By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The importance of including graphics when presenting to a judge or jury is understood these days. Still, I think the design and execution of these graphics can be too often treated as an afterthought. Instead of using a timeline as a central and fundamental way of structuring the case for fact-finders, it is developed at the end and treated as a plug-and-play addition to an already-developed trial story. You might create a diagram showing the key case concepts and relationships as a way to visually spruce up the verbal presentation instead of using it as a

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Negligence is supposed to be a determination of action, not intention. Looking only at outward conduct, jurors in a negligence case are typically asked to decide whether an act, or a failure to act, was reasonable, and in line with what reasonable peers would have done in a similar situation. The intention or mental state of the actor is not supposed to matter in that determination. At least, that is what the law says. But among those who study jurors and other decision-makers, there has been a strong suspicion that this ignores a practical reality. Jurors

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: Trial lawyers arguably wear two hats. The first hat is that of the advocate — zealous, convinced, and laser-focused on their client’s best case. The other hat, though, belongs to the counsellor who assesses the case and advises the client — sober, grounded, and realistic. It takes the advocate’s hat to get through discovery and trial, but it takes the counsellor’s hat to weigh in on whether the case should be settled prior to trial. The two mindsets are obviously in conflict, but lawyers have the training and experience to set aside the adversarial mindset in

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: For some attorneys on the defense side of civil litigation, there can be something I call the “adversarial impulse,” which is the belief and behavior that, “If it can be denied, then deny it.” The most seasoned trial lawyers, however, know that it doesn’t always pay to fight every battle. Not only are some battles unlikely to be won, but fighting them can actually make your situation worse One area where practical strategy can often run up against this adversarial impulse is the decision on whether to concede liability. Sometimes that decision is patently obvious, and sometimes

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: There are many phases to a trial. Some of those phases are just for lawyers, but some of them really should include the clients as well. The voir dire process, where the ultimate jury is selected, is one of those latter phases. The clients for all parties should be there. But I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in my own cases — in the last three picks, in three different states, the Plaintiffs themselves attended none of the jury selections. In those cases, I was working for the Defense, and we had a client representative present and

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is a common perception that when you apologize, it means you’ve done something wrong. The Latin “mea culpa,” after all, means “through my fault.” In a litigation context, that perception on the part of lawyers and insurance companies can lead to the belief that you should avoid apologizing if you don’t want to accept liability. But we know from the research that an “I’m sorry” can do a lot of good: Psychologically, it can be satisfying for a victim, and persuasively, it can help boost the credibility of a source. And for some cases,

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The news cycle has been drowning in it. For the first time in history, a former U.S. President faces criminal charges. Donald Trump was arraigned this past Tuesday on April 4th, after being indicted on 34 charges involving the falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime, all surrounding payments of hush money to several individuals in the weeks preceding the 2016 election with the goal of concealing alleged extramarital affairs by the candidate. Public opinion on the charges is predictably quite split, with one group seeing it as a long-delayed comeuppance and another group seeing it

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Lawsuits rarely occur as a result of something good happening. More often, there has been some kind of very bad outcome, maybe even a tragedy. For people who are close to the events that give rise to a suit, it can be hard to avoid absorbing and personalizing some of those negative emotions. For a witness called to testify in deposition or in trial, there might be a strong temptation to mentally reconstruct a bad event with a focus on how it could have been avoided. Maybe there is a tendency to blame yourself. Or

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It has now been well over a decade since the “Reptile” emerged as a way of trying plaintiff’s cases. The approach — a mix of personalizing the case for jurors, reinforcing simple rules, and emphasizing safety as the top priority, all built on the foundation of a somewhat metaphorical appeal to protective features of our “reptile brains,” — is common in courtrooms and deposition rooms, and recognizable through questions like, “Wouldn’t you agree with me that a company should never needlessly endanger the public?” I think we now have the benefit of those years to say

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: At a mock trial the other day, one juror commented, “This is just like the ‘too big to fail’ thing… God, I hate that phrase. They think they’re above the consequences of their actions, and they don’t need to do anything about it!” Yes, banks and bailouts are back in the news. But that attitude doesn’t just apply to financial institutions. Interestingly, in the case of the mock juror’s comment, it was being applied to a large municipality. The factors that drive juror resentment towards the notion of “too big to fail,” isn’t just banking,