The Litigation Consulting Report

In Part 1 of this article, we discussed how to use litigation consultants to win a case when there are no budget constraints. Here in Part 2, we tackle the opposite end of the budget spectrum: how to best use litigation consultants when budget is severely constrained. The good news is that in any case that has more than $1 million at stake or is a possible example of pattern litigation, there is a litigation consulting strategy that can fit the budget and deliver high value, regardless of budget. While every case has different needs, and there is a big difference between bench and jury trials, here is a prescription for utilizing litigation consultants in a tight budget. The primary cost difference between a small litigation budget and a large litigation budget will be the amount of time spent on testing and varying strategic approaches to the case. In a tight budget scenario, rather than relying on feedback from mock jurors and judges to help guide which themes to emphasize and the best ways to explain elements of the case, you will likely have to rely heavily on gut instinct. Of course, that is not always a bad thing.

These days, only a very few cases can be said to have an unlimited litigation budget, but some still do. As the amount at stake in toxic tort, technology patent and product liability cases soars into the billions of dollars, we do hear from clients that they must win at all costs. Indeed, at A2L Consulting, it is common for us to work on multi-billion dollar disputes. Thus far in 2012, we have already consulted on cases with over $30 billion at stake. In this two-part series, we share the menu of options available to a law firm and its client in situations at the opposite ends of the litigation consulting budget spectrum. What is possible when budget is not an issue, and what is possible when budget is severely constrained? By far the biggest difference between unlimited budget cases and limited budget cases is the amount of time that can be devoted to the discussion and testing of alternative strategies. There are three key areas of trial and pre-trial work: trial consulting, litigation graphics and courtroom technology support. A high-budget case can involve several trial consultants, a dozen or more artists, hundreds of demonstrative exhibits, several mock trials, months of work and an overall onsite litigation consulting and trial technology team with between four and 12 people.

We often hear from clients or prospective clients that it won’t help them if they look like a big company that is attempting to overwhelm or dazzle its opponents with technology. Jurors won’t buy that sort of stuff, we are told, even from a litigant that is actually a large company.

by Nina Doherty

Expert witnesses can be an extremely valuable portion of your case. If they are well-prepared, convincing and convey a clear, uncomplicated message to the jury, their testimony can lead directly to a verdict in your favor. If they are unconvincing and don’t communicate well, they are at best useless and at worst damaging to the case. The essential problem is that expert witnesses – whether they are testifying on engineering, scientific, financial, or other issues – tend to be very intelligent and knowledgeable. At the same time, however, they are prone to using terms that are well above the jury’s experience and educational levels and thus these experts are prone to be dismissed by some jurors as ivory-tower types who have nothing useful to say. We believe our firm plays several important roles helping expert witnesses get prepped for trial. Since our goal is winning by telling a clear and convincing story, the value of expert testimony must be maximized in each case. Expert witnesses are an essential piece of the litigation persuasion puzzle. Here are our seven tips for preparing expert witnesses and expert testimony to the best effect possible:

Discovery disputes have always been a staple of litigation. And now that electronic discovery has pretty much supplanted the old-fashioned discovery of paper documents, the disputes have only become more complicated and more bitter. As a result, our firm is increasingly called upon to create courtroom presentations for discovery dispute hearings. In the past ten years, e-discovery consulting firms have come to dominate the litigation support field, providing their expertise in a rapidly changing and highly technical field. That is not the only new development in this field. First, many law firms that are representing clients in document-heavy pieces of litigation have begun to hire “discovery counsel,” law firms that specialize in discovery alone and don’t promote their expertise in other areas of law. One such firm says on its website that it devotes “all of our resources to the successful execution of document collections, reviews, and productions.”

One of the most important jobs of the trial lawyer and of the litigation consultant is to make highly complex and technical issues understandable to the average juror who does not have a scientific, engineering or technical background. In technology cases, especially patent cases, using demonstrative evidence is normally a good tactic. Here's why. The trial lawyer has spent months or probably years delving into every aspect of the case, and by the time it gets to trial, even the most arcane subjects can appear simple to him or her. Of course, that doesn’t mean they are easily understood by the general population of which the men and women in the jury box are a representative sample. Think of the challenge as needing to explain a complicated subject to a kid or to your grandparent; it takes creativity (and visual presentations - e.g. demonstrative evidence) to make the concept digestible to all audiences.