging to explain to the average person who may not have a scientific or technical background. Sometimes the ability to show a process or a function of a patent - how something works -- as opposed to trying to explain it with words and documents – makes the difference between winning and losing. Such was the case recently where our firm helped a trial team obtain the 6th largest patent verdict in history. Illustrative of such visual presentation ideas, I have included a sample PowerPoint Markman claim construction hearing trial graphic below that portrays a creative use of animation in PowerPoint. This case involved a patent infringement claim where the plaintiff claimed the defendants were infringing their patent for automated systems for selecting and delivering packages to fill prescription drug orders. The intent of this demonstrative was to reproduce the function of the machine at issue in PowerPoint in order to visually show how the machine worked as opposed to using documents and the patent to explain how the machine works. At Animators at Law, we provide demonstratives that are communicative and educational while also being stimulating enough to keep the jury engaged. We do this by creating trial graphics that clearly explain the concepts a trial team is conveying to the jury so that they will understand the facts and legal arguments of the case through the use of memorable demonstratives that resonate with the jury or fact finder.
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.
The art and science of animated trial graphics has evolved dramatically over the past 10 years. Animation used to refer only to 3-D animations that were produced with programs such as Autodesk Maya or Autodesk 3ds Max, formerly 3D Studio MAX. Now a much broader array of animation tools is available to the courtroom animator, and each one has its own niche and its own strong points. We are able to provide animations of all of these varieties in-house, and we work with our clients to select the one that is best in terms of persuasive power, applicability to the problem at hand, and cost. We have done this since 1995. PowerPoint Animation
Presenting securities cases to juries can involve difficult problems. Many jurors may have investments in the stock market or in mutual funds, directly or through their retirement plans, and may have some sense of how securities markets work. Some jurors, on the other hand, find all financial matters to be daunting. Furthermore, even fairly sophisticated jurors don’t have a good knowledge of accounting terms or of securities law concepts such as “causation” and “fraud,” which may have quite different shades of meaning in the law from their meanings in everyday life. Thus, it is extremely important to present securities cases, which may involve issues of insider trading, fraud, or self-dealing, in ways that a jury can understand based on their basic knowledge of how a market works and their day-to-day sense of fairness.
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.
The passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act in 1984 and its subsequent amendments (collectively the Hatch-Waxman Act) gave rise to more competition in the pharmaceutical industry and a new era of litigation. The act itself provides a mechanism for generic drug companies to quickly gain approval to sell a generic version of an existing brand name drug. The application that begins the FDA approval process for the generic firm is called an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). Brand name drug manufacturers have an understandable incentive to delay approval of the ANDA. Simply, if the ANDA approval is delayed, the brand name firm continues to enjoy the lawful ability to sell their brand name drug without a lower priced generic equivalent in the market. One lawful mechanism brand name manufacturers use that may have the effect of delaying the approval of an ANDA is the filing of a Citizen Petition with the FDA. The Citizen Petition filed by a brand name firm would typically allege that the proposed generic drug is not equivalent and thus should not be approved for sale. Should the Citizen Petition be deemed only a mechanism for delaying approval of the ANDA/generic drug rather than one filed with the public's health interest at heart, the brand name firm would be liable for antitrust violations. Such was the question our firm faced when working on behalf of a brand name pharmaceutical firm recently. A Citizen Petition had been filed and a jury was going to be asked whether it had been lawfully filed. Were the jury to find that the Citizen Petition had been unlawfully filed with the intent to simply delay approval of the generic drug, they could possibly award hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. One quirk in this case that proved advantageous was the fact that it was not the generic drug firm suing the brand name firm, but instead it was the middleman or drug wholesaler who was alleging antitrust violations. Our challenge in creating an effective trial presentation was to create trial exhibits that both taught the jury and persuaded the jury simultaneously. The trial exhibits shown below were part of an opening PowerPoint presentation that explained who was involved in the case (i.e. the typical parties/players trial exhibit) and who was not involved. We sought to emphasize that the brand name firm was being sued not by the generic drug manufacturer but instead the wholesaler who we painted as the delivery guys in these opening trial exhibits. The story told is this: Brand name firms seek approval for a new drug from the FDA; Brand name firms distribute their product through wholesalers who then sell them to pharmacies; Generic firms receive approval to sell through an ANDA; The brand name firm here is BrandName Pharma, generics will be mentioned and then there are the wholesalers. In this case HatchWax Wholesale Drug; One would think the generics are involved, but they are not. Only the wholesalers or the delivery guys are suing. What business do they have suing? Who is HatchWax Wholesale Drug? They are professional antitrust plaintiffs.
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.
The world is watching in shock as a nuclear drama unfolds in northeastern Japan. In only a few days, most of us have somehow come to accept that there are degrees of a nuclear meltdown and that explosions at a nuclear power plant may not always point to a cataclysmic outcome. A week ago, those beliefs would have been unthinkable. Then, nuclear power was a binary condition: it was either safe, clean and efficient, or it was Chernobyl, with no in between. Even in the safest of times, generating power through nuclear energy presents major challenges. One of the key challenges is handling the inevitable nuclear waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel. After conducting extensive studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Government thought it had found an answer. In 1983, the U.S. Government contracted with operators of nuclear power plants to begin picking up nuclear waste starting in 1998 and storing it in a central facility. The U.S. Government had then agreed to become the primary shipping and storage mechanism for the nuclear power industry. The plan was to store nuclear waste at the now defunct Yucca Mountain storage facility located about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Ultimately, fears of geologic instability at the site combined with election-year politics doomed the project. So, instead of one underground facility located on the site where 904 atomic bomb tests have already been conducted, America is left with more than 100 storage sites around the country where nuclear waste is stored in pools or barrels. When the U.S. Government breached their agreement to pick up the nuclear waste, operators of nuclear power plants sued. In this line of cases, the question is not whether a breach has occurred, but rather how much it will cost the facility to store the waste if that is even possible. Animators at Law has been involved in quite a number of these spent fuel cases typically heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Below are some litigation graphics from these cases. The animation below shows the removal of a reactor pressure vessel. When a plant must be closed due to age or due to an inability to store more waste, the reactor pressure vessel may be removed. The boiling water reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant use a similar reactor pressure vessel. Originally created in PowerPoint using dozens of technical illustrations played in succession, this litigation animation shows two methods of removing the reactor pressure vessel that contains the plant's nuclear core. The trial exhibits below are shown as a screen capture of some PowerPoint litigation graphics. These trial exhibits analogize the problem an automobile service station would have if its used oil collection stopped to the spent nuclear fuel storage problem faced by nuclear power plant operators. Further, it helps make the case that costs do not stop with storage (as the U.S. Government contends) but also include indirect and overhead costs related to storage (e.g. security, accounting and management). Animators at Law has helped its clients recover hundreds of millions of dollars in spent nuclear fuel litigation cases, and effective litigation graphics have been key to this success. For more on how nuclear power works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power To learn more about the crisis in Japan or to make a donation: http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html
Part 2 of 2 ( go to part 1) I will begin by reiterating key elements of the first post in this this two part series. More than 20 years ago, the Justice Department began filing lawsuits against a large number of coal fired power plants based on a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR). The NSR process calls on power plant operators to seek EPA review and approval before making modifications to their power plant that would significantly increase emissions. An exception exists routine maintenance. Since Congress neglected to define routine and significant, litigation has followed over these definitions. Animators at Law has worked on many of these cases and created trial graphics and legal animations. I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation used in the opening of an NSR bench trial in 2003. We worked on behalf of the power plant owner in this matter. We faced multiple challenges such as: conveying the scale of the plant; explaining the plant's operation; showing how the projects in question were not large; showing how these projects were in fact routine maintenance; showing how none of the projects increased emissions. After the Justice Department opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks, we had to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. With billions of dollars at stake, Animators at Law prepared a large number of trial boards and legal animations for the case. In part one of this post, I shared how Animators at Law compared the size of the facility to Busch Stadium using legal animations. Below is an example of how we combined technical illustration with a legal animation overlay to provide an overview of the plant, to explain how the plant worked and to again emphasize scale. Below is a trial exhibit used in an NSR trial that effectively compared the routine maintenance of the bridge to the routine maintenance at a coal fired power plant. We think it was a very effective analogy and a leading environmental publication agreed and remarked on its use. Below is another legal animation showing some highly skilled 3-D modeling and animation used in another New Source Review Case. The 3-D model was used in other legal animations and graphics to explain the unique geography of the plant.
Part 1 of 2 (go to part 2) In the 1990's the DOJ/EPA initiated litigation against a large number of coal-fired power plants based on the New Source Review (NSR) process under the Clean Air Act. Among other things, the NSR process requires operators of coal-fired power plants to seek EPA review and approval to make modifications to their plant that would increase emissions. Exceptions exist for routine maintenance at the plant and any emission increase must also be significant. Unfortunately, Congress neglected to define routine and significant. Animators at Law has been called upon to create legal animations and other information design focused trial graphics in a number of these cases. These cases typically have billions of dollars at stake, and the more EPA-friendly the current presidential administration, the more cases get filed. In this two-part post, I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation created for use in opening in one of these NSR bench trials. We worked on behalf of the power plant operator in this matter, and we faced a Government trial team who came armed with their own legal animation. Throughout the history of NSR cases, the Government has taken the position that any big change at the plant requires EPA approval. This includes large parts that are changed routinely. It turns out, however, that most parts in a plant this size are large, and the government argues that by maintaining the plant, one is extending its operating life thus increasing emissions. The Government opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks. Our challenge was to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. We knew two things that were helpful in this bench trial. First, the government was comparing our parts to semi-trucks. Second, the judge was known to visit the old Busch Stadium where the St. Louis Cardinals played and where semi-trucks were often parked outside. The message delivered by the clip below in opening was: yes, we changed big parts, but everything at our plant is big, thus we must ask, big compared to what? Is a semi-truck really that big compared to not one Busch Stadium but twenty? I think this legal animation reflects a good use of information design to convey scale when billions of dollars where at stake.
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.
Share: