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

Some people, including attorneys and insurance adjusters who are potential clients of Magnus, are more focused on obtaining the lowest price for whatever they are buying than the quality of what they are buying. Other people, in contrast, want the very best products or services money can buy. Most people, of course, fall somewhere between these two extremes in their desire to buy something of quality for an affordable price. Magnus’ services have never, ever, been cheap. We are never the “low price leader” among jury/trial consultants. Therefore, when we determine a prospective client’s focus is on hiring the lowest

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

A client of ours recently told me his motto was better safe than sorry. This was in the context of setting a meeting and allowing adequate time for Miami traffic – which can be a real challenge. But, his motto is something I’ve often thought about and attempted to use, tactfully, with potential clients who are on the fence about conducting mock jury research. Over the past 25+ years working with attorneys, I’ve talked with many who were unsure whether it was “worth the money” to conduct jury/fact finder research when they think they have a pretty good handle on

During my recent jury duty experience, I noticed posters around the assembly room entitled “Juror Responsibilities Regarding the Internet and Social Media” produced by the National Center for State Courts and Center for Jury Studies. I am well aware of the issues related to jurors and social media or the internet. And, I think I’d seen a mock up of this poster in the past in NSSC emails. But, being in the assembly room and seeing it on the wall, I had a different reaction than when I’d seen it previously. The poster states: “FAIRNESS TO THE PARTIES IN ALL

The reader may wonder, based on the title of this post, what is the connection between trial consulting and “The Simpsons.” No, trial consulting is not cartoonish, it is not usually funny, and our clients don’t say “D’oh!” like Homer Simpson when they are annoyed. The connection is merely time based and personal. I began my career as a trial consultant working for Litigation Sciences, Inc. (LSI) in August of 1989. “The Simpsons,” after appearing as a short feature on “The Tracey Ullman Show” for several years, debuted as a prime time sitcom on December 17, 1989. Since then, “The