I am a bit behind in my reading and I just finished a September 2020 CLM Magazine article by James McKeown entitled Rules of the Road: Five Tips for Successful Claims and Litigation Management. Mr. McKeown wrote this article aimed at claims professionals and the attorneys involved in the defense of claims. His 5 tips are: 1) Write your claims notes like you may get abducted by aliens on the way to your deposition. (His point is to be sure someone could pick up where you left off if necessary.) 2) No surprises please. 3) Manage Expectations. 4) Don’t

Melissa and I wrote employee policy manuals and other training materials before we had employees. I am thinking about those today because I added a small update to the policy manual yesterday, thinking that it had been a long time since I had added anything. But, while the policy manual is pretty well set, the training materials require much more effort to keep up to date. Why? Well, we have modified our protocols over time, added components, and removed others. For example, our procedure of using cassette recorders as a back up to our video recordings was discontinued long

A challenging aspect of our trial consulting work is timing. It is always an issue for us to ramp up when we are engaged for a project. There is lead time in all that we do. Some clients, particularly repeat clients, understand this and call us well in advance of their “need.” Other times it is not so much an issue of a short front end, but rather a long, lingering one. I’m thinking of one case we handled, in particular. We did the intake and proposal for the case 10 years before we finally did the mock jury research.

I keep a list of things clients have said during or after working with us on mock jury research. These tidbits illustrate the eye opening reactions some attorneys have when observing jurors deliberate. One of my favorites was from (now retired) Pete Burkert in Fort Myers, FL. After a series of mock juries, he said, excitedly, “It’s almost like cheating!” He was thrilled to know what resonated with typical jurors so that he could customize his case presentation. Knowing potential outcomes is one thing. Learning how to talk to a jury in their language is, however, critical in achieving

Several recent client/case events prompted this post. My biased view of litigation is that it is best done when as much input (a.k.a. data) is considered. This includes data from various experts, but also data from mock juries used to evaluate the risks of litigation. The first example is with a case that settled prior to the scheduled mock jury research. We are rarely privy to settlement decisions, including how much was paid/received, etc., but what I do know is that mock jury research would provide considerable direction as to what is a “good settlement.” A “good settlement” is

One thing we learned the hard way, many years ago, is that advancing money on behalf a client is risky. On one of our first cases, we were given the verbal go ahead by an associate level attorney whose boss had told him to do so. We were very excited to work with this attorney, whom we had known for about 2 years. He was an interesting guy, a successful plaintiff’s lawyer, and we’d talked directly with him about the case. I wrote a check to our jury recruiter, advancing the up front cost to the recruiter on behalf of

“Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff” is a phrase used to suggest one should relax, chill out, and not worry about the little things, things which sometime seem out of one’s control. Well, that’s great. But, our “day job” as trial consultants doesn’t allow it. Neither does my prior advocation, photography. For example, when photographing people at events, the photographer has to watch the person’s expression; if it is a group of people, it is even more challenging. The photographer has to look at the eyes, the smiles, the hands, feet, etc. Ensuring things are in focus and that there

My post about whether the mock jurors take it seriously reminded me of another aspect of this client related surprise. Watching a group of people, mock jurors, listen to the case arguments in a mock trial can sometimes be misleading. Some mock jurors are clearly engaged, others have their eyes closed, others are frantically taking notes, some are squinting (perhaps because they forgot their glasses), and others are making eye contact with the attorneys, even smiling at them. All of these visual cues are subject to being misread. Often, attorneys come into the observation room and comment on their perceptions

A client, who had never observed a Magnus mock trial, asked the question which is the title of this post during a recent mock trial. The “they” is the mock jurors. The “it” is the case. The answer is YES! The rest of the story is that, despite the mock jurors knowing they are only to be present for a limited period of time, they “get into it.” They are told they are discussing an actual, active, case (for ethical reasons, we tell them the truth). Magnus’ jurors are randomly recruited for our mock juries and focus groups; they

An attorney client of ours recently told Melissa that his client is a problem. He said, “the problem with this case is my client.” He was pretty direct, but we’ve heard this, or some variation thereof, countless times. In this case, the client is wealthy (and accustomed to getting his way as a result). He’s “cocky” arrogant, and dismissive of other people’s opinions. He isn’t well educated, meaning he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and, rather than trying to learn from those who can educate him about the legal issues he is facing, his insecurities lead him to trying