My Case Is Not Visual – So Why Do I Need Litigation Graphics?

March 31st, 2017|

by Ken LopezFounder/CEOA2L Consulting Over the past three decades I've heard hundreds of lawyers say, “I won't need many graphics because my case is not very visual.” Usually, that's followed up with “It's really a case about documents” or “It’s a dispute over who said what,” or “It’s just about what someone's actions were.” Fortunately, there’s a clear and straightforward answer to these objections: What drives the need for visuals in a case is not the underlying subject matter. It’s your audience's need to see things as well as hear them. In effect, every case is a visual case today. So instead

Talking Bull, Episode Seventeen, A Real Jury Consultant Watches a Fictional One

March 30th, 2017|

Roy Futterman, Ph.D. In the seventeenth edition of his weekly column in Law360, DOAR’s real-life New York City Jury Consultant and Psychologist reviews the fictional NYC Jury Consultant/Psychologist on the television series “Bull,” focusing on what litigation is really like in the trenches. [Spoiler Alert]…         You know how on medical shows they teach you how to commit malpractice and get away with it? In this episode, Bull teaches how to get away with jury tampering, and Benny shows us how to get disbarred. The Case of the Pump and Dump Class Action This week, Bull spends

Top 10 Litigation Articles So Far This Year

March 28th, 2017|

by Ken LopezFounder/CEOA2L Consulting As the first quarter of 2017 comes to an end, I have had the occasion to reflect on the origins and the success of the online publication that you are reading, The Litigation Consulting Report. In six years, I've watched as this publication grew from nothing at all to a subscription list that includes more than 9,000 members of the legal community (here's a free subscription link: http://a2.lc/trialtips). I am pleased and amazed to see that there are more than 300,000 visits to this blog annually. Periodically, we try to help organize the articles we publish

Defining Your Fundamental Goal in Voir Dire

March 27th, 2017|

By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. It has been a busy few months of picking juries for our consultants at Sound Jury Consulting. I have picked three juries in the past three weeks alone and we seem to have had a record number of cases lately that have made it all the way to trial. This has led to a lot of opportunities to see how different attorneys approach voir dire. The different approaches fall generally into three categories: 1) Well-planned and thought-out; 2) Those with questionable goals; and 3) Those with no apparent purpose. It is difficult to understate the

Battle of the Trial Presentation Apps

March 24th, 2017|

TechnoLawyer's LitigationWorld newsletter just published an excellent set of 9 different perspectives on trial presentation apps and software. Authors (limited to 175 words) include Ken Broda-Bahm, Ted Brooks (hey, that's me!), Russell Cardon, Mitch Jackson, Karen Koehler, Ian O'Flaherty, Timothy Piganelli, Jeff Richardson, and Thomas Vidal. If you're a subscriber, I welcome your comments and feedback here - from YOUR perspective. If you didn't receive it, I would be happy to forward the entire LitigationWorld email newsletter to you - just PM or email me your email address and I'll send it. My email is tbrooks@litigationtech.com. Once you've had a

Why Storytelling is Your Best Defense

March 24th, 2017|

The Problem As we know all too well, plaintiffs often have a ready-made underdog tale in civil trials:  David (their client) against Goliath (your client).  And nobody roots for Goliath. That’s strike one against you, before you even start.  Add in the fact that many jurors assume your client must have done something wrong if […] The post Why Storytelling is Your Best Defense appeared first on Litigation Insights.

3 Excellent Ways to Use “Top-Bottom??? Timelines in Trial

March 23rd, 2017|

by Tony KlapperManaging Director, Litigation ConsultingA2L Consulting Timelines are a frequently used, time-honored trial technique that we have discussed in these pages more than once. Since human beings like to focus on a story – what happened first, what happened next, and so on – timelines have the power to summarize, in a simple and straightforward way, the entire narrative of a case. But not all timeline graphics are created equal. Here are three ways to use what we call “top-bottom” timelines that most successfully take advantage of their power to persuade. In the first type of “top-bottom” timeline, the chronological

The Key Elements of a Good Narrative – at Trial or Anywhere Else

March 21st, 2017|

by Tony KlapperManaging Director, Litigation ConsultingA2L Consulting Here in these pages, we often talk about storytelling as a fundamental principle of successful trial work. But what are the elements of a good story? A good story is one that will be retold – it’s one that begs to be retold. Just as our ancestors told and retold the fundamental stories of their nations by the fireside, a great story is one that people today will repeat at the watercooler, in the bar, in the line at the grocery, or anywhere that there’s time for a narrative. A compelling movie (think

Mastering Group Voir Dire: Tip 3—Capitalize on Initial Hand-Raising

March 21st, 2017|

March 23, 2017 Jeffrey T. Frederick, Ph.D.      In the first two tips in our series, I focused on encouraging attorneys to treat voir dire as a conversation with jurors (Tip 1) and to use techniques that help jurors become comfortable with speaking at the beginning of voir dire (Tip 2).  But much, if not most, of voir dire questioning relies on having jurors raise their hands in response to your questions.  Such hand-raising may be an end in itself or, as in many cases, is the gateway for follow-up individual questioning.  Whether it is questioning in smaller groups (e.g.,

Simple Jury Persuasion: The SPOT (Spontaneous Preference  for Own Theories) effect 

March 20th, 2017|

It’s been a while since we’ve had a new cognitive bias to share with you. Previously we’ve blogged on many different biases and here are a handful of those posts. Today’s research paper combines three biases—two of which we’ve blogged about before: the better-than-average effect, confirmation bias and also, the endowment effect. The endowment effect is the “(irrational) added value” we place on things just because they belong to us and not to someone else. So, today’s research was described over at BPS Digest (a reliable source for accurate summaries), and it’s a bit odd. For the sake of brevity,