Mock jurors may seem like a species unto themselves, but, when properly recruited, they are everyday people who are representative of the trial venue. Following the post on why Magnus controls research videos, I am commenting on the origin of the mock jurors because of another subtle detail I picked up recently in reading a competitor’s proposal. I’ll add, “Where do you get your mock jurors?” is #1 our all time frequently asked questions list. Therefore, the topic is appropriate for discussion of best and worst practices in recruiting. Magnus is, or I should say, Melissa is, a stickler for

I recently had the unique opportunity to gather some “competitive intelligence” in the form of reviewing a competitor’s proposal. Hey, it fell into my lap; what was I supposed to do? Anyway, a small part of the proposal touted the idea of using a marketing research facility; in fact, this proposal was somewhat reliant on that detail. We like to work in research facilities too, but we do not make the availability of a facility a critical factor in the design or pricing of a project. These folks did. One reason some consultants rely on market research facilities is that

During a recent mock jury session, one of the most outspoken mock jurors caught the attention of our client who was watching the proceedings remotely. This client, the general counsel of a large corporation, made a comment along the lines of “nothing about that juror’s profile would have made me think she would be good for us.” He had looked at a basic demographic profile of the woman we provided to him based on her survey answers and that information, along with his observations of her, led him to this comment. You see, despite whatever stereotypic impression he had of

Stuff happens (you may have seen this phrase as a bumper sticker with a different “S” word). That’s right, things happen. Lightning strikes. Gremlins materialize. In our trial consulting work, there are frequent technical issues that lead to problems. With competent staff, they are kept to a minimum, but there are times when, for example, the closed circuit TV feed is bad because a cable is having a bad day. (I say bad day because inevitably we’ll switch the cable, and then, when we are back at the office after the project, try to replicate the problem, only to have

A recent Wall Street Journal article (August 11-12, 2018) entitled “To Get the Most Out of Polls, Delve Deeper” prompted this post. Though this post was about political polls and pollsters, there were several points relevant to the world of trial consulting. One quote caught my attention, “…, remember that neither a candidate’s polling percentage nor any other single number will give you the full picture—any more than a price tag really tells you how a bottle of wine will taste,….”. We have often worked with seemed attorneys who were, perhaps, new to using mock trials, and who focus on

Not too long ago, I attended a lawyers’ luncheon at which the speaker was the president of the Florida Bar. He made a few comments about various challenges lawyers face with their clients, specifically, the expectation by the client that they essentially have all of the answers so that they get it right the first time, and every time. That’s a pretty tall order, but it sums up the expectations. In the types of high stakes cases in which we get involved, the pressure is on high for everyone! Good lawyers know there are limits to what they know and

I’ve been on a bit of a “tear” lately about caveat emptor. Hiring a trial consultant requires due diligence because, unfortunately, it doesn’t take much to hold oneself out as a trial consultant. A lawyer, a physician, a plumber, an electrician or a hairstylist has to be tested and licensed. We don’t. While there has been a debate about this in a few states, I have concluded that licensing or “accrediting” would do little good and it certainly would not indicate whether the consultant would be a good hire for a given client/case. Instead, it is left to the consumer

Following on “When losing is winning. Part 1,” I’m writing now about another phenomenon that has been covered a bit in other posts. That is, defining winning. On the defense side of civil and criminal cases, some of them are, technically speaking, losers. That is, an outright defense verdict is unlikely no matter what – the liability/guilt is there. It is, however, possible for a plaintiff’s or prosecutor’s verdict to still be a win for the defendant. That is, though the criminal defendant gets found guilty, if it is of a lesser charge than the worst possible, this is a

Everyone wants to win, right? This post is being written to say winning isn’t everything. At least not in a mock trial. Regardless of whether it is a mock jury, mock arbitration, mock bench trial, or whatever, the process is not about winning. It is about debugging the case. It is about finding the problems (and looking for solutions to them). This means testing the worst case scenario. So, the judge hasn’t ruled if this or that is in the case. Fine, test whatever would be worse for the case. I had a conversation with a potential client this week

I had a conversation yesterday with a client that prompts this post on a topic I’ve had on hold for sometime. When a trial consultant conducts mock jury research, or mock arbitration, or a mock bench trial, the consultant is collecting objective data to report to the client as to the specific results or verdicts by the participants. Using these data, the consultant formulates mediation, arbitration, and trial strategies. That is, we, as trial and jury consultants, in researching the reactions of the fact finders of the case, are building information for the client (attorney) and his/her clients – the