How to Build Confidence in Your Clients During Depo Prep [Ep 146]

Explore the importance of building confidence in clients for depositions in this episode of Trial Lawyer Prep, hosted by Elizabeth Larrick.

Learn the difference between confident witnesses and ego-driven witnesses, and discover practical strategies for instilling confidence in clients ahead of their depositions.

Elizabeth emphasizes using clients’ words, co-creating preparation materials with them, and offering positive feedback. The goal is to help clients believe in their stories and communicate them effectively under questioning.

We also look at the importance of role play and testing, to ensure clients are truly prepared for their testimonies.

In this episode, you will learn about:

  • Understanding Confidence vs. Ego in Testimony
  • Building Confidence: Using Client’s Own Words
  • Co-Creating Documents for Confidence
  • The Importance of Positive Feedback and Encouragement
  • Role Play: Test Your Client’s Confidence

Follow and Review:

We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

Supporting Resources:

Check out the latest ways to re-wire your brain for better deposition prep in Episode 143.

Book a free call with Elizabeth to pick her brain about deposition prep:

Don’t want to miss an episode? Join the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter for resources, tips and episodes by going here:  www.larricklawfirm.com/connect

A Fresh Take on Using Video for Case Settlement with Guest Michael Schwarz [Ep 145]

Elizabeth welcomes Michael Schwarz, founder of Prairie Nation Creative, to discuss innovative approaches to creating settlement videos for trial lawyers.

Michael, a seasoned filmmaker, shares his journey from film school to starting a company specializing in impactful legal videos. His company introduced the concept of ‘Trial Trailers™ ­’ – concise and compelling videos designed to summarize case damages and liability, pushing for quicker settlements.

Michael also talks about ‘demand impact videos,’ a more affordable alternative using online interviews for lower-tier cases. Additionally, they explore the challenges of engaging viewers, the importance of early evidence preservation, and how creative storytelling can significantly impact legal outcomes.

Michael also touches on his passion project, the Abandoned Atlas Foundation, which focuses on documenting and preserving historic abandoned buildings, and provides another snapshot into his production style.

In this episode, you will learn about:

  • The Concept of Trial Trailers
  • Demand Impact Videos as Affordable Alternatives
  • The Art of Video Editing and Storytelling
  • Addressing Lawyer Needs with Custom Videos
  • The Power of Video in Legal Cases
  • Importance of Evidence Preservation
  • Bonus! Michael’s Abandoned Atlas Foundation

Follow and Review:

We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

Supporting Resources:

Guest Michael Schwarz of Prairie Nation Creative.

Learn more about Michael Schwarz and the work he is doing: https://prairie-creative.com/

Email Michael: michael@prairie-creative.com

Watch samples of Michael’s work here: https://vimeo.com/prairienation

You can also watch this episode on YouTube here: A Fresh Take on Using Video for Case Settlement, with Guest Michael Schwarz [Ep145]

Do you have an upcoming trial and want help writing your opening statement? Book a free call with Elizabeth to see how she can help.

Don’t want to miss an episode? Join the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter for resources, tips and episodes by going here: www.larricklawfirm.com/connect

Episode Transcript

Elizabeth Larrick (00:01.032)
Hello and welcome back to the podcast. I’m your host Elizabeth Larrick and today we are going to dive deep into a topic that I know all trial lawyers want to know just a little bit more about and that is using videos to promote your cases.

And to do this, I brought along a good friend of mine. I just met him and I saw him working. I saw his work. It was amazing at the Arkansas trial lawyers association seminar. So of course I said, we got to bring him on the podcast to spread the knowledge that he is bringing to this amazing space. So welcome to the podcast, Michael Schwartz.

Michael Schwarz (00:25.962)
Hello. Thank you so much for having me. I’m just absolutely thrilled to be talking about this. Good.

Elizabeth Larrick (00:52.392)
Good, I hope so. You have formed your whole life around filmmaking, which I think is amazing. And then, so tell us a little bit about your background. I know right now Prairie Nation Creative is your company, and we’ll have links in the show notes for everybody. But tell us, Michael, a little bit about kind of your background and how you got started doing film.

Michael Schwarz (01:04.269)
Sure. So I mean really I I’ve just always loved watching documentaries and even as a kid. You know I always thought though like in history class that some of the documentaries were you know a little bit outdated and you know needed a fluff and so coming into this industry I went to film school

at the University of Central Arkansas after graduating from Bishop McGinnis here in Oklahoma City. And I got a Mass Communications degree there at UCA. And then I moved to California for about four years looking to get into the film industry. And I actually got a job at a documentary production house that specialized in this type of work.

And I immediately fell in love with it. I had no idea it was it was even a need or a thing and as you know, people started needing more video for for cases to help explain stories and I was able to use my talents and At that company and then I didn’t really like California I kind of liked where I grew up in Oklahoma and decided to move back and I started my own company and I Couldn’t be more thrilled to be here and and now I’ve like

I’ve been lucky enough to have expanded into Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, even New Mexico and just all around we’re starting to really grow outside of our bubble here. So I’m just thrilled to have this opportunity. so that’s a little bit about my background.

Elizabeth Larrick (02:44.296)
Yeah, awesome. So here’s what I’m hearing. You’ve got some extensive film experience where you went to California, you learn from the pros, and then you said, you know what, I’m going to bring what I know to a brand new space, right? There’s not a lot of folks in Oklahoma city doing what you do. So I think that is awesome. But let me tell you what, why would you get into working with, with trial lawyers? What was that pull to help in that particular segment?

Michael Schwarz (02:54.317)
Well, you know, it’s interesting you actually said what you said, because I think when I first brought this back to Oklahoma and this area,

Lawyers would oftentimes only use this type of video or thing on really, really high end cases like multi-million dollar. And that was all well and good, but I feel like it was all come down to cost.

Michael Schwarz (04:22.679)
I was actually talking to one of my friends, her name is Kathy Christensen, and she said that, yeah, lawyers around here use those every now and again, but they save them for like the multi-million dollar cases, and you know, in which they can be really powerful for. But in my head, I was like, how can we bring video storytelling and the technology of nowadays with compassionate editing and interviewing? And I was like, in my head, I’m like,

how can we apply that to lower tier cases that really need that type of storytelling and to where lawyers don’t have to save it for the really, really big cases. And so I was just in talks with one of my friends and then they gave me a connection and I kind of did some preliminary like just asking them questions, picking their brain. And I found out they were like, I would use this on every case if it wasn’t, you know, 15 to $20,000 to have a video done like this. And so I was like,

How can I make one more affordable? And that’s kind of how the business was born.

Elizabeth Larrick (05:25.956)
Awesome. And that is why when I saw you at Arkansas trial lawyers and I saw what you were doing and went to your website and reviewed the videos that you done, I was blown away that you were able to create this amazing, powerful video that was not a day in the life, by the way, even though I know that’s what you do and we’ll get to that. I promise. But We’ll get to that, I promise.

I love that you are coming into a place to allow lawyers access to this amazing product. And that’s why was like, okay, we are totally aligned because I feel the same way about focus groups. And so I’m so that’s why I was excited to get you in here. So tell me a little bit about you do a couple of different types of videos for lawyers. And I know we talked about day in the life and it kind of has a negative connotation a little bit like it’s, you know, old and traditional. So

Elizabeth Larrick

Walk me through your services.

Michael Schwarz (06:14.157)
Well, you know, and that’s that’s a really valid point. So I knew immediately when I when I kind of came up with a product, I didn’t want to call it a day in the life video or a settlement documentary. And again, those can be really great and very powerful. But part of what the problem was is that a lot of lawyers like we’re oh, it’s just they’re going to follow my client around. And I could do that with my cell phone. Right. And so

Michael Schwarz (06:43.105)
Part of what our talent is is the actual storytelling being You know creating a narrative that helps paint a picture of what exactly that clients been through and I know that some lawyers are familiar with settlement documentaries as well, which actually include interviews but Looking at a few of them. One of the biggest things I noticed was that they were really long and often what the videos intention is to help summarize to the other side what the case damages are, maybe if the lawyer wants to include liability, and they want to include pretty much just a little snippet of what the trial is gonna look like to say, hey, let’s settle this thing ahead of time. But if you bore that other side and make it too long and everybody’s repeating the same thing over and over and we’re not cutting to pictures and we’re not, you know, it kind of looks low quality, I personally think that low production

quality can backfire and be more of a detriment than it is a help. And so while you have your client story, putting that together in a package that’s quick and fast, also it takes the time to breathe and the moments that it needs to breathe and really be there emotionally. kind of, the idea is that you want to make whoever’s watching forget that you’re even watching a video.

you’re just ingesting this thing and you’re like, you’re almost captivated by what’s going on. And of course, you know, defense attorneys, the goal is not to make them cry. That never happens. But the, Yeah. know, gender, I’ve never heard a story where like, wow, a defense attorney was so moved, a defense attorney is moved not emotionally, but like they’re moved in the sense of like, I definitely don’t want a jury to see this.

Elizabeth Larrick (08:21.736)
They don’t cry. What are you talking about?

Michael Schwarz (08:37.843)
And they’re like, you know, yeah. So I don’t want the trial version of this video to come out in front of a jury, which is actually how we coined the term trial trailer. Because I believe that these videos are literally a trailer. This is what the trial is going to look like if we don’t settle right now. And so in my head, I’m like, that made sense. I’ve never seen anyone else call it that before.

And I don’t know, it just kind of stuck. And now we get calls asking if they can have a trial trailer. And it’s really interesting just how coming up with a new term for kind of a refresh of an old thing that people are used to, but if we put more of a modern spin on it, it can really make a huge difference.

Elizabeth Larrick (09:27.9)
Well, and let’s give yourself some credit here. You’re not just re-labelling something. I mean, the editing that you guys do, the thoughtful process of the story, the thoughtful types of interviews. mean, there’s a lot of creative process that you put into it that has created a new product that fits with what’s happening right now. And that is people have shorter attention spans than they’ve ever had.

Just give yourself some credit here.

Michael Schwarz (09:39.15)
I mean, there’s a lot of creative process that you put into it that has created a new product that fits with what’s happening right now. And that is people have shorter attention spans they’ve ever had. We all look at video for everything, but we don’t want to watch a long one. You know, we’re impatient. So, I mean, you’re combining all of this amazing film background.

Elizabeth Larrick (09:56.082)
We all look at video for everything, but we don’t want to watch a long one. You know, we’re impatient. So, I mean, you’re combining all of this amazing film background, like movie thinking background with what we need to, as lawyers, tell a story that’s quick and impactful.

Michael Schwarz (10:06.861)
like movie thinking background with what we need to, as lawyers, tell a story that’s quick and impactful. Well, and I actually appreciate you catching that. I sometimes get into this place where I downplay myself. So I appreciate you catching that, but you’re exactly right. Every single time, like I even do focus groups within my own company and we kind of like, hey, how can we

What’s missing? What can we add? What can we take away? What’s too much? Before we send it to the client. It’s a total team effort here. It’s not just me doing all the editing and I hire some, you know, overseas person just to throw it all together. It’s really a team effort here. And the more that we grow, the more people we can bring on and the more collaborative. And my favorite part is even working with attorneys, you know, because they’ll bring their own ideas.

I have, what’s great to me is that some clients will come to me and say, Michael, here’s the client’s information, go do your thing. And we have other attorneys that come to us and say, Hey, I have an idea. Let’s work together to bring in like, they’re very involved. And, and if you were to ask me which one I prefer, I don’t have a preference. I really, I love the sometimes working with attorneys and I love just being able to go out and do it too. So, but at the end of the day, the

main point is that there are really, really difficult hurdles in our attention spans nowadays. And if a video is 30 minutes long, it has to be changing subjects, like new content, and you have to bridge things together. Make it flow, because if you let the video die down even for just a second, you’re gonna lose them. You you really gotta keep it moving, keep it going. And so sometimes…

Videos are 30 minutes, it doesn’t happen very often, but when it’s 30 minutes, there’s a lot. There is a lot to the case, and a very… generally they’re about 12 minutes, but, sorry.

Elizabeth Larrick (12:08.968)
Yeah, that’s a large case. Awesome. So I know you do… Sorry, 12 minutes. I’m so sorry. So normally about 12 minutes is a trial trailer.

Michael Schwarz (12:18.665)
Yeah, and that’s about a standard, but I would say they can be as short as four minutes, and they can be as long as, like I said, 30 minutes. It just kind of depends. I say average.

Elizabeth Larrick (12:29.488)
Yeah. And so I know you do a lot of the trial trailers. What are some other things too that you got that y’all are doing? I know you said, so are there any other kind of videos that you guys are producing for lawyers?

Michael Schwarz (12:32.941)
things too that y’all are doing. know you said, so are there any other kind of videos that you guys are producing for borders? So it’s interesting you asked that because when we started filming them and putting them together, one of the biggest notes we had still was that even though our prices were significantly lower than the 15 to 20,000, it was still like, hey, I’d love to use this on every case, but.

It’s again, you know, it’s still a little bit costly. So I was like, how can we come up with a product where maybe no in-person filming is required? So another video or another video product that we offer is actually called the demand impact video. And it’s basically a little brother to the trial trailer. And it’s essentially all the same editing graphics, everything you love about the trial trailer, but we do over the internet based filming.

Excuse me like zoom interviews is probably what but we use a different type of program the the help with production value But it’s essentially Zoom interviews which cuts down on the cost significantly and they they these types of videos are more reserved for like 300 thousand dollar cases a hundred thousand dollar cases when you’re just trying to tell the story and you don’t want a big like a well, not a big production crew to start with but you don’t want to

Elizabeth Larrick (13:34.685)
Mm-hmm.

Michael Schwarz (13:56.183)
pay for the travel and everything involved, and you just want your clients to tell their story, we can actually help kind of put the story together through online video interviews and then edit it to be the same thing that you love about the trial trailer at a much lower cost.

Elizabeth Larrick (14:13.362)
How long are those videos?

Michael Schwarz (14:15.285)
And they’re about the same. I would say they’re generally shorter. cause we, with the trial trailer, you get five interviews and then with the demand impact video, you get two interviews, but, then, you can add on any amount of interviews. It’s just a little extra cost, but I’ve developed this product specifically listening to lawyers who want to use videos more frequently in their cases, but they don’t have, the, the resources or funds to be able to spend.

You know, I think we’re charging 6,300 right now for our trial trailers as of today. And these are 2750, $2,750 for those. And we have found that there’s a lot more interest in that now for lower value cases that still need a story to be told.

Elizabeth Larrick (15:03.442)
Sure.

Elizabeth Larrick (15:08.54)
Sure, absolutely. I think that when you, so thinking in people’s minds about making a 12 minute video or even a six minute video, mean, the, the power of your editing is, overwhelming. And I say that just because I, you know, used to think, I could do my own video editing. then hours and hours go by and you just, you know, it really takes a long time. So there is definitely a craft to it. There is a professionalism that goes into

Michael Schwarz (15:42.996)
Yeah, and you know on that like one of my favorite parts it’s like it’s literally it comes down to the tiniest of things like if you have two interviews right and someone is saying something and they’re like, you know, my father he can’t walk the same and he’s you know, he’s hurt because of x y and z and you have somebody else kind of adding on to that. I’ve seen cases or I’ve seen previous video work done where they would just butt those two interviews up right next to each other.

And it, can almost hear the edit where you can almost like, you know, but like just the small amount, just putting a little bit of space in between interviews and, and, know, really thinking about the pacing too, and making sure that it’s not like, jarring. those are like my favorite details, sound effects, a little bit of music. You don’t want too much music. You just want a little bit of music just to help because, we’re rhythmic, creatures.

We like rhythm and music is not, I’ve often heard that music can be, it’s like, you’re trying to make them feel something. It’s not exactly true. Music can do that if you use it wrong. What I like to use music for is to help just kind of keep the pacing going. But more importantly, when we change subjects, when we go from one, like we go from maybe liability.

Elizabeth Larrick (16:51.112)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Michael Schwarz (17:10.285)
to damages or we go from damages to future concerns. Like when you go from those different sections, you have a music change. There’s like a change in energy and that way it’s like, we’re going on, you know, we’re keeping that momentum going. And so little things like that can make large amounts of difference and those are my favorite parts. Sure, and I mean, also when you think of how our brain works, when you are queuing in more than one sense, like more parts of our brains like.

Elizabeth Larrick (17:29.606)
Sure, and I mean, also when you think of how our brain works, when you are queuing in more than one sense, like more parts of our brains light up and the more likely we’re going to be engaged. And like we said, keeping people’s attentions these days is like kind of the key part. We could be telling a super compelling story, but if I’m just talking at you.

Michael Schwarz (17:39.11)
and the more likely we’re going to be engaged. like you said, keeping people’s attention is the part. We could be telling a super compelling story, but if I’m just talking at you, you’re going to be gone pretty quickly. if the story cues into my visuals and what I’m hearing, and then some music, which is like, it kind of plays on keeping people engaged and then also, you know.

Elizabeth Larrick (17:52.05)
Like you’re gonna be gone pretty quickly, but with the story cues into my visuals and what I’m hearing and then some music, which is like, it kind of plays on keeping people engaged and then also, you

Michael Schwarz (18:05.235)
It does happen to other parts of our brain that really help with persuasion, even though people say, you’re trying to make me sympathetic. Well, sure, there are definitely times where, you know, we’ve seen commercials that 100 percent, you know, you know, donate for the animals that Sarah would love. We all know. It’s like, it’s playing on me. Yeah.

Elizabeth Larrick (18:05.288)
it does tap into other parts of our brain that really help with persuasion. Even though people say, oh, you’re trying to make me sympathetic. Well, sure. There are definitely times where, you we’ve seen commercials that 100%, you know, that, you know, donate for the animals that Sarah McLaughlin song, we all know that she’s like, ah, that’s playing on my sympathies. But you guys are a little more subtle than that. would say.

Michael Schwarz (18:29.193)
Yeah, we like our interviews and the client story to speak for themselves. The music’s just there to help guide it, help, you know, we’re taking the viewer’s hand and walking them through their life story. And exactly, it’s just like, we actually had one of our videos called By The Defense, we actually also, you were asking me about other products we do, we also do,

Like animations sometimes, like not big animations of like recreation. Like we don’t do that. We will happily refer you somewhere else. But like little graphics. think there was, they wanted to show how the water levels would like impeach on this person’s property. Well anyways, we put this beautiful animation together, little graphic animation. It was called a cartoon by the other side. like, oh my, it’s a visual representation of what, you know.

Elizabeth Larrick (19:20.401)
I’m

Michael Schwarz (19:24.333)
And it was, it wasn’t ins- I was not insulted by it because like obviously they’re just grasping at straws. To me, an insult like that means I did a good job. That’s right. They need to label it something, right? Yeah. And if they’re- that means they’re grasping at straws and trying to say anything they can to keep that out. It’s like… Alright. Cartoon it is. Anyways.

Elizabeth Larrick (19:34.342)
That’s right. That’s right. Because they need to label it something, right? So that, yes.

Elizabeth Larrick (19:49.192)
Awesome. tell me a little bit about, let’s walk through a little bit of like, what are this, you’ve got these videos, like what are some of the problems that you’re trying to solve for lawyers with these videos? you know, I think almost all of these may solve some of the same problems, but you know, kind of walk me through that.

Michael Schwarz (19:55.319)
video.

Michael Schwarz (20:02.157)
I would say 99 90 % of the time what our videos are for are damages Because day in the life videos they can show the day-to-day struggles And those are great and those could be very powerful especially if someone’s an amputee or like they you can see the scars and you can clear just them walking around you can see

how their life has been affected. But sometimes a day in the life video is not good for invisible injuries. Like let’s say, like we’ve had a couple of cases where… Brain injuries. Oh yeah, sorry, I thought you were saying like my, no. Oh no, brain injuries, yeah. Brain injuries, yeah, cancer, just things you can’t see in a day in the life video. And so our solution is to…

Elizabeth Larrick (20:44.818)
Brain injuries, yeah, sorry. no, no, no, injuries, yeah.

Michael Schwarz (21:00.813)
interview the clients their friends and family and mix that in with day in the life video and that way whenever lawyers are saying like to the other side like Yeah, our patient or our client with brain injury is going through this this and this hearing it firsthand from those people and bringing up graphics and showing them all together and it all mixes in and by the end of it they’re like, We’re screwed. So our

Our intention and you know, one thing that I keep learning. The other part about this company that I love is that I learned something new every day. And so when talking with my clients and figuring out what their needs are, oftentimes I’ve heard over and over again that defense attorneys often take these cases without really knowing much about it. And so The company hires the defense attorney or they have one on staff. And so they’re kind of coming into this case blind. And so a video.

right off the bat can be something like, my gosh, okay. And then they can go back to their client or their client and say like, hey, this is a really damaging case. I really think you ought to settle for the X, Y, and Z. But if you’re sending a demand letter, it’s long and it has a few pictures in it. It could take a little bit longer for that process to happen. so I’ve actually heard from multiple of our clients before that

The video was a game changer right from the start. In fact, I just got an email two days ago that they’ve already settled the case and we shot it a month ago and turned in a product two weeks ago and they’ve already resolved it for like 1.25 million. And they got the policy limits, everything, and they said the video was a huge part of that. So I think the problem that we’re trying to solve is how can we convey

Elizabeth Larrick (22:45.308)
That’s amazing.

Michael Schwarz (22:56.673)
to these defense attorneys who come into the case not knowing much and tell our side of story. Theirs, like your side of the story in a concise, quick, powerful way that’s, I don’t want to ever use the word guaranteed, but that is most likely going to be a game changer in some way right from the start.

Elizabeth Larrick (23:21.712)
Awesome. Yeah, and that’s what I going to say is, you know, it seems to me like one, it’s very effective communication because it’s quick, quick and to the point, but also you’ve got the story format, which sometimes I will tell you from a practicing lawyer perspective and also now, you know, as a, as a consultant, it is sometimes really challenging. We hear that told to us over and over again. It’s gotta be a story. It’s gotta be a story. And it’s so challenging sometimes when you sit with a case for a long time.

Michael Schwarz (23:26.231)
Yeah. Yes.

Michael Schwarz (23:37.71)
It is sometimes really challenging. hear that told to us over and over again. It’s got to be a story. It’s got to be a story. And it’s so challenging sometimes when you sit with a case for a long time. And that’s because again, we get these things at inception right when it happens, but it may take some time for things to develop, to file lawsuits, to do a lot of the point to get where they’re like, okay, now is when I need to get Michael in.

Elizabeth Larrick (23:49.948)
And that’s because again, we get these things at inception right when it happens, but it may take some time for things to develop, to file a lawsuit, to do a lot of the point to get where they’re like, okay, now is when I need to get Michael in. And so it can be a struggle sometimes to then put the whole story together in a way that is short, which is why, like you mentioned, sometimes our demand letters are pages and pages. And again, sometimes they have to be, right? When we have adjusters that require all the key

Michael Schwarz (24:03.551)
And so it can be a struggle sometimes to put the whole story together in a way that it’s short, which is why, like you mentioned, sometimes our demand letters are pages and pages. And again, it’s enough they have to be, right? When we have adjusters that require all the key language and the keywords, but then you’re able to basically take that and create this powerful video that anybody who opens that file

Elizabeth Larrick (24:19.902)
language and the keywords, but then you’re able to basically take that and create this powerful video that anybody who opens that file most like what you’re going to do. You’re to go to the video first, right? Like any, we have any surveillance video, that’s show me that first before we do anything else. So, that is a great story as far as helping people get things done quickly that you gave us here about an email you got yesterday.

Michael Schwarz (24:29.517)
Most likely what you’re gonna do. You’re go video first, right? Like any surveillance video. Show me that first before we do anything else. that is a great story as far as helping people get things done quickly that you gave us here about the email you got yesterday. Yeah, and on top of that, I always forget this one. Evidence preservation is an extremely important part because like we have been getting more and more videos lately where we go and film right after the, so like right when

the lawyer takes on the client, they call us, we go and do kind of just day in the life and film the interviews. And that way they have it early on. And that way, even if it takes a, you know, six months or a year to get things done and their client is mostly healed now, but they’re back to work and, they missed three months of work and it was a really terrible time for them at that time. We have all that footage that showed their struggle right then and

It’s so much easier to tell the story when it’s happening as opposed to having them go back a year earlier and say, oh, that was a really tough time for us. And then you see them walking around great and fine, and it’s a little harder to, I’m not saying it’s impossible. It’s just, it’s so much easier. So lately we’ve been getting more and more clients that will hire us as soon as they get the client knowing that we’re gonna have a video done. It might not be six months from now.

but we’re gonna get it filmed now so we have a more powerful story.

Elizabeth Larrick (26:00.402)
Yeah, that’s a great idea too because jurors want to see video. They expect that we have video of the crash or the incident. They expect that there’s going to be video somewhere along the way. So that’s an, as an excellent idea to get you in early to go ahead and just start queuing in and creating a video database so that you can make that story video later on.

Michael Schwarz (26:23.185)
Exactly exactly

Elizabeth Larrick (26:27.504)
Awesome. Well, you gave us a little bit of an example so far, but could you mind just walking through a little bit more of an in-depth example of how a trial trailer helped a lawyer?

Michael Schwarz (26:28.045)
Sure, I’ll actually give the the most public one that I have it was a yeah, so and he would be more than happy to be a reference if you have any questions, so Taylor King law in Arkansas They hired us to do a wrongful death on Somebody in, Arkadelfia. His name was Max and he was killed in a trucking head-on collision. And they had us come in and interview all of his friends all of his family. And we put together I think that one was about 12 minutes just because his life was so Impactful. He worked in prisons helping Helping with faith and and he also like went with his golfing buddies and

He mentored the person that worked for her at his insurance company. His wife ended up having cancer and she was in remission. And so now she’s scared if it’s going to come back. She’s scared she’s going to lose the house. She’s scared she’s going to lose her own business that she started. So there was a lot of, a lot of story to that. And so we, we put this together and I, I don’t want to say I don’t remember, but I believe they sent the demand letter, just filed the case.

I can’t remember if they filed the case or they didn’t file the case. It’s one of the two, but they didn’t have to do depositions. Nothing. It was just our video with the, with a few of their other materials that they sent. but the main thing was the video and they settled for eight figures. and so that one, still like brings brings a tear to my eye every time I think about it, because that family could have been drugged through them, dragged through the mud for.

you know, two, three years, four years, but right off the bat, they were like, no, this is, this is, you are at fault. We barely even had to go into liability. I think the other side was already accepting liability or they were right on the edge. But our video was just like, no, you’re, and we actually heard from the insurance adjuster on that one who said, I see these videos all the time and I’ve never seen anything like this before. Your client story was empowering and so we’re gonna give you this it was obviously wasn’t a defense attorney because they would have never said that but but i don’t know i don’t know also that one day i know there’s some smart ones out there i’m not gonna discount all them i cannot wait for the day that a defense attorney gives us a compliment that would be great oh that’s gonna be that’s gonna be like a big banner that’s gonna pop up every time that you go to the website

Elizabeth Larrick (29:03.4)
It’s possible. Maybe. I know there’s some smart ones out there. I’m not going to discount all of them.

Elizabeth Larrick (29:16.86)
You gotta put that on the website if it does, okay?

Elizabeth Larrick (29:25.072)
Which leads me to ask, just because I know some people may be wondering, do you ever work with defense or defense or insurance companies?

Michael Schwarz (29:26.189)
Sure.

Michael Schwarz (29:32.31)
So that’s a great question. I have worked with a couple of defense attorneys, not on the personal injury side, but more of like, trying to think like drone footage or like we do drone site inspections, things like that. Not really, just more for evidence preservation. We’ve also done surveillance enhancements or like body cam, police body cam enhancements where we’ll take video.

gotten from a security camera or like I said police body cams and we will enhance them to either make them look a little bit better or We’ll take audio files and make dialogue appear more clear or like happen more clearly And so we do a lot of enhancements as well And that’s usually the type of work we do for defense attorneys, but we do that work all the time for plaintiff work as well I don’t really advertise to defense attorneys not because I don’t want to work with them, but just because

Elizabeth Larrick (30:26.312)
Thank

Michael Schwarz (30:31.309)
most of the bread and butter of what we do are obviously for plaintiff. And you have a total heart for the plaintiffs. That one. Yeah, that too. No, no. know that you do, if you go to the website, you do a little bit of real estate stuff. So you do some other type of work. So what I want to ask you about is Abandon Atlas Foundation. Tell us, there’s a little bit of a sidebar, but I it very interesting. So I think it’d be super

Elizabeth Larrick (30:35.596)
And you have a total heart for the Plaintiff’s work as well. No, no, I know that you do, if you go to the website, you do a little bit of real estate stuff. You do some other type of work. So what I want to ask you about is Abandoned Atlas Foundation. Tell us, there’s a little bit of a sidebar, but I found it so interesting, so I think it’d be super fun for people to know about you. Tell us about that.

Michael Schwarz (31:01.718)
Wow, okay, I love so I like to say we have two sides of our business we have the legal production side which is what we’ve been talking about and we have the Abandoned documentary side so we started a nonprofit called abandoned Atlas Foundation Because I loved in high school. I loved to explore old abandoned buildings and historic places that were really run down and creep creepy old hospitals and amusement parks that were grown up with trees. And it was really fun because you had all these historic places just completely abandoned. It used to be, I’m actually getting chills just talking about it because I love it so much. And over time, just like you being in the only space and being in an old hotel that still has beds and chandeliers and Persian rugs in it, and you’re the only one there.

and it hasn’t been stepped foot in for years. It’s just interesting. But after high school, I was like, man, I love abandoned building so much. I wonder how I can make a living off of it. So I figured out that with our documentary filmmaking, we can help shed light on some of these historic properties, starting a YouTube channel, working with developers to tell their story of how they restored an abandoned building. We also write articles.

On these historic places and they can be found at like abandoned ok.com abandoned AR like so we have now 24 states I think and we’re trying to find other photographers around those states to help document these important historic places that have that need a second chance and there are developers Everywhere that are always looking for their next restoration project. And so we’re hoping to create a huge database

of these places that have the full history, pictures of what it looks like and why it needs to be saved. We’ve worked with schools or like universities that have a design, interior design program where they’ll take old abandoned buildings and the students will draw up of how they would restore it if they had the chance looking at it. So there’s so many different things. And we’re even working on a series right now in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the fastest shrinking city in America and and that’s been really interesting it’s gotten 3.7 million views on YouTube and so when we talk about retention rate and how to captivate audiences we do that all the time with these abandoned buildings for a YouTube audience and so you know that’s how we can kind of apply it to both you know so yeah exactly

Elizabeth Larrick (33:45.724)
I love it, I love it. You’re staying in tune with what people want by, know, that is so awesome. So we will definitely leave a link to that as I know that you have a lot of passion for that.

Elizabeth Larrick (34:14.696)
That is so amazing that you have translated your passion to that. And I even know you’ve written a couple of books too as well about it. Oh, that’s right. Abandon Arkansas, Abandon Oklahoma. mean, you have a passion for this. What I love is just the historical aspect of these places that have just, you know, that are a piece of our history, but they just go by the wayside because they’ve been replaced.

Michael Schwarz (34:20.192)
yeah, you mean these? So we have a co- That’s right! Yeah.

Yep.

Michael Schwarz (34:34.093)
but the there was one particular building. It was called the Majestic Hotel in Hot Springs and we tried to save it. We were we were on a mission. I made it actually a feature link documentary about it.

Michael Schwarz (35:04.045)
In the city was trying to demolish it and we tried to save it. We ended up losing the battle, but I think it the The loss of that actually ended up saving other buildings in that town And so we’re trying to save some other buildings But anyways, the majestic was my favorite place because it was literally like you walked back in the 20s And everything was still there

Like the spas the the check-in desk that literally everything you would want in a historic hotel was still there in Almost like a museum you had to yourself and so I thought that could have been restored, but unfortunately the city had other ideas

Elizabeth Larrick (35:40.38)
That’s so cool.

Well, that’s okay. You preserved it for us so that we can go if you’re interested in, we will put a link in the show notes for that as well. So if we have some lawyers who are interested in just learning a little bit more about what you do as far as filmmaking and that kind of stuff, what’s the best place someone can go to learn about you?

Michael Schwarz (35:58.573)
best place someone can go to learn about you. That’s great. So if you just go to trialtrailer.com, it’ll take you to our website where you can learn it. There’s like three little categories down there. It’ll say legal impact videos, which is where our trial trailers demand impact videos would be. We have a couple of public samples that you can watch on that page. And then if you want to learn more about our historic

buildings are just interested in that. There’s a tab for that. And then you have the other category. We do so much that we just labeled everything else in other. So that would be realistic. Yeah, exactly. The two main things are the historic and the legal. Those are our two biggest things. So it’s good to have a passion. I appreciate that tie in to helping you with YouTube. So do you have a

Elizabeth Larrick (36:36.85)
then that’s okay, we’re talking to trial lawyers. we, you know, I totally, yeah. So if…

Elizabeth Larrick (36:45.991)
It’s good to have a passion and I appreciate that tie-in to to helping you with YouTube. So do you have a YouTube channel for the Prairie Creative Nation or Nation Creative Prairie? Let me just start over. Let me just start.

Michael Schwarz (36:55.213)
It’s okay it’s Yeah, so there’s one for Prairie Nation creative And I think it’s just at Prairie Nation creative. You could also just google Prairie Nation creative our thing will come up there There’s not like a YouTube channel in the standard sense where we are we’re like, hey guys, welcome back to our YouTube they’re usually filled with samples and just

Elizabeth Larrick (37:04.136)
Do you have a YouTube channel that we could look at too?

Michael Schwarz (37:23.502)
random stuff we might be doing for trial lawyers associations and things like that. It’s, it’s kind of, it’s not a YouTube channel that’s meant to be a YouTube channel. It’s more of just a demo reel for some things that you can go see. It’s, it’s full of just a bunch of random stuff, but shows what we can do. Wonderful videos that align with projects that maybe- Yeah, it’s full of, exactly. I, you are so much better. I’m just like, yeah, it’s just a YouTube channel for our stuff and-

Elizabeth Larrick (37:40.804)
wonderful videos that align with projects that may be random to a lawyer, but not random for you. Yeah, you’re good. we went. That’s right. That’s exactly right. No, Michael, you’ve been so lovely to have on as a guest. Is there anything I didn’t ask you that you think would be helpful for lawyers to know?

Michael Schwarz (37:52.587)
You’re like, you’re my personal chat GBT, know, like, no, you mean, what?

Yeah

Michael Schwarz (38:05.569)
Hmm. That’s a great question. you know, I think one of the one of the biggest reasons I do this too is because our team, get to work on one on one with your clients. and I think the, obviously this is not the only reason, but it’s interesting to be able to walk away from a shoot.

and interacting with clients and hearing them say, wow, that really felt like therapy. I’ve never actually said, like, sometimes I walk away and they’re like, I never thought I would ever say anything like that. cause I don’t show up like our team, don’t like show up with like a list of questions and we just kind of go down. Like we have kind of a pre-cong, it’s just engaging. It’s just like a conversation and we get to know them. We get to hear what their struggles are. And I don’t know. It’s just,

That’s what kind of motivates me to do what we do and then to see the final product really make a difference in someone’s life. I mean, why else do this job?

Elizabeth Larrick (39:11.336)
That is an amazing note to end on. Okay, so we’re gonna have all the contact for Michael and his company in the show notes along with a couple other links if you’re interested about the Abandoned Atlas Foundation. Until next time, thank you so much and again, thank you so much Michael for joining us.

Michael Schwarz (39:11.693)
That is an amazing note to end on.

Elizabeth Larrick:

The company in the show notes along with a couple other links if you’re interested about the Abandoned Atlas Foundation. Until next time, thank you so much and again thank you so much Michael for joining us.

Michael Schwarz: And thank you! You did a wonderful job. I’ve been watching your podcast and it’s been really great so I really appreciate you having me on as a guest. You do incredible work too so don’t discount that. Use her for your focus groups.

Elizabeth Larrick (39:41.916)
That’s right.

The 8 Second Rule That’s Costing You Verdicts [Ep 144]

In this episode, Elizabeth tackles the challenge of capturing and maintaining attention in legal settings, emphasizing the importance of the critical eight-second window to engage audiences like judges, mediators, opposing counsel, and juries. Discover methods to simplify complex legal jargon and prevent cognitive overload, ensuring clarity in your arguments.

Elizabeth dives into crafting compelling trial strategies, focusing on the power of visual comparisons and thematic development in opening statements to effectively counter defense narratives. Whether it’s contrasting visuals or structuring arguments to reinforce your points, these techniques will elevate your trial preparations.

In this episode, you will hear:

  • Mastering attention in legal settings using the critical 8 second rule
  • Simplifying complex legal jargon to avoid cognitive overload
  • Utilizing visual comparisons and thematic development in trial strategies
  • Integrating visuals with verbal communication for enhanced audience engagement

Follow and Review:

We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

Supporting Resources:

Do you have an upcoming trial and want help writing your opening statement? Book a free call with Elizabeth to see how she can help.

Join the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter

Subscribe to get my monthly email newsletter full of tips, resources and helpful insight on trial strategy, focus groups, witness prep, and more!

    We won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

    Episode Transcript

    Welcome to the podcast Trial Lawyer Prep. I’m your host, Elizabeth Larrick, trial lawyer turned consultant here to help lawyers clearly communicate their cases in order to win.

    In today’s episode, we will directly speak to how we can hold people’s attention and not lose it. We have eight seconds to grab people’s attention. We already know as lawyers that attention spans are getting smaller and smaller. It really doesn’t matter who your audience is. It could be a judge, a mediator, opposing counsel, or a jury. Either way, we have eight seconds. If we lose that eight seconds, it is costing you verdicts, winning, possibly even settling cases quicker.

    This episode, we want to talk about how we can work through that eight seconds to grab attention, but also to avoid cognitive overload, giving people too much at one time. I want to express all the things that we have found in doing focus group research, going to trials, and getting feedback to understand what worked. And of course, we know when it doesn’t.

    So let’s talk about our eight seconds. There’s so much research that goes into our attention spans. Tons of marketing companies pour millions of dollars into figuring out what is the attention span. And right now, most current research I would say is eight seconds. What we really want to know is how to get that eight seconds down and keep their attention. We’ve seen this before. If you’ve watched any of the CLEs that talk about opening statements, if you’ve read any of the fabulous books that are out there about setting up and structuring opening statements, you will know that the instruction, the request is to start with a hook. Start with a simple attention-grabbing sentence. This case is about boom, boom, boom, starting with a statistic because we want to grab that attention, right? Get those brains going.

    The other thing that we want to make sure that we do is then be able to keep that attention without overloading or overwhelming our brains. What happens is we unknowingly provide a bulk of information that overwhelms our brains and they end up being turned off. When you’re speaking, you’re giving folks a good rundown of the case, maybe you’re rundown the evidence, maybe the standard that applies. When you do that, if a juror or anyone in your audience hears a word that they don’t understand or maybe a phrase, or maybe it’s just how you’ve actually phrased the sentence, their whole brain will stop processing anything else and direct all the energy into figuring out that one word, that one phrase, or trying to restructure the sentence to figure out what you’re saying. Meanwhile, you’re still talking and delivering information and they’re not receiving any of what happens then? Well, maybe they keep trying to listen. Maybe they go to something else and think about other things. Maybe they think about what they’re going to have for lunch. Either way, they’re not listening to you. Either fill in the gap with what they think you said, taking a guess, or they just sit back and just resolve that they’re just not gonna understand. It makes no difference to them. And they’re just not gonna pay attention. I don’t want that for you. I want you to be able to grab people’s attention. I want you to work through cognitive overload.

    And so we’ve got three plus a bonus that we’re gonna talk about here today that you can work through and these are simple things, there are three very simple things we can do with any presentation you’re about to give. So think about opening statement, think about mediation, think about an upcoming hearing that you have. All three of these things can be applied to any presentation you’re about to give so that you don’t lose someone’s attention or you don’t sit in their brain on a scavenger hunt trying to figure out a word or a phrase that you use. And again, these are time-tested results, done focus groups on these topics, read books on these topics, and again, taking these things to trial to test it out.

    Number one is linguistics or language. We are really known for using some large legal terms, medical terms that really can stump jurors. I see this very often in focus groups and the easy thing to do is just pair. I know that we have to use certain languages in certain cases. We have to do it. The law requires us. I understand that. I’m not trying to fight against that, but what I want you to do is pair it. And you heard me already do that. When I said linguistic, I paired it with language. So I want to give you a couple other examples that have gone through focus groups. And we have heard directly, right, that these are things that need to be paired. So medical malpractice cases are great examples of this. And we once had a medical malpractice unfortunately the person developed some eschar. Well, that’s dead tissue. Now the lawyer used this word no less than 10 times.

    And that was the first question we got when I asked for what do you think? What is your impression from this information? They were like, I don’t know what that word is. Even though, right, he may have explained it, because he kept using it, the brain kept getting stumped again and again and again. And so all we did was very simply reduce the amount of times you use the word, but also we just paired it together. We gave it a little sidecar, right? Like, eschar, dead tissue. It just goes right along together, so they pair together. Another example here recently was uncontrolled intersection. Now that stumped me because I don’t know really what that means.

    So we paired it together with an intersection without any signal or sign with how to direct traffic. Now that’s a long pairing, it was a key element in the facts of the case. So I didn’t want to lose the people in the focus group early. And then I paired it with a I said uncontrolled intersection showed a picture and then I paired it. An intersection without signs or signals that direct traffic. Boom, simple, right? Super simple. Again, these are simple tips, but we tend to overlook them. So number one, think language when you’re walking through your presentation. How can I pair my language or change the language, remove it altogether to make it very simple?

    Number two is structure. Number one, let’s just have it. A lot of times we put together arguments, we put together presentations, and we don’t really think through the structure. So this is where we’ve talked about rules of three. We’re going to say it again, rules of three, working memory in our brain can hold three to five things. So if we already say, I’m going to walk through three can handle three. That’s easy. But when you can structure it and a lot of times people say, well, but what if this particular case m is going to have six different questions in the verdict form. Or what if the law has five elements? Okay, so we’re getting into the nitty-gritty here. When we wanna structure things in a three, we wanna go to that 30,000 foot view and try to get broad and then group it together. This will also really help you cut the fluff. Right, so if we’re making our strongest argument, not everything can go in there. it’s either fit in or it’s not. It’s not gonna be important. But not every detail’s important when we give our first presentation, right? Thinking about you’ve written a motion. You’ve given pages of information over to the judge and now you’re going to stand up and give your argument. You don’t need to hit everything in that motion. You need to hit the strongest things. You’d have strong structure and hit the top thing. And the same thing happens with an opening statement, You can’t give them everything in the opening statement. It’s overwhelming. You will lose them. So you want to make sure you structure it down to those three different pieces, right? Rule of threes. and then everything else can be saved for gonna actually give it more emphasis by targeting it later in cross exam or direct exam, okay?

    Alright, next one is cognitive space. So this just means that when we look at our sentence structure, we make it simple. We don’t have long, dense sentences with lots of information. We take those apart and we give simple sentences that are very short and sweet and to the point. Alright, so if you’re gonna talk about a car crash. m on July 6th, it was a stormy, rainy night when the car was going eastbound on 35 with slick rain on bald tires. That’s kind of a lot. You really wanna break that down. There are lots of pieces in there that are helpful to the story, so just take it back, And realize what’s really important here. Is July 6th important to what the jury needs to hear? Not likely. So what is it? It’s the weather, it’s the bald tires, maybe it’s you’re on a highway. How many lanes are on that you’re just gonna break that down and when you do that, you’re giving space for the brain to process. Instead of trying to cram six things in a one sentence, we’re spacing it out. also make it easier on your audience who is listening.

    Alright. Last bonus point I will say, and we will do an entire episode on this because I know how important it is to have a visual presentation that matches what you’re saying. So I talked a little bit about this. earlier we talked about showing a picture of an uncontrolled intersection while pairing it with what it we in order to grab attention and keep attention, we want to use visuals that convey our message but not duplicate our message. So many times when we’re using PowerPoint, we’ll just put the words on the screen and then we’ll read them. This actually compounds the difficulty of working memory. Makes it difficult. So what you wanna do is you wanna be able to pair your message, right, visually with what you’re saying. You don’t want it to be a duplication. And when you do that, people will pay more attention. Just typically, people identify as visual learners, even though learning styles have been debunked, that’s okay. If we wanna speak to how each person learns in your audience. I mean, if you have a jury, you have probably many different styles or many different ways that people want to learn. So you’re gonna hit both of them. You’re gonna have the visual, you’re gonna have the verbal, and that’s gonna key in on keeping our eight seconds, keeping things moving. keeping people’s attention, but also allowing some space. Because as you put together your presentation, you’re gonna wanna follow the same rules. If you put a word on the screen, maybe you’re gonna verbally pair it with a simpler term. You’re gonna use simple structure on your PowerPoint slides, right? Not dense wording. And then of course, you also wanna make sure when you structure it, It follows with what you’re saying.

    Wanna talk a little bit about an example here recently, and we just had. So I worked with a lawyer, we’d done three short virtual focus groups on the same case over a period of a year as they got ready to prepare for trial, to prepare for mediation. tested many different things. We parts of the story, pieces of the defense arguments, and then it was getting ready for trial. So we came together for what I would call a strategy session. We each did our own homework, looking at the past focus groups. We wanted to look at what is working, what is not working, and how do we need to structure this opening statement.

    So thinking through our eight seconds, we want to know what had to go first, right? Primacy. would be the hook that we would need to do? And then we also looked at what was working for the defense. and what was being tapped into. And again, we’re obviously running these focus groups and playing the defense. The point of view that was being tapped into was significantly defense. And so they were tapping into the point of view of the juror as a homeowner. And this particular case involves an knew, oh okay, we need to get ahead of this. This may need to be the thing you do very first, the primacy. We have to set this out straight for them and in a very simple way.

    And so that was what we worked on. The rules that a business must follow to keep their place safe and how it’s different than a homeowner. we needed to think about how to educate them very simply, but then also even pair that with questions and jury selection. in that hour that we spent together, we really just worked on what would be first had to grab their attention, but also set things straight in a very simple language, very simple structure, And then ultimately had to make it very have this eight seconds. And through that visual comparison. Even if our slide had a business building versus a home, that would still be able to bring up different things in their mind on top of what the lawyer would have been saying an opening statement. So we were able to get a lot of work done on our themes, on our structure, and how to get out in front of oh the point of view that the defense was using to win the case.

    Alright, I hope that this episode was helpful to you. If you are preparing for trial and you want to review your opening statement, maybe look at injecting case themes, I can help with that. There’ll be a link in the show a free consultation call if you’re interested. Alright, thank you so much for tuning in to this episode and until next time, thank you.

    Rewiring Witness Prep: 3 Brain Science Strategies Every Trial Lawyer Needs [Ep 143]

    Elizabeth explores the application of brain science in witness preparation, offering trial lawyers strategies to enhance deposition prep. This episode focuses on leveraging the limbic system and amygdala to reduce stress and improve memory retention, moving away from fear-based tactics. Elizabeth discusses the importance of engaging clients by addressing their concerns and shares methods to counteract the forgetting curve through repetition and structured sessions.

    Elevate your practice with these insights for building a strong foundation in witness preparation. Elizabeth highlights the significance of understanding and applying brain science to transform the way trial lawyers approach witness prep. By addressing the emotional and cognitive needs of clients, lawyers can create a more supportive and effective preparation process. The episode emphasizes the benefits of using technology and structured repetition to ensure that clients are well-prepared, confident, and able to retain crucial information.

    In this episode, you will hear:

    • Transforming witness preparation using brain science techniques
    • Avoiding fear-based tactics to enhance client memory retention
    • Importance of repetition to combat the forgetting curve
    • Empowering clients with confidence and clarity through tailored strategies

    Supporting Resources:

    Learn more about the Forgetting Curve

    Need to earn CLE credit and learn more about witness preparation? Check out my in-depth presentation: Witness Prep That Works through ALI CLE.

    Set up a free call to talk to Elizabeth about her witness prep services: www.calendly.com/elizabethlarrick

    Join the
    Trial Lawyer Prep
    Newsletter

    Every month I send out an email newsletter that provides valuable insights on:

    – case preparation

    – trial strategy

    – focus groups

    – witness preparation, and

    – episodes of my podcast

    Additionally the TLP Newsletter is where I announce the opening of my Foundations Virtual Focus Group Class, and other upcoming opportunities.

      How did you hear about me?
      I am a(n):
      We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

      Episode Transcript:

      Looking for ways to improve your witness prep for your clients? Maybe you have a challenging client who you need to find a different way to communicate with them. Well, this episode is for you. Hello and welcome to Trial Lawyer Prep. I’m your host, Elizabeth Lerick, and we are here to talk all things preparation for trial lawyers. Today’s episode is going to focus in on witness preparation for your client.

      And I want to talk about how we can use brain science to better improve our witness prep. Now I gave a full CLE credit presentation on this particular topic with ALI. And you can actually still watch that on demand at their website, which I’ll include in the show notes. But today I want to give you an abbreviated version and just three simple ways we can improve your witness prep.

      work with our brain instead of against it. I know that witness prep can be a little bit of a daunting task and sometimes we put it off. Sometimes we even delegate it to somebody else. But I want to make us smarter and that is why using brain science we can use the natural pathways that we already have in our brains, meaning making memories, all right.

      Elizabeth Larrick (02:10.138)
      to make it easier for our clients to retain the preparation that we are helping them with, learning about depositions. And again, this will make it easier for your client as well. So let’s just talk a little bit about witness prep generally. We are as lawyers hoping that we make some memories for our client when it comes to learning about depositions, how to answer questions, and how to process putting together a response.

      Now working memory is really holding three to five things. And our brains don’t actually commit our short-term memory into long-term until nighttime. So when we sit down with our clients and give them a list of instructions, walk through the rules, start talking about content, we are really overwhelming our short-term memory. And so a lot of things are not gonna get committed to long-term. So…

      Let’s talk about ways that we can work with our brains and working with memory is one of those things. But my first tip I want to talk about is working with the brain and the limbic system and with the amygdala. Now limbic system, amygdala, you’re thinking, what is she talking about? This is kind of our fight or flight sense. And the natural inclination for many lawyers is to have

      a fear as a motivator for our witness prep. So maybe we’re starting out initially with cross-examining our client or asking very powerful defense oriented questions. Maybe we’re talking about if you say this, you’re going to lose your case, right? All of these things are going to trigger the amygdala. It’s going to start sending out stress hormones. And when you do that, it literally

      blocks access to rational thought. Okay. So think about that time, prepared a client, they go into that deposition and all of a sudden they get a surprise question and it’s, don’t remember, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know, on repeat. And you’re thinking, what is going on? They’re in stress mode. Okay. And we don’t want you to trigger that when you’re preparing somebody because again, we don’t make memories when we’re super stressed out.

      Elizabeth Larrick (04:31.268)
      And even if we do, sometimes it’s just a fear associated memory, right? Which is not really what you want to be associated with when it comes to your client. So number one, we wanna stop using fear first. Now, there is a time and a place for role play, cross examination of your client and preparation, 100%. But when we use that tool is most important. We do not wanna start off by using that tool.

      You wanna save that for later, right? Towards the end of preparation, not the end of that meeting, but the end of preparation. And we’re gonna talk about why we might be having more than one session with our clients. But number one is we’ve got to stop trying to use fear to motivate our clients, fear as a way to get them inspired to prepare. Typically what happens in our brain, we’re just swirling, we’re spinning.

      or nothing’s really being retained. Again, no access to rational thought. We’re not really making any new memories around these things. And so where do you start? My suggestion is that you start your very first prep meeting asking the client what their concern is about the deposition, right? Now we’re hitting on a couple of different things with our brain.

      Number one, we’re asking a question. When our brains get a question, we want to answer it, right? It’s like, boom, we’re engaged. And that’s what we want. We want engagement. We want to make sure that brain is working. And as a lawyer, it’s very helpful to know what is on that blackboard. What is it that they are thinking instead of launching into a list of instructions or a list of rules?

      Right, we really need to know what’s going on in that brain before we put things into it. Now, a lot of times clients will resist this. Well, I have so many questions. I just need to know what to say. Or I need to know what the questions are. I’ve never done this, so I have no idea what my concerns are. Okay, it’s a little pushback, right? Just keep moving in, just keep asking them again. Okay, that is my suggestion of where you start. What you will hear are many things that you can use in preparation.

      Elizabeth Larrick (06:49.093)
      What you will also know is the priority with which they are telling you information. Okay. So you are going to learn so much about what is on their brain, on their minds, what is their concern and the priority of that. Okay. Now that moves into number two, using proper language. So typically people are coming into deposition, never done this before. No context whatsoever in their brains.

      So when we feed things like instructions, rules of a deposition, it sounds kind of negative. Also, there’s no real explanation in their brains. It kind of comes in and it doesn’t stick to anything. So number two tip is to use roles, use expectations, and use roadmaps. We always want to be giving an overall context to

      what a deposition is and the preparation, right? Preparing them for deposition because we wanna give them the why. Why is the deposition so important? And that’s where kind of the roadmap comes in of where it fits into the case. You can draw a little roadmap. I totally suggest you do that. Now let me go ahead and stop and give credit for roadmaps to Mark Lanier and his amazing constant frequent use of roadmaps in trial. Now I’m applying it in depo prep. And once you’re able to do that, you can…

      let the client know what is their job and what is expected of them. What is the job that you will have in the deposition? What is the job of the opposing counsel? Now, when we frame things as expectations, as roles and jobs, we have a little bit better chance at empowering our clients to step into those roles and expectations versus running up against the roles. This particular kind of language really helps

      clients who are fearful. These are clients who not going to say a whole lot. They got a real tight lip. They’re real worried. And their thought is like, but the less I say, the easier this will go, which we know that it’s not true. However, if you lean into that job of being able to speak your story, carry the case forward, here is your place. Here’s the expectation that they will have. It significantly helps them be able to relax and lean into that place.

      Elizabeth Larrick (09:09.009)
      Now this also significantly helps with our clients who may get a little defensive, meaning why are you asking me that? I don’t have to answer that question. You don’t need to know that they get a little defensive and it can happen all different kinds of folks. But again, coming back to thoroughly explaining everyone’s job, the expectation of each person and how that overall plays into the case significantly helps reduce that defensiveness.

      just telling somebody that lawyer is just doing their job without explaining what that hall entails can sometimes completely nonstick. And that’s why when we are preparing our clients, again, we really want things to be sticky. We want them to be able to take in the information and organize it, retain it, and keep it so when they apply it, it’s making a lot more sense. Because if we get into the deposition,

      and you have a, run into a problem, you really have to figure out in that you can’t just take somebody out in the hallway and say, stop doing that. Typically you’re going to, they’re going to keep doing that because they can’t figure out a different way around it. Well, again, we want to start off on a good solid base of what the expectation is, what their job is and overall how that fits in the roadmap of the case and inside the deposition. You can take all those instructions, take all those rules.

      and move them into categories of expectations and jobs makes it much less scary. Remember we don’t want to keep, we don’t want to hit that limbic amygdala fight or flight since we want to empower. Now number three, and that is repetition. So you may have heard about this, maybe not, but it’s called the forgetting curve and it’s been around since like the 18th century. I’ll link to it in the show notes if you don’t believe me.

      But basically it says, well, as humans, our little brains forget about 80 % of things after a day. Now, maybe it’s not that bad, but after seven days, I mean, it’s less than 10 % here. How have we figured out how to work with our brains if we forget everything? So first of all, let’s take this into context. If you’re just doing one meeting to prepare your client and let’s say the depot is the next day, they’re not going to remember even probably 60 % of that.

      Elizabeth Larrick (11:39.313)
      Well, what if there’s two days in between? boy, we’re getting worse. Use this rule, the forgetting curve, as a way to plan your preparation. Except our brains need repetition. It’s called the spaced effect, where basically researchers figured out how much repetition we need in order to retain information. It’s gotta be repeated at a spaced interval. Now for our use as trial lawyers, that means

      We need to be thinking about two to three meetings. These do not have to be long, extensive meetings, but you will find as you kind of work with people and do a two to three meeting approach, okay, this meeting will be a little bit longer. Typically it’s the second meeting. Our first meeting, we’re kind of covering the expectations. We’re setting up the playing field and our second meeting we’re getting on the playing field.

      We’re going through questions. We’re organizing what is in their brain and helping them translate what is in my brain to the questions I’ll be asked. And then that last meeting where we are fine tuning, we’re practicing, there’s our role play. There’s that cross exam in there. Okay. And again, what you can do at the beginning of each of these meetings is just go back and ask simple questions. Hey, at our first meeting, you told me this was your concern. How is that for you now? Let’s not forget.

      And again, every meeting you’re just recoding over the most important things. Typically, if you can have them understand their role, their expectation in their job, and you repeat that, that’s going to get them out of 99 % of problems that occur in a deposition, right? Because they have a good solid foundation, but what they’re supposed to do, where is their lane?

      Where is it not? They’re going to feel comfortable. Preparation is just what’s working with already what’s in there, not forcing right our own thought into our own words into their mouths. Okay. That’s called, that’s like unethical. Okay. We don’t want to do that, but want to work that brain. I also want to remind people, I get a lot of hesitation occasionally and people are like, Oh my gosh, three meetings. Again, we could have an hour long meeting. We can have an hour and a half meeting, maybe, maybe an hour and a half again.

      Elizabeth Larrick (13:56.133)
      Again, building up, recoding over things, you will find that people will bring more questions to you in that second and third meeting. That is excellent. mean, their brain is working on it and they’re trying to assimilate the information. It’s a good sign for you. Don’t forget about Zoom. You can Zoom with people, especially if you’re doing a virtual deposition. Zooming preparation is extremely important to help them get used to Zoom.

      and the pitfalls and the benefits. Don’t hesitate to use Zoom. Even if you’re gonna get together and it’s an in-person, it’s okay to have the first one on Zoom or do little warmups on Zoom. That’s totally fine. Use technology to make your life easier. All right, let’s do a quick recap. We wanna use the brain for us, not against us. So here are three ways we can help with our witness prep and use the brain for us. Number one is we’re not gonna start with fear.

      Right? We’re going to move that cross examination, that tough role play. We’re going to time that for the end of our preparation. We do not want to start there. OK? Number two, we want to use words that stick. We want to use expectations, jobs, roles. We want to give an overall roadmap for what is happening so our brains know the why and we can move into the what.

      Number three, we want to use repetition. We forget it’s just natural. Okay. So we’re looking at two to three preparation meetings and coding back over the most important concepts we learned again to keep refreshing the brain so that they actually stick in there and be ready to use on the day of deposition. All right. I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you want to hear more, I’ve done a full CLE approved

      presentation on witness prep that works with ALI and the link will be in the show notes. Naturally, if you have a client that is extremely challenging or maybe you’re having a difficult time communicating with them, I help lawyers prepare their clients. You can reach out for a free call. There’ll be a link in the show notes. All right, until next time, thank you so much.

      Avoid This Mistake if You Plan to Use Focus Group Clips in Mediation [Ep 142]

      Explore the potential of focus groups to elevate your mediation success with insights from Elizabeth Larrick. This episode is a must-listen for trial lawyers looking to refine their negotiation strategies. Elizabeth shares the strategic advantages of conducting focus groups two to three months before mediation to influence insurance company figures effectively. She distinguishes between focus groups for trial preparation and those tailored specifically for mediation, offering techniques to maintain confidentiality while utilizing focus group findings to drive better settlements.

      Elizabeth emphasizes the critical importance of early preparation, providing ample time to share insights with the opposing side ahead of mediation. This proactive approach enhances negotiation effectiveness and informs decision-making. 

      In this episode, you will hear:

      • Strategic use of focus groups to enhance mediation success
      • Importance of conducting focus groups 2-3 months prior to mediation
      • Differentiating focus groups for mediation from those for trial preparation
      • Techniques for maintaining confidentiality while sharing focus group insights
      • Leveraging mediators to communicate focus group findings effectively

      Supporting Resources:

      In case you missed it, here is Episode 139 that talks about using focus groups in discovery. Listen here.

      Curious about doing a focus group for your upcoming mediation? Schedule a free call to see how Elizabeth can help.

      Join the
      Trial Lawyer Prep
      Newsletter

      Every month I send out an email newsletter that provides valuable insights on:

      – case preparation

      – trial strategy

      – focus groups

      – witness preparation, and

      – episodes of my podcast

      Additionally the TLP Newsletter is where I announce the opening of my Foundations Virtual Focus Group Class, and other upcoming opportunities.

        How did you hear about me?
        I am a(n):
        We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

        Episode Transcripts:

        Elizabeth Larrick (00:02.592)
        Are you gearing up for that big mediation and ready to take those persuasive focus group clips? Or are you contemplating taking your case to a focus group before mediation? Before you do, tune into this episode to avoid

        a huge mistake that you may not even know is waiting for you. Hello and welcome back to the podcast. I’m your host, Elizabeth Lerick, and we’re here to talk all things PrEP, focus groups, trial strategy, witness PrEP. And in today’s episode, I want to talk about a really common mistake that we may be making when we take focus groups clips into mediation. Now, you may be a lawyer who

        is thinking about doing this and this is a great episode for you or you may have been trying this in the past and maybe can’t understand why the clips were not landing the way that you thought they were. So let’s talk a little bit about the setup here. You’ve worked this case up really hard. You’ve pushed for written discovery, taken those hard depositions, developed the damages, got the stories, got the doctors in line, and now you’ve got mediation set and you’re preparing. Maybe

        you’re in a place where you make presentations or maybe you’re putting together a packet to send over the opposing side and you think, Hey, you know what? We’ve got mediation set. Let’s now do a focus group so we can take some clips in there. Yes, this is an awesome thought. It makes me super excited. However, I want to tell you there’s one big red flag that is sticking out and it’s the timing. I mean, when you’re choosing to do this focus group for the mediation because

        Elizabeth Larrick (02:18.138)
        The insurance industry already has their numbers, their figures set 30 to 45 days out, sometimes even longer than that before your mediation. So anything you bring to mediation, it’s not going to move the needle really at all. So I want you to avoid this pitfall and to be prepared. And let’s talk about the three things that we can be doing to make our focus group clips for mediation.

        kick the can down the road, meaning increase that number that they may be bringing to the table. Where did this come from? Well, I recently attended the Arkansas trial lawyers annual meeting. Shout out was a wonderful CLE. I encourage you to do it. And I sat down to listen to a panel of two lawyers who now work on the plaintiff’s side, but for an extensive period of time and career, they worked on the defense side in the trucking industry.

        So they were there to present several different myths or just plain facts that plaintiff lawyers may not even know about the other side. And one of those things was the number for mediation is set 30 to 45 days out. And to get that number to move, the information needs to be funneled into the file into the other side very early on so that the processing can go all the way up.

        and come back down to the file because there are many different layers and decision makers when it comes to these larger cases. Now, again, let’s really talk about what kind of cases are we talking about? I’m not talking about our policy limit car wreck of 30,000. That’s the limit here in Texas. I don’t know where you may be listening. It may be different. However, we’re talking about our larger cases where we have significant injuries and you want to be running these focus groups and you want to be

        squeezing as much as you can from that feedback. So we don’t only running focus groups in the 30 days before mediation for mediation. Now, let me just clarify that a little bit. There are focus groups that we run to learn about our cases, to find blind spots, just to do general research about themes and attitudes. That’s not what I’m talking about here. Here, focus groups for mediation are done in a very specific way so you can create clips

        Elizabeth Larrick (04:37.894)
        that specifically target either defenses that you know are out there that you’ve heard, or maybe to clarify a piece of damages. Either way, they’re very persuasive. They’re very different than focus groups for trial, or like I mentioned, focus groups for research. Or if you didn’t tune in, focus groups before you even start discovery. The link to that episode will be in the show notes. So.

        There will be a follow-up episode to distinguish between a focus groups for mediation and focus groups for trial. But the main ones are they’re extremely persuasive for the specific purpose of talking directly to the other side and for mediation. So let’s talk about three things that we can be doing to avoid the pitfall of bringing focus group clips to mediation and them falling flat. And number one is our timing. We need to be doing these focus groups

        two to three months out before our mediation date so we can decide, is this a clip that I want to send over? Now, the other part of this is, and a lot of times people have a big pause because you want your focus groups to remain confidential. So how then do you translate them over, send them over to the other side? And that would be step number two, which would be, you gotta prime the pump with the mediator. You’ve gotta get in some conversations with our mediator and figure out,

        Okay, are they going to help you with this? Are they not? And the other thing is you can always be talking to opposing counsel about focus group clips. Now, to protect your confidentiality, this is step number three, we always have to make sure that we’re sending things through the mediator, right? Because here in Texas and in many states, you have the confidentiality, the settlement privilege, if you will, that anything exchanged for the purpose of settlement during mediation or even follow up after mediation.

        right is confidential. want to make sure that stays that way because I know not everything we do in our focus groups needs to be disclosed in mediation. So this takes quite a bit of planning because you want to make sure that you’re getting all the information that you need in order to run the focus group and keeping in mind that date for mediation. So this will take a little bit of planning on your part, but I know that you can do it because we want to take

        Elizabeth Larrick (06:58.159)
        the best shot we can at mediation. And you want to make sure you’re giving the information over to the other side so they can have things adjusted. Remember, we talked about those layers. Decision makers, it’s got to go up and then it got to come back down so that when that day comes for mediation, their right number is available, right? They have to be able to do their analysis. And this may be where you’re thinking, wait a second, hey, I don’t want to

        Give all my secret sauce away, Elizabeth. Again, let’s go back to what we talked about. Focus groups for mediation, very different than focus groups for trial, right? We talked about two main purposes that you would wanna bring clips to mediation. Number one is to knock out a defense that they’re hanging their hat on. Maybe it’s a fact, maybe it’s a specific kind of thing that they’re, hey, this is where we’re winning the case. And sometimes it’s just an attack on your client. And the other thing is maybe there’s something that they don’t understand.

        that you can provide context or have the jury or the focus group members provide context to after it could be a piece of damages. It could be something else that’s quirky about liability. Either way, you’re the purpose is to have these clips speak directly to the other side. Okay, so we’re not giving away our secret sauce, but we are going to knock some of those things out for mediation. Purpose would be to move the money. Okay.

        So we know we gotta start early, get these things ready. And again, you gotta give yourself time to even make the clips themselves or send it out for someone else to make the clips. Always delegation is good. Number two, we gotta use our mediator. We gotta prime the pump, make sure that they’re open to it and there’s a good purpose there, right? Keep the communication open. And number three, make sure you’re always protecting yourself through confidentiality, sending things through to mediator or again, label everything for the purposes of confidentiality.

        All right. I hope that this episode was helpful and also putting a little seed in your mind. If you’re going to use focus groups for mediation, you got to start early, right? You got to get those things created, make them clip down and well in advance of mediation. So you can get that information over to the other side so they can make better decisions before that mediation day. All right. This is a short and sweet one. I hope you enjoyed the episode.

        Elizabeth Larrick (09:20.291)
        If you are curious about doing focus groups for mediation and would like to do them with me, there’ll be a link in the show notes to schedule a free consultation call. All right. Until next time. Thank you so much.

        Hey Lawyers, You Don’t Need a Psych Degree to Run a Focus Group! [Ep 141]

        In this episode of Trial Lawyer Prep, Elizabeth Larrick discusses the importance of focus groups for lawyers and dispels the myth that a psychology degree is necessary to conduct them. She outlines three key steps to running effective focus groups: having a clear goal, making a plan, and doing a test run of the presentation. Larrick emphasizes the need for lawyers to prepare adequately to avoid confusion and ensure they receive valuable feedback. She also addresses the issue of bias and encourages lawyers to seek help if they feel too biased to run a focus group themselves.

        Takeaways:

        • You don’t need a psych degree to run a focus group.
        • Having a clear goal is essential for focus groups.
        • Planning is crucial to avoid confusion during focus groups.
        • A test run can help identify issues in your presentation.
        • Lawyers often talk too much and don’t listen enough.

        Check out my detailed blog about planning and moderating your own virtual focus groups.

        Join the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter

        Subscribe to get my monthly email newsletter full of tips, resources and helpful insight on trial strategy, focus groups, witness prep, and more!

          We won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

          Episode Transcript

          Elizabeth Larrick (00:25.016)
          Are you putting barriers to starting your own focus groups? Maybe you think you need to be qualified or have some kind of certification before you start? Well tune into this episode and we’ll give you the answer so you can get going right away.

          Hello and welcome to Trial Lawyer Prep. I’m your host, Elizabeth Larrick, and we are here to talk all things preparation. That would be trial prep, trial strategy, focus groups, witness prep, persuasion, courtroom tactics. We are glad that you are here. In this episode, I wanna bust down a myth that you don’t need to have a psych degree in order to run your own focus groups.

          Because I want every lawyer to be running their own focus groups to make better decisions in their cases. If we run focus groups, we can have better direction for where we’re taking our claims. We can have a better understanding of how jurors think about things, because guess what? Lawyers don’t think the same way as jurors. And also I want you to have the confidence that people gain from hearing others talk about their case. So.

          I don’t want you to place any extra barriers in your way. And what I have heard many times talking to folks, talking to lawyers about doing focus groups and really specifically, it’s a question people always ask me. Well, do you have a psych degree? I don’t, but I do have training and that’s what we talk about a lot here to be able to do focus groups in a way.

          So I want to use this episode to give you the three things that you can do right now so you can get over that hurdle that you don’t necessarily have a psych degree, you don’t have any special thoughts or training. Listen, the purpose of a focus group is to get an outside perspective. So there are three things you can do before you begin to help you prepare yourself for a positive and successful focus group.

          Elizabeth Larrick (02:32.008)
          So number one, you want to make sure you have a clear goal in mind. Many times lawyers come to me and they’re not really sure the case has several different issues, but we always want to be able to prioritize what is the thing you need to know right now. What is the decision that you’re having to make right now? Maybe it’s about settlement. Maybe it’s about moving towards spending extra money on experts or trial, or maybe it’s about taking more depositions.

          or pursuing a specific kind of claim, either way, you wanna be able to have a goal in mind. I want feedback on this issue. I want feedback on that issue. When we run virtual focus groups, we look at the collective amount of time that we have, and I tell lawyers point blank, you only have time for one issue, or you only have time for two issues. Or if you’re really just looking for general feedback, like that’s fine, but.

          I think it’s much better if we have a goal in mind. Because once we have our goal in mind, that will then set us up to be able to prepare and plan better. Which is number two thing that you need when you’re starting to do focus groups, or if you’re already doing focus groups, having number one, a clear goal, and number two, having a plan. Now, I see too many lawyers come in and just completely wing it. And let me tell ya.

          It is not helpful because what ends up happening is you, the lawyer, talk way more than our participants. You end up bombarding them with tons of information. Sometimes it’s organized, sometimes it’s not, but really you spend most of the time just talking and not listening. And so a plan can really help us understand we have our goal in mind. Let’s take an example. Let’s say it’s liability. Let’s say it’s a red light.

          he said, she said, she said, he said kind of situation. And you really need to figure out who are they gonna believe. Okay, well that’s our one, our goal is to figure out what are we do on liability here with our swearing match? And so we have a plan. Do we approach it neutrally? Do we approach it from one side only? Do we approach it from two sides? Having that plan and knowing, okay, here’s where we’re gonna go. We’re gonna be neutral, Elizabeth, okay.

          Elizabeth Larrick (04:54.654)
          So let’s get all of our facts and let’s put them in a neutral light. Okay, now that may be difficult for you to do and that’s okay, but what we wanna make sure that we’re doing is we have a plan with how much information we’re gonna give, what we’re gonna stay away from, which is super important, because many times people wanna add in that extra fact that maybe it’s not even allowed into evidence. My example in a liability case is people always wanna talk about in a regular.

          car crash case, people not having a driver’s license, which is not admissible in Texas. And it, I’ve seen it happen and it just tanks the whole focus group, okay, which means it makes it unreliable feedback. You always wanna have reliable feedback. And if you have got a clear goal in mind, you’re making a plan, and then finally, before you even get started, you do a test run of your presentation.

          So I want to give a good example here where I had a younger lawyer who’s coming to me. He’s got two hours to go He’s got a pretty complicated electrocution case With a couple of holes in the facts. They’re just not ever able to fill there were no eyewitnesses And so he creates PowerPoint we walk through it together And I give some ideas I tell him hands a little too much information and to go fix a few of these things Well, he comes to the focus group and it was very clear he had not run through the PowerPoint before he turned on the Zoom to join with people because he just rambled and rambled and went on. And unfortunately, it became very confusing for the group. And so it was difficult to get good feedback when people are just confused. It’s kind of a, I’ll just say it, it’s a cop out. Like, I don’t understand, I’m confused. Or the other one is, well, I have so many more questions.

          I wouldn’t be able to answer how I feel or what I think about it because I have so many questions, right? I don’t want that to happen to you, okay? Psych degree or not, that’s just kinda what happens when we get into a place where we’re not really sure. We just end up talking a little more, lawyer or not, it just happens. So, I want you to be able to do a test run before you jump into that focus group because we don’t wanna miss anything.

          Elizabeth Larrick (07:10.562)
          but also we wanna make sure that we fix anything in our presentation that may need to be fixed. There are plenty of times where I put together a PowerPoint, get going, and I do a test run and I realize, whoa, all these animations are off or there is no animation so they can’t see everything. A test run is a great way and it doesn’t take long. You could just go through your slide deck and then you’re done, right? Just print out your materials and read through it. That is what I mean by a test run. It doesn’t have to be difficult. But what you will find is, I could say that

          with a little more clarity. I can see that we need to add a little more information here or look at me, I’m adding in an extra issue that I may be worried about that we didn’t put into our plan. So it’s really helpful also to avoid wasting any time in a focus group. If you have all of your visuals ready, then you don’t waste any time going to find them or making sure that they work. I’ve seen this happen, unfortunately, too many times where people say, well, I have this picture I want to show you.

          but they don’t have it ready. Or they realize, oh wait, I have another one I wanna show you and they have to go find it, right? Well, all that time that they’re just sitting there staring, right? That’s time that we’re not getting feedback. So I really want you to do a test run to avoid wasting time. So we’ve got our three things that you need to make you feel a little better, get over that barrier of starting a focused group. Number one, have a clear goal in mind. Number two, make a plan. And number three, do a test run.

          Okay, now that’s all gonna get you over that hump of getting that thing started and then that feedback is just gonna roll on in. And from there, it’s just making sure that we don’t pull ourselves back into a place of arguing with others. And that’s a real common pitfall I wanna talk about. Many lawyers come to me and they say, oh, I’m fine, I know this case forward and backwards, I don’t really need to plan, it’ll just come out naturally. Well, what ends up happening is again, you bombard them with so many facts.

          and there’s not a lot of clear organization, because your brain’s jumping around to all the different issues that ends up getting so confusing that you don’t really get any good feedback. I also remind people, you would never walk into court without having a clear plan, a clear opening statement, even at a minimum, an outline, because you don’t have an unlimited amount of time.

          Elizabeth Larrick (09:32.782)
          to talk to these jurors so you always have a plan in mind, an organization. So why would you walk in a folks group without a plan? Okay, the other thing that I hear or a common pitfall that I see is assuming people are a natural presenter. Oh, it’s very natural for me. I don’t really need to do a test run. Again, we run into rambling and also a little bit of a hitch in the get up. If there is a problem, then a little bit of panic sets in.

          And again, I don’t want you to worry about wasting the time when you could be getting feedback. So having that test run solves that whole problem. So you may be thinking though, Elizabeth, if we do all of this, what if you realized, you know what, at the end of the day, I am just way too biased. Like I’m gonna end up arguing with somebody or I’m so entrenched that I’m gonna start asking questions like.

          Well, what if you knew about this fact? Or what if hypothetically this thing happened, right? All those questions are you putting your finger on the scale and weighing them down to bias it. So that is an excellent question to be asking yourself, is am I too biased to even do a focus group? Because, again, the purpose is to find the information, not argue with the people. You don’t always wanna win, sometimes you just need to do the research.

          then you can always find somebody else in your office that can run the focus group or you can hire someone. I don’t know if you know this, but this is something that I do. But also I help people, for example, in some of my focus groups, I help people be able to get through that bias and teach themselves how to get information without revealing their bias. Again, this is where it goes back to our whole theme here. You don’t need a psychic degree to run a focus group. You need a plan.

          You need a clear goal and you need to do a test run just to double check yourself and make sure that you’re giving them all the information in the correct way. All right, if you are curious about more information on planning and preparing for a focus group, I’ve written an in-detail blog that I will put a link to in the show notes if you want more information. And of course, naturally, if you need more help,

          Elizabeth Larrick (11:48.14)
          Don’t hesitate to book a call with me about focus groups. I’m always here and generous with my time to make sure that you can get what you need from a focus group. All right, I hope this episode was helpful and until next time, thank you.

          Replay: Guest Joseph Rosenfeld, Image Consultant, on Personal Image for Lawyers [Ep 140]

          Learn more about Joseph Rosenfeld

          Website for Lawyers & Experts

          LinkedIn

          Email: Joseph@Josephrosenfeld.com

          Don’t miss out on in depth webinars join Elizabeth’s monthly Trial Lawyer Prep newsletter!

          Join the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter

          Subscribe to get my monthly email newsletter full of tips, resources and helpful insight on trial strategy, focus groups, witness prep, and more!

            We won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

            Follow and Review:

            We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

            Episode Transcript:

            Hello, Elizabeth here. I wanted to jump in before this episode and do a little mini introduction. So this is going to be a replay of a guest episode with Joseph Rosenfeld. Now Joseph joined the podcast back in episode 90 to talk about image consulting and how trial lawyers can embody their image in a way that will reflect credibility. Now I’ve asked Joseph to come back for a webinar

            coming up on May 29th and the link to register for that webinar will be in the show notes. And what we want to talk about in this webinar is how are you trial lawyer showing up to tell your story in the courtroom? And so Joseph and I will talk about how to align those things from my perspective as a trial consultant and his perspective as an image consultant.

            I hope that you’ll join us on May 29th and that link will be in the show notes. But for now, enjoy this episode with Joseph Rosenfeld, which is one of the most popular episodes on this podcast.

            Welcome to Trial Lawyer Prep. What if you could hang out with trial lawyers and jury consultants, ask them about connecting with clients and juries more effectively, then take strategies, tactics, and insights to increase your success? Each week, Elizabeth Larrick takes an in-depth look at how to regain touch with the everyday world, understand the emotional burden of your clients and juries, and use focus groups in this process.

            Elizabeth is an experienced trial lawyer, consultant, and founder of Leric Law Firm in Austin, Texas. Her goal is to help you connect with juries and clients in order to improve your abilities in the courtroom. Now here’s Elizabeth. Hello and welcome back to the podcast. I’m your host Elizabeth Leric, and today we have a guest with us. I was super excited to have this guest come on. We met on LinkedIn.

            speaker-0 (02:00.75)
            Probably one of my first exchanges on LinkedIn, but I was super intrigued. I watched his content and I said, Joseph, you need to come on. So Joseph Rosenfeld is here to talk to us. He is an image consultant for Litigators. So welcome to the podcast.

            Thank you so much. It’s really wonderful to be with you, Elizabeth, and to share some cool stuff with your listeners.

            when you first reached out, I was intrigued, but I was also, I’m not gonna lie, I was put back because sometimes we get told what to wear and told how to look and it can be so frustrating. And then I listened to you and your video and I was like, this is totally my jam because like you talked about the inside reflecting outside and I was like, this is it.

            I’m excited and I know my audience is going to appreciate this. So stick around here folks, but Joseph, tell us how did you get into this?

            That’s a whole other podcast episode, but in brief, I was 15 years old and discovered the official preppy handbook. So if you’re carbon dating me, that puts me back to being a teenager in the mid 1980s. I suffered a tremendous amount of bullying. Kids used to tell me how ugly I was and I believed it for all my childhood.

            speaker-1 (03:27.902)
            And rather than try to do something dire and irreversible, the official preppy handbook became my odd salvation. From that, I really had an epiphany, which was I may never be hot or sexy or tall or gorgeous or whatever, but I could have style. And if I could show people what my style was, I wouldn’t only look stylish. I would reveal who I truly am from the inside out.

            And it worked. The first thing that I, where I knew it definitely was working and I was onto something was people immediately almost stopped telling me how ugly they thought I was. They were wrong, but they just, kids can be cruel. It’s amazing that you could turn off their cruelty. And the rest from that point of being 15 and all these years later is history. I’ve just been

            Working on my hypothesis ever since and every single client who I work with is another experiment and is another teacher of mine. In many ways, I’m the student and my clients are constantly teaching me who they are. And internally, I’m constantly learning more about myself and who I am to become. And those are the things that come together and make me a sought after expert in my field.

            It sounds like then we could say your passion started early.

            very.

            speaker-0 (05:00.782)
            So when did you really make the turn of, a second, like I can help people with this or was this something people said they just looked at you you were like, I need your help. You’ve got your style down. Help me with mine.

            Back in the day, I quit college and got a job working at Neiman Marcus in Chicago. I was the youngest sales associate that they had put out on the selling floor in 1989. And I was not even quite 20 years old at that time. The store was open for seven years. The types of folks who came into my department, I was stationed in the men’s sportswear department at the time. So I worked with men.

            chiefly at that point. It was remarkable who they were because Chicago is a big law town and I had lots of lawyers and scions of wealthy families and traders from the mercantile exchange, board of options, board of trade, you name it, all kinds of people with money coming in and out and so on and coming into the store. I

            developed a clientele that was very loyal very early on. And it shocked me because I was green. I’m wearing an olive jacket today. I guess I’ve stayed green all my life. There was so much that I didn’t know, but I had taste in the beginning. And then that was innate. But then the knowledge that really took me into making a difference with people came shortly thereafter. And it really came by.

            learning about people and who they told me that they were and who they wanted to be and how they wanted to position themselves, which is a personal branding statement there, positioning themselves. But it was very much also about who they wanted to be for themselves in their life. What kind of person of integrity did they want to be? And I worked with lots of lawyers all through that.

            speaker-1 (07:09.858)
            dozen years of my early career. And that continued on once I hung a shingle and said, okay, I’m an image consultant and I’m working independently. So all told, I’ve been working in this way for over 30 years now. And it’s been an incredible journey and a ride because people have opened up so much to share a lot about who they are and how they want to show up in all different settings and contexts.

            And the lawyers that I’ve worked with have been some of my greatest teachers, honestly, because they could be in so many different places, all kinds of different scenarios. Is it a courtroom trial? Is it an arbitration meeting? Is it a settlement meeting? Is it a client meeting? Is there something going on with colleagues? What’s happening at networking and bar association activities?

            so many different things. And then just being out socially and social networking and just having private time with loved ones and dear friends. And how does all of that kind of showing up in the world impact a person’s image and brand and style? And it just goes on and on. that’s a

            a long explanation, but it just goes to show how deep things can be in terms of the interactions that we have.

            Absolutely. And I’m sure 30 years is a long time, but even just looking at that 30 years, there’s been so many leaps and changes with professions and with style and with social media, just people are seen. Whereas before it was like you said, especially for litigators, it’s we’re showing up to the courthouse and now it’s, have a lot of.

            speaker-0 (08:58.862)
            lawyer, litigator friends who like anytime they go to the courthouse, they’re snapping that selfie or they’re walking out of there. So there’s so many more opportunities to quote unquote be seen now than before.

            Very true. think that’s the thing about the digital age. And it’s a warning as much as it can be a joy. It’s also a warning. How are you showing up? If there are all these other opportunities to put yourself out there, even some in some jurisdictions court appearances are still also taking place on zooms. Not everything is back to being in person. So the context of how you show up and how often

            you may put yourself out there to promote what you’re doing or to showcase not really as a promotional thing, but just to say, hey, I’m doing this today and it feels really good to be out doing this, which I think is a slightly different context than something overtly self-promotional. How you put yourself out there for all those different experiences matters and it matters more than ever. You think it’s ephemeral. if I just put this little ha selfie,

            moment on Instagram, for example, it will go away. But people have a way of remembering these images. They’re maybe more indelible than they are throw away. It’s important to contemplate what kind of lasting impression an impression of the moment may give a person. So just to tell you one thing that I think is so important about this, in my world, people are always talking about the first impression.

            What about the hundredth impression nowadays? The first impression is so far in the way back machine, but we’re able to make so many impressions today that we wouldn’t have made at any other time before more recent times. So the hundredth impression, the 500th impression, I’m not even exaggerating, the 1000th impression matters and perhaps

            speaker-1 (11:01.258)
            More so than ever, the most recent impression matters more than anything previous.

            Unless it’s something super sticky, right? And it could be something that you don’t want to be stuck in someone’s.

            For sure. Because something that happened a couple hundred impressions ago really left some indelible impression that is unshakable. maybe it’s something that your good friends will razz you about. my gosh, when you were showing up like this and your makeup ran or something like that. just, you have to laugh about it. But then you also want to be able to.

            perhaps not have that happen because then that will be the only thing you’re known or remembered for instead of your great skills, your heart, how hard you really work for people, what your work really means to you, what your clients really mean to you, just how far will you actually go for your clients? Those are very deeply personal things and they should be reflected on the outside of you. Not only those wackadooey

            silly moments that people can’t let you live down.

            speaker-0 (12:13.012)
            Sure. Tell me, you mentioned working with lawyers and have done that for a long time, being a lawyer. Is there anything so special about us that you just like working with?

            I think that the work that you do is consequential and it’s personal. I also think for the litigators that I work with, there’s a little bit of a theatrical element to what it’s like to go to court and to think about how you want to show up to tell stories. I think every lawyer tells stories. I don’t mean fibs.

            It’s real storytelling. Even if you’re a work a day lawyer working in an office and a law practice or in a corporate setting, the stories that you have to tell to get buy in. The arc of the story has to do so much with the consequence of taking an action. Storytelling is very important and how you show up to tell that story.

            matters a lot. It matters similarly to all the thought and preparation and research that goes into preparing for the actual story. For litigators, when you go to court and you have a story to tell, you have to tell it to the judge, you have to tell it to the jury, and everyone in the courtroom is listening.

            who’s the better storyteller? The facts will play out, but if the facts can be malleable to some degree, and it’s about believability beyond a reasonable doubt, who’s got the better story? Who’s the better relator? So I love being able to do that kind of work with my clients. I find it joyful. And most people that I’ve worked with in the law find

            speaker-1 (14:21.73)
            that storytelling and those theatrics is actually enjoyable for them too. So I love being with people who find the joy in what they’re doing and also take it drop dead seriously. It’s consequential. And I know that the work I do is consequential. So the energies really meet up nicely between the folks I work with and my own energy.

            And of course, think trial lawyers sometimes take themselves too seriously, but it’s so true because most trial lawyers, litigators are very passionate about being in the courtroom and passionate about their clients. And so when you had that video about matching, right. Inside the outside and having that presentation come all together, I was like, that’s exactly what I think so many lawyers struggle with because

            There’s so much old advice out there about how we should be showing up in the courtroom, very conservative wear, if you will. And then the changes in the struggles that we have with, I will say just from my point of view, like it is sometimes a super struggle to go and be like, okay, I want to get a new suit or a new dress and I show up and it’s all these things that are quote unquote in style or fashionable. can’t wear these things. Like, so tell me a little bit about as far as helping

            Let’s take it like for sure, like the old advice, like what is some of the things that you hear? I’ll share for me some of the old advice that I’m like, can we please get away from this old advice? So what have you heard lawyers come to you and say, well, I have to do this.

            Ladies always tell me lots of the same things that gentlemen are somehow off the hook from, but here are some. Jewelry, curls, quiet jewelry. When you move, they can’t make noise. Closed toed shoes, heels, specific types of hemlines of which there are so many, I won’t waste time even.

            speaker-0 (16:27.726)
            It baffles the mind.

            Full body coverage. are so many things. Cosmetics. How heavy or how bare is a red lip salacious? These kinds of things really come up all the time and they still come up and I have to welcome the questions because when people have to ask these questions, I know that people are definitely struggling with what is acceptable today. Now,

            I should say for men, the question now comes in around what about jewelry? Can a man wear an earring? Can a man wear two earrings? What about tattoos being visible? Do I have to wear a necktie? Can I have facial hair? It’s 2023, these types of questions still arise. And I think in large part, a lot of the answer has to do with

            the type of law you practice, the type of clients you have, the type of judge who hears your case, and what the judge’s values are. Because it’s that person’s courtroom, if you will. And that creates a culture. That culture may or may not have anything to do with your firm’s culture or your corporation’s culture.

            but you’re stepping into that environment and that is that culture. So there’s always research to be done. I, as a non-lawyer, often find myself asking my lawyer clients, what kind of research have you done? What do you know firsthand about that kind of culture? Do I need to go and do some research and then I will do some stuff. It’s really interesting to try to figure those

            speaker-1 (18:25.336)
            things out, you might consider, since we’re talking about a lot of storytelling, that’s the backstory and you need that. That’s the foundational basis for how to show up and do things right. And then I think in terms of current mores and values and how people can show up, everything to me is about in the end dressing appropriately and that casts a broader net than ever.

            Years ago, Mary Barra, who’s the CEO of General Motors, basically threw out an entire multi-page dress code and said, the answer is dress appropriately, which then left every employee up to deciding what is that? And then for employees and their managers to have to hash out, what is appropriate dress?

            And within different subcultures, and we’ll stick to the law here since that’s what we’re talking about, different subcultures even within law have different kinds of acceptability levels. And so there are times when still more conservative dress is required. I still think a tie is required for men in court basically anywhere. Why would it be wise to

            a shoe wearing a tie only to have a judge toss you out and say, this is continued, go home and put a tie on or go to the restroom and pull that tie out of your briefcase and put it on. To use a pun, it’s not a good luck to have to stop a proceeding because someone isn’t attired correctly. And that’s just for the lawyers, of course. Then you have witnesses.

            your clients if they have to take the stand in the case of personal injury cases and things like that, or you may have for employment lawyers, there could be an employee that needs to take the stand. How do they need to show up? It’s all part of the story and how they can really represent themselves in a strong way that is good for the case and helps to really get their truth out. So there’s so many rungs to this now.

            speaker-1 (20:46.454)
            And I think when it comes to trends, Elizabeth, there isn’t necessarily one right answer. That’s probably the crux of the whole thing is that as I started off with the story of pearls, quiet jewelry, closed toed heels, these things are like everyone is to do the same thing. Everything is about complete conformity. There’s no room for anything.

            personal about who you are as an individual, as a human, something that also differentiates you from any other lawyer within earshot of that courtroom at least. I think that’s been what was wrong with all of those old rules. And by the way, there are still a lot of people in my field who think that those rules rule. And I think they suck because they don’t allow for a person to really

            stand in their power. Imagine feeling like this is my job. I am a litigator and I’m a rock star litigator and I have to dress this exact way that makes me conform to some old world standard of being. And I actually feel held back. If you put clothes on and it starts to cost you things like your voice.

            your ability to move around and use your body and your body language to help communicate points that you feel absolutely sure of, true to the letter of the law about, passionate about, and you feel like you have to hold back because you’re in some suit or dress that may as well have been a straight jacket. It’s a horrible feeling, right?

            Yeah.

            speaker-1 (22:40.45)
            So that’s why I think it’s so important to put all these pieces together and then come up with a look that is a signature for you that allows you to really be exactly who you are supposed to be. It should be emancipating and freeing and unleash your inner beast of a lawyer, if you will, in the good way and really represent your case and your client.

            And I think those rules are helpful because when you’re coming out of law school, okay, those are the rules. that makes it easy to think, okay, then I know exactly what I’m going to get access to the variety of now at your fingertips, just going on Amazon. There’s so many choices now that we have, it’s almost, it is overwhelming. And so going back to those rules is okay.

            Okay. This is comfortable. Okay. I tried to step out, but no, I’m just going to go back to the rules. Cause that’s one of things I think is always helpful when I walk into a store and I have an idea of this is what I like and I’ll get someone to help me because one, I hope that they know like what’s in the store. Otherwise I’ll be there way too long, but looking for something. But is that kind of, cause there’s so many choices and it’s like, there’s no way we would know all of that. job is to know what the laws and the cases am I hitting what you can help with or tell us about that.

            Yes, I think what’s different about what I do versus what you can experience in a store is yes, people in stores know the merchandise and perhaps because they know the current merchandise, they know the trends and that’s helpful when you’re shopping. But what’s more helpful and what store associates don’t really take the time to do and I just have to say it’s what

            They’re not really paid to do. I used to be one, so I know, but I was a different kind of a person and that’s why I got into my business. I’m in the business of really getting to know people so that I can match with great precision what someone should wear. There’s a reason why I wore an olive jacket to sit on Zoom with you. I knew that

            speaker-1 (25:00.662)
            we were recording this, for example. So this gives you a little background context into why we would make decisions. Now my eyes, which only you can see right now, and then whomever watches this when you put it up online, will also be able to see, perhaps, my eyes are hazel and my eyeglasses and my jacket are an olive tone that play off my hazel eyes.

            People tell me that I have this incredible gift of being able to see into a person that I can really take a good look at somebody and know them, that I’m very interested in studying them. The color psychology behind Hazel has a lot to do with healing. Like Sage, you burn Sage when you are looking to heal a space, heal yourself, and there’s color psychology involved in everything.

            So I love to wear this kind of a color as a signature because it helps to tell that story. Now, I told the quiet part out loud just now. I want people to be able to see you and feel you, really feel you and see you for exactly what you stand for. It’s like I’m making a value statement, only now I cheated.

            because I told you what it is. But if I didn’t say something, you would probably be able to absorb from looking at me and hearing me, how I’m using my body language, even my hands on a Zoom, my vocal intonation, the way that I use words, the sound of my voice matches everything. So I want to do that for…

            anybody that I’m working with. That’s super important and it’s detailed and subtle and sometimes painstaking. For me, it comes more easily though, because it’s my gift, but try to explain this to anybody. And they’ll be like, I’m just going to go like chop my closet or I’ll just go on Amazon and click on the first thing I find and buy it and be done with it or whatever. think that being able to put

            speaker-1 (27:20.216)
            thought and intentionality into what you wear is transformative. And this is what I am really here to do with people. If you’re a lawyer and you’re listening to this, I think what’s important is how do you stand out and be the better lawyer? Not only to be competitive with literally other lawyers that you practice with or are competing for the same

            clients or business with, how do you better yourself as a lawyer? If you could compete with yourself and be the better lawyer and you have all the competence and all the skills and the degrees and the JD stuff from all the right law schools and universities. After you have all those things and you probably are on the bell curve with lots of people at your caliber.

            Being on the bell curve, by the way, is A-OK. That means you’re alive, you’re on that curve. I just have to say. But then what happens, how do you actually differentiate yourself even in some subtle way that allows people to see that your energy and the way you are as a human, which infuses the way you practice law, how does all of that come into play?

            That’s right.

            speaker-1 (28:46.126)
            and make me want to come to you? Why would I, as the client in need of a lawyer, come to you? What are you gonna do for me and how are you gonna do it for me that matters? And what’s amazing is that it’s not just the clothes. I’m not bypassing the personal style and the appearance of things. It’s the entire self image. The self images, the parts of self

            from deep within that really make you who you are and who you wanna become. And then the clothing aspect and other parts of your outer image, like your nonverbal communication, in addition to your appearance, all those things come together to paint this very rich picture for everyone who needs to be in your presence. So when I’m thinking about the apparel part of

            a person’s image, I’m thinking about all the colors and the styles that are right for a person. How strong or how gentle does a person need to come across? How trustworthy and businesslike does someone need to be? How laid back does someone need to be? How poised and perfectly positioned does someone need to be? Or how much of a maverick or an avant-garde

            personality needs to come through. All of these play into different archetypes that I work with and people can be a blend of these different archetypes. No one is a monolith. We’re all multi-dimensional people. So by studying who a person is through their personality and understanding what colors best support that person, every lawyer that I work with ends up really having

            their own unique principles around their appearance and their style that is custom for that person. So each lawyer really deserves to honor themselves. And in doing that, they can stand up in a better way to support their clients and the cases they have and all the business matters that are before them.

            speaker-0 (31:09.632)
            And I think something that you hit on too was lawyers, especially personal injury lawyers have a little bit of a tarnished reputation. So credibility is really important for us. I think, like you said, part of that blink reaction that people have sometimes is if things are cohesive, then you have a little more credibility. But if something is off or it’s just a little bit like in that blink reaction, people have a pause or they try to label you.

            Like I said, sometimes our old school stuff comes where we just don’t know, or it’s like, oh yeah. If I could have picked a different color instead of just wearing that same black suit or some, some variety of black would have been a little bit better.

            Right. Well, if you think about it, black is a color that can create distance between you and the people who are looking at you. It can also be the color of someone who is in service, but that could be like the maitre d at a Michelin starred restaurant or a server, literally, or it could be a perfume spritzer in a department store, which you’re probably trying to avoid at all costs.

            So black has its place. Black can be very powerful though when you are practicing law and you have a point to make and you mean to be absolutely direct. The question then becomes what do you augment that black suit or black dress with in order to communicate that you’re not just all that, that there’s more.

            Can I share a little story about that?

            speaker-0 (32:57.849)
            yeah, sure, that’d be helpful.

            Okay, so I had a, this is a cool story. I had a client who reached out to me one evening before going away on a business trip. And I remember this inside my head thinking this is a really funny story to recall because I was sitting in the hot tub at the time when she called. It was in the evening and I knew to take the call. So here we are, I’m in the hot tub on my cell phone and she’s in her closet saying,

            I am taking a trip tomorrow to try to settle a case. What do I wear? And I asked her to tell me some information about the situation without giving away anything that I shouldn’t know, which I’m always careful about. And I have NDAs with lots of my clients anyway. So sometimes they need to tell me more than perhaps I might like to know, but I have to know, or they think I should know. We all cover our tushes that way.

            So she told me that she knew that they could litigate this case and win it, but she could also be a hero in that they could settle the case and it would save them a huge amount of time and money. Yes, they would still have a payout, but it would come out better for them in the long run anyway. And then that would free up their resources to move on. Sometimes these decisions are very much about business.

            I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but for me as the non-lawyer, this was important context for me. There was even more to it than that. She also inherited this case from a predecessor. And when she learned about it, she felt badly about it, to be honest. She was honest with me to tell me, so I’m honest to share that. And I said, okay.

            speaker-1 (34:55.916)
            I think I know exactly what you need to do. I asked her one question though, before giving her my advice. I said, is there anything that you really want to tell this ex-employee that you’re going to try to negotiate the settlement with? And she said, yeah, I want to say, I’m sorry. Like in a kind of a personal way. And I said, okay, here’s what you’re going to do.

            And I knew exactly everything she had in her closet. So it sounds easy peasy because it was, because I knew and I had procured her wardrobe for her. So based on what I knew she had, I said, I want you to pull out this black suit, pantsuit. It’s got peak lapels and underneath of it, I want you to pull out this teal silk blouse. And I want you to wear black heels.

            and want you to pull out the specific jewelry. And I told her exactly what it was and she pulled it all together and she said, huh, that looks great. Why did you tell me to pull this out? Here’s the foil. This is the crux of the whole thing. The black suit in wool basically says, I’m here to do some business and I am serious and I’m not

            F’ing around.

            Yeah.

            speaker-1 (36:25.678)
            but underneath, so there was a sternness to the whole thing. And the lapel as an expression is also important because it conveys authority and confidence. Any garment with a lapel creates a sense of authority, but a peak lapel in particular shows more boldness than a notch lapel like what I’m wearing right now. She had that. Then I told her about wearing this teal blouse. I said,

            This color plays off your eyes. This ex-employee is going to look at you saying something sincere and he’s going to see sincerity. The other thing is it’s a silk blouse. There’s a softness there. It’s closest to your skin, by the way. It tells an onlooker that you have a soft ins…

            side, even if your suit represents a hard shell exterior. You’re never going to tell this to somebody. But if you can show up looking that way, we are so conditioned in Western society to pick up on these cues. Like it’s a language that we’re not fluent in, but somehow we understand contextually what’s going on. And she said, I would never put it that way. But when you

            describe it that way and I know that’s exactly how I’m going to wear it. That’s genius. And then of course she had the jewelry that also complimented her dark brown hair color and her eye color and it just put a really good focal point on her. Guys, if you’re doing the same kind of thing and you’re not really going to do a necklace and earrings like this, it’s all about what you do in your necktie.

            there’s so much symbolism that is the same. Whether it’s a solid tie, there are messages that come across in a solid tie. If you’re wearing a patterned tie, there are a bajillion messages that come across in patterns. But if you’re wearing something that’s multi-hued, just like this jewelry is multi-toned that I’m describing that she wore, it can be an ideal compliment to standing in your truth

            speaker-1 (38:48.544)
            standing in your power, standing in your sincerity, standing in your earnestness and standing in your, am here to do business, take me seriously. This is serious. And the teal and the jewelry and everything offset the black suit and the seriousness of the peak lapel, as I was describing. And it created this kind of push pull about

            These are my walls, but inside my walls is also another aspect of the real me. I’m not that difficult to deal with. Let’s do it. And you know what? The whole thing flew and they settled. And after she called her husband to say, babe, I’m coming home and it was a good day. She called me to tell me what happened.

            And I was really flattered that she reached out to me to tell me what kind of success she had. The reason why the story I think is so powerful is yes, it was about what she wore and what that gave her, but it supported her story. It supported the messages that she wanted to deliver. And if she had to go to trial to do the same thing and not to settle this in an arbitration setting,

            We would have had similar conversations about exactly the very same thing, only it would have been a trial of maybe a few days. And we would have had more to strategize on over who are the witnesses? What’s the arc of the story? When you’re not presenting your side and you have to sit back and listen for objections and things like that, what do you wear when you’re going to behave like that?

            What do you wear for cross-examining? There are so many things that I think about. We didn’t have to do that in this case because she arbitrated and it went exactly like clockwork the way she wanted. So that was great. I loved that for her.

            speaker-0 (41:02.702)
            Well, I love the story. Like that makes a lot of sense. Some people might say, Joseph, that’s a whole lot of thought into what I’m going to wear. I don’t have time to put all that thought into what I’m going to wear. Ever heard that whole.

            Sometimes I do, but what’s interesting is when my clients are working with me, we make it a lot more simple. clients like this one knew she can pick up the phone and call me and I’ll have an answer for her because that’s just the way I work with people. Imagine though that she was leaving the next day and she called me up that night, completely panicked.

            I don’t have the right thing to wear. And that then we have to go through what she does have and try to come up with something that she would have settled on. And I feel like that notion of settling for something less than what it could have been is costly when the consequences of your presence in a setting is high.

            So in this case, she didn’t have to settle because she actually had the thing. Because when I build a wardrobe for my clients, I’m often thinking about, you’re going to need different things for different scenarios, different audiences, different purposes. And how can we be as fulsome? Even if you’re a bit of a minimalist in how much of a wardrobe you might want to have. I love the idea of own

            less but better and do more with it. That’s my mantra. Secretly I’m a maximalist. I’m a collector.

            speaker-0 (42:56.883)
            pictures of your closet.

            I love the idea that for people who can’t have a big closet like I have that, and if you don’t want to spend your entire salary on clothing, which I don’t recommend anyway, how do you make more with fewer things? I think in her case, she had all the right things. And when you make the right investment in that way, then it negates this

            pushback that you suggested that people could have and yeah, people do have it. People do have it, but it dissipates once you realize the power that your wardrobe can give you. If you think about it, not as a lawyer and just as a lay person, you have a social gathering to go to, but you don’t have the right thing to wear. It’s almost, that’s nice. I got invited to go to something, but

            I don’t have the right thing. The right thing or the lack of having the right thing is almost like someone outside me gave me this invitation, which is a form of permission. I’m invited. I can cross the red velvet rope and get into this thing. But without the right thing that you don’t treat yourself to or don’t invest in, not everything is about treating in a luxury way. Some things you just really need.

            without having the very things that you need, you deny yourself permission to gain entry. As a lawyer, you pass the bar, you have a case, you have a right to be in that courtroom. Do you have a right to win? If you got the right case, yes. But I think that how you show up enhances not only your right to be there, but your right and your ability to win. That’s what I firmly believe in. And so I’m trying to…

            speaker-1 (44:52.366)
            pass that message along to more folks because it doesn’t have to be as complex for you to do it. You don’t have to hire somebody to get help. You have to be mindful at least. And if you could incorporate a touch more mindfulness at least than what you have gifted yourself with at any time in the past, you’ll set yourself on a better path for success.

            through your wardrobe selections and how you show up to all your proceedings and client meetings, you’ll do better. And if you want to do better than that, that’s where help is definitely.

            Yes. Well, and I think that we should be thoughtful about how we’re showing up because one the we always, I definitely tell folks who are going to go up on the stand is the moment you walk into that courtroom, you are being watched and you’re being judged and they’re making decisions about you before you even get to open your mouth. And that’s everybody. And sometimes when I walk into a courtroom and I size up the other lawyer and I notice things about what they’re wearing,

            I make immediate judgments that they’re not prepared. They don’t know what this case is about. And I know, you know, what I’ve done, but I’ve definitely had that blink reaction and totally judged people. I know that I’ve had judges look at me and make blink reactions about who I am and who I’m showing up to be. And of course it’s based on what I’m wearing, what I look like. So tell us, okay, we’ve got folks listening here, mostly, know, our personally trial lawyers and some employment lawyers as well.

            What are a couple of one or two tips or strategies that you would suggest to folks who are listening?

            speaker-1 (46:34.614)
            When in doubt, take a look at your eye color. As I referenced earlier, it’s something so obvious, but people often ignore whatever your eye color is represents a deep inner knowing of the truth of who you are as a person. If you can repeat that color on your body in a way that provides a focal point back to your face.

            people will see your earnestness. I think every lawyer has a baseline of being fairly earnest in their work. Sometimes though, it needs to show. You aren’t ever going to carry a picket sign into a courtroom with the letters on it that say, am earnest. They may think your name is earnest, I don’t know, but seriously, this is a very important thing because

            It’s the thing that you want people to know about you without you ever saying the saying it out loud. Cause to say it out loud sounds ridiculous, except that you’re being earnest is far from being ridiculous. And I think as you mentioned a little earlier, Elizabeth talking about in the case of personal injury attorneys, how some have sullied the reputation of the whole and

            That may be true, but that does not have to be true of you. And a lot of that comes through your earnestness, quite frankly. Eye color is really huge. I also think that making sure that you’re wearing garments that fit you well is very important. And I have to say this in kind of the new post pandemic world. I don’t care if your weight went up

            down, if you stayed the same. I’m a body positive person and I just have to say that because you don’t know me. Find something that fits your body beautifully. It needs to flatter your body. It does not have to be skin tight, no matter what your size is. What you want is to make yourself look tall. If you could wear a monochromatic ensemble,

            speaker-1 (48:59.49)
            whether it’s a suit or a dress that automatically makes you look more monochromatic. If you are very traditional in terms of your dress style and you’re female and or male and you want to wear a skirt with a jacket, still going monochromatic is helpful in that case. I think being able to stand tall and powerful is important.

            And then to understand for yourself, okay, I got my strong and powerful part on how do I show my human side? Because I’m not a monolith. I’m using first person here because I want you to be able to think about this for yourself. Like I am not a monolith. I’m not only about being strong and tough because what you want to be careful of, and I can say this without trying to

            insult anybody. I’ve worked with a lot of lawyers, right? So you want to avoid the pretense of arrogance. It’s important to try to find ways where there’s a win out of the situation. There’s any opportunity, even in the middle of a trial where it’s possible to still settle something. And you’re usually looking for some kind of good common ground. If you show like you’re, I’ll

            say this with air quotes, a good guy, meaning really just a good person, one of the good guys, if you will, a good person, judge, jury members, opposition counsel, even the people that you’re up against. Oftentimes people are willing to see the good in somebody if you will let it show. So always try to find a way to bring that good part of you in.

            And of course, being strong and powerful is also part of good, but that is that outer confidence piece. That’s what your suit is about or your dress is about. As a funny thing that also I think is serious as well, this is for the ladies. If you’re in a dress and it’s opaque and nobody can see anything that you’re wearing underneath,

            speaker-1 (51:18.722)
            There is a time and a place when you may need to bring a little bit extra energy that no one is going to know that’s there except for you. And I can’t tell you how many female lawyers I’ve worked with where giving them lingerie that makes them feel absolutely powerful underneath helps them bring their power. Now I can’t say that any man has ever asked me to do underwear with them, but I will say that

            Everybody has to wear something. that, by the way, I that’s also extremely important. Always wear underwear, for sure. And I have to say, because that’s come up a time or two, believe it or not. It’s also important to think through what it is for you as a man, those of you gentlemen who are listening in, what as a man you would wear that makes you feel powerful.

            That’s a tip right there, always wear something.

            speaker-1 (52:17.534)
            as a whole person that you are still that soft, where’s your core? What are your values? And just spend five minutes. You don’t need more than five minutes to really think about this. You may even know it instantly. A favorite item that you have that might not be something that you’d wear to court, but might be something that could inspire what you could wear.

            That way people also get to know a little bit more about the real you. Those are some of my favorite tips and often have to do with color because it’s what people who have the ability to see, which is still most people can see, and they can infer a lot of messaging directly from that because again, we are so deeply socialized into understanding what those messages are.

            Yeah. And I think, you know, undergarments for ladies can be challenging. So for sure. And just from personal experience, I don’t want to overshare here with some might, but you can be, it can be all off and totally wrong and switching around those undergarments and getting things correct. Can really truly being supported the correct way, but that way can really change how you’re feeling and showing up and.

            You don’t even know you’re doing it wrong. That’s sometimes what happens as well.

            It’s so true when you finally get it right though, it’s whoa. It’s important to feel confident in your body. You can do so many exercises about confidence, about your voice and about your body language and about how you move. There is something to be said about being truly at one and at peace with your body. For women, I always tell my clients every six months it’s time to go get

            speaker-1 (54:14.88)
            re-measured because your size will change. It just happens to be that way. And if it doesn’t, great, then you’re fine. But it doesn’t get you off the hook that you shouldn’t replace because the garments get used and which is important that you should use them. They get used and then they are less effective. Let’s just say, and what you want is something that positions your body in just the right place.

            and where your garments fit beautifully and that when you see yourself, you can take pride in who you are and in how you’re showing up. And there is a kind of an inner self-assurance that’s just for you. That’s why I have to discern this. The inner self-assurance is just for you and it can come through in outer confidence, which is

            from you through you that you want to project in a setting where you want everyone to know you’re good. It’s gotta start from within though. So I’m glad that I brought up the undergarment thing because it’s a thing and.

            Mm-hmm.

            speaker-0 (55:29.23)
            And you just, again, from personal experience, you just, you totally make an assumption and you just assume and you walk in there and I just bless this salesperson who helped me because it’s just, it’s so easy to just again, go in there, get the same thing you always do. And it’s simple, it’s easy. don’t have time, but it really does make a huge difference hands down. And especially if you’re saying like, if you’re going to buy and

            invest in some clothing. Like it’s definitely worth like step one, get that right. And then be able to have those things with you when you go to get the next wardrobe piece. have one quick question and it’s like a burning question in my mind. Panty house. are we still doing this? Is this still a thing? Are you still, do a lot of your lady lawyers still wear pantyhose? Okay. Okay.

            some

            Now I would say in fall, it becomes a little bit more acceptable. In summer, nobody really wants to do that. What sometimes, what does happen though in summer or hot months, I know you’re in Texas, it’s H-O-T. I think what’s important is that perhaps if a dress, if you want to wear a dress, maybe

            The hemline antithetically goes longer, but you’re in a lighter material, like a Jersey type of a material. Yeah. Because it helps make things more comfortable, but you’re a little bit more covered where you feel like, okay, my legs are not so bare and I don’t have to wear nylons. And then that’s, and then that’s okay. Then of course, sometimes people will ask me, I, I want to wear dresses.

            speaker-0 (57:03.416)
            you

            speaker-1 (57:23.406)
            I would wear nylons, but it’s just so hot. I’m not going to do it. But what else can I do? And I have to probe a little bit more. I find out sometimes what happens is sometimes women are very self-conscious of their legs, not even that it’s their shapeliness of their legs, if you will. It has to do with the color of their legs. And so sometimes I will say, if you’re not putting yourself out there under the sun, which I’m not,

            saying that you should do that. It’s cancer risk, obviously. What about wearing a safe bronzer and at least getting some color on your legs? Would that perhaps give you a little bit more confidence to wear a dress where some of your leg will be visible? I will make those kinds of recommendations to people because that matters and that usually resolves most of these.

            Yeah. And I think it just for us, for a lot of times when I’m having this conversation with people, it’s where are you going? And for us it’s July and good luck. Cause it’s 109, no matter where you go. And adding another layer just sounds like, but yeah, I’m always curious. yeah, of course, depending on the weather, sometimes you just want to like, that’s an extra layer of warmth that makes it better for you.

            Correct. And then the fall and winter, not only are nylons okay, but then you have the chance to wear tights. You can wear something more opaque that can also be more shapely to the leg. And I would use the word more containing in a way it’s if you could wear a leg or opaque tights, it’s very interesting what that can do, especially opaque tights, how that can really give very, very definite shape and darkening to the legs.

            can also make a person feel very powerful. And sometimes that’s also what a woman would tend to wear with a boot and not really just with a regular old heel at that point. And sometimes the feeling that you get when you’re wearing a boot versus a heel changes. It’s probably similar for the guys. If you’re wearing a loafer versus a lace-up, it’s not that you can’t wear a loafer, but a lace-up definitely looks a little bit more all about business.

            speaker-1 (59:39.15)
            You can do both, but it also means that your demeanor and disposition can change in the context of where you are wearing it and when you’re wearing it and who you’re wearing the stuff in front of. So being able to change things around is it’s good to know that you have choices and then it’s about what choice are you making and why are you making it and when are you making it and for whom are you making it.

            Lots of things to think about, but I do appreciate that fit is always so important. No matter what it is you wear or where you buy it from fit is always key. And then I love that eye color. That’s an easy thing to do. We can all look in the mirror and figure out, figure that out. Does it has been a delight to have you. I’ve learned so much about what I need to be thinking about when I get dressed. If folks want to get to know you more or connect with you, what’s the best way they can do that?

            Exactly.

            speaker-1 (01:00:29.874)
            I really enjoy making connections on LinkedIn because LinkedIn is where you can create community. And I have a nice little community of lawyers that I chat with and create programming with for you on LinkedIn. So that’s my favorite preferred place to meet up with me.

            And I would highly recommend that. Like I said, that’s where we connected and I got to see some of your posts and some of your videos and really enjoyed just being thoughtful, being mindful and connecting those inner and outer parts to do a better job with who I am. And then also, like you said, I’m just just naturally going to reflect on the work that I do. Thank you so much again for joining us. And if you enjoyed the podcast, please rate and review it on your favorite.

            podcast platform, follow on any of those to get the downloads every Wednesday. And until next time, thank you so much for joining us. We will have all of Joseph’s contact information, including the LinkedIn, to be able to connect with him as soon as this podcast gets out. Thanks again.

            Start Your Case on the Right Path: Using a Focus Group Before Discovery [Ep 139]

            In this episode, Elizabeth Larrick discusses the importance of using Zoom focus groups before discovery in trial preparation. She outlines the benefits of these focus groups, including setting the right direction for a case, avoiding wasted time on irrelevant claims, and utilizing feedback effectively. Through a case study involving a school district, she illustrates how focus groups can help identify critical information and prevent surprises during the discovery process.

            Takeaways

            • Using Zoom focus groups can set the right direction for a case.
            • Focus groups help avoid wasting time on irrelevant claims.
            • Even minimal information can yield valuable feedback from focus groups.
            • Feedback from focus groups can be reused throughout the case.

            Follow and Review:

            We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

            Supporting Resources:

            Have questions about Zoom Focus groups? Set up a Free call with Elizabeth here.

            Depositions Are Trial by Sach Oliver

            Join the
            Trial Lawyer Prep
            Newsletter

            Every month I send out an email newsletter that provides valuable insights on:

            – case preparation

            – trial strategy

            – focus groups

            – witness preparation, and

            – episodes of my podcast

            Additionally the TLP Newsletter is where I announce the opening of my Foundations Virtual Focus Group Class, and other upcoming opportunities.

              How did you hear about me?
              I am a(n):
              We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

              Episode Transcript:

              Elizabeth Larrick (00:02.604)
              Want to get ahead in case planning and expenses? Tired of chasing rabbits, claims that jurors just don’t even care about? Let’s jumpstart your case with a Zoom focus group right out of the gate. Hello and welcome back.

              podcast. I’m your host Elizabeth Larrick and this is a new episode about starting your case on the right path with a Zoom focus group before discovery. So you know we talk about Zoom focus groups here and I want to encourage you to do them before you are neck deep in trial prep because when that happens you don’t have the ability to change

              or really move very much with the case that you have in front of you. You can maybe do a little wiggle, maybe do a little shimmy, but what I really want you to be able to do is conduct jury research, zoom focus groups, and be able to use that feedback to maneuver, right? Take that extra deposition if you need it. Go after that written discovery and know which way the jury wants to hear the case.

              Don’t forget, if you’re ever curious about Zoom focus groups or trial strategy, that there’s a link in the show notes to connect with Time with Me. We can go find that witness, take that deposition, find that expert, but really we are able to implement our case themes in our depositions, which if you haven’t noticed is kind of a thing now. Two really big books out there right now on those, and I’ll have them linked in the show notes for you. That deposition is now kind of your trial.

              Elizabeth Larrick (02:22.784)
              So I really want us to be looking at as trial lawyers using focus groups before discovery. Now you may be thinking, Elizabeth, I don’t have enough information. It’s not going to be a fruitful focus group. Not true. People watch 60 second TikTok videos all the time and make plenty of life decisions based on those 60 seconds. So if you have 10 minutes of facts, that is more than enough for these people to give you feedback on what you have, what more they want to know.

              And if you have a theory or a theme, you could throw it out there and they’ll tell you what they think about it. Now, you may have a case where you truly don’t have enough information and you’ll know that because if you don’t even have 10 minutes of the facts, then you should probably wait until you get more information. However, most lawyers are good investigators. They’re going to go and run down and get the information, get all the reports.

              talk to some folks and at least get a good rounded picture before they even file a lawsuit. That’s because most petitions, complaints if you will, will require some factual basis. Not all states require that, however most will. So knowing you’re gonna have that information, you can then go first and foremost in the right direction, right out of the gate. So I know many of us may have some form templates that we use for discovery, but that can just lead us in a very general direction. And the first

              Benefit of using a focus group before you get discovery is to send you in the direction that the jury wants you to go. There is no point in trying to force claims that the jury doesn’t even care about. And trust me, they will tell you what they care about and what they don’t care about, even if all you have is 10 minutes of facts and the rest you use to talk to them. So using a focus group before even discovery puts you in the right direction.

              And leads me to the second good point of using a focus group before discovery, is avoid wasting time. We don’t want to chase the wrong avenues, the wrong claims, or even the wrong documents. There are plenty of times where we may have a case where we really, really, really, really want the documents and you spend months. I know people who spend years doing motion to compel over and over again to try and get documents, but do you need them? Right?

              Elizabeth Larrick (04:40.753)
              Go ask a focus group. They will let you know. Okay. But we don’t want you to waste time and energy because longer it takes sometimes the less enthusiasm that we have. So we want to avoid you wasting time after claims that just jurors don’t even care about. The next benefit of doing a zoom focus group before discovery is you can actually start with a frame in mind. Yes, we know we want to start with the defendant’s conduct, but many times there are lots of different

              pieces of that conduct. And it’s important to know which one is the one that the jury wants to know about or frame first. So there could be lots of different things. We want to make sure that we go after the right things. And also it’s significantly helpful. We’re going to go take questions, do depositions. So the other bonus that we have, and we do zoom focus groups before discovery is that we can use this feedback in the case over and over again.

              Now these zoom focus groups that we’re doing before discovery, again, they’re neutral setups. Again, like I said, 10 minutes of facts and then just talking to them about the rest. Naturally, you may have some photographs or some videos, focus group folks love videos, that will also help you again, go in the right direction or be able to at least know if you need to go create something, what direction it’ll need to be. But you can use that feedback over and over again in the case and of course tag it as a case expense. So,

              Let’s talk about an example. Here recently I had a virtual focus group, again just one hour, that was a case against a school district. And what we really wanted to find out was is the school really on the hook? Because in situations where there may be a liability law that allows you to sue the school, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the jurors are going to buy in on it. So before spending an extreme amount of time and expenses pursuing the matter,

              lawyer wanted to know, is there anything even here? So again, remember it’s before discovery. So what do we even have? Well, first of course, we have our school policies, right? Our school documents. So we want to make sure, all right, what do the jurors think about? What are their focus group participants think about these policies? Are they good policies? Are they hard policies? Is it too much for the school? Are teachers a burden? Are they good, right? And then of course we had our facts. And so,

              Elizabeth Larrick (07:07.259)
              What ended up coming out of our focus group was of course we learned that there were some missing critical pieces that the potential jurors wanted to see. And specifically there were some events during a timeframe that we just didn’t have any information. We truly didn’t know what was happening. And so it became like, okay, when you’re going in discovery, you’ve got to find out what happened during that particular week in school. And what we also…

              kind of decided from a strategy standpoint is you had to close the door to any surprises. Now, good trial lawyers, experienced trial lawyers have probably had this happen where you hunt down this case, you do a great job getting all the documents, getting all the information, work on those depositions, you’re getting ready for trial and ring ring, you get a call. we seem to have found another witness and this is what they’re going to say, which is something, a story you’ve never heard and doesn’t fit anything else. And so,

              You know, when we look at cases very early on, we just want to make sure how do we close the door to any surprises? Again, specifically testimony that may come in from witnesses in a case like this. There are hundreds of witnesses. Also, we decided or rather the focus group told us about the documents that they wanted to see. Now, knowing that there may not even be these documents, it also became one of those things. Let’s prevent a surprise document coming later on knowing, OK,

              What are the goals then for the discovery of this case? One, make sure you get all the possible documents and then close the door. Is this everything? Sign of verification. This is everything. Nothing else is going to come out. And then also of course, finding the missing facts and pieces and elements of that timeframe that they really wanted to know about. Knowing we should close the door, make sure there’s nobody else is going to have information about these events that may surprise and pop up later.

              The lawyer now has a focus group that she can go back to and reread the information, reread those first impressions, go back through that transcript, watch the video again as she is proceeding through her discovery, knowing she’s not going to waste her time chasing some claims. She’s going to start with a good frame in mind, meaning let’s look at our policies and then what’s missing from that standpoint of our school. And then there were a few things that we learned too, that were just good things that we heard about school.

              Elizabeth Larrick (09:29.94)
              The school steps into the place of the parent, right? Safety is number one while these kids are there. And it was very important to be able to rule out some other things that may be happening with the student during the timeframe. All right. So we have three very clear benefits of using Zoom focus groups before discovery. Number one, let’s set us off on the right direction instead of the wrong direction. Number two, avoid wasting time going after claims, documents, depositions that just don’t matter the jury.

              and also finally starting with a frame in mind. And so we can go ahead and implement that while we’re going through depositions. The bonus being that we can learn early on and reuse that focus group feedback as we continue through the case. And it becomes kind of a comparison, if you will. If you have questions about how to use a Zoom focus group before discovery,

              Don’t hesitate to book a call with me. can find the link in the show notes. And yes, of course, the call is free. Okay. Thank you so much for listening to this episode. I hope that you found it helpful and until next time. Thank you.

              Guest Ben Gideon on Helping Trial Lawyers Assess Risk Better [Ep 138]

              Guest Ben Gideon explores the complex world of risk assessment in trial law. Despite their bold reputations, trial lawyers often lean towards risk-averse strategies, favoring settlements over trials. Ben reflects on his recent trial loss to analyze cognitive biases in decision-making and emphasizes the importance of embracing risk to secure significant verdicts.

              Drawing parallels between trial law and high-stakes poker, Ben discusses how both fields rely on probabilistic thinking and expected value calculations. He shares strategies for managing risk across multiple cases, similar to a poker player handling various hands, and highlights the differing risk levels faced by lawyers and their clients.

              In this episode, you will hear:

              • Insights from Ben Gideon on risk assessment in trial law
              • Exploration of trial lawyers’ risk-averse tendencies and the impact of cognitive biases
              • Importance of data-driven approaches and probabilistic thinking in legal decision-making
              • Balancing client emotions and cognitive biases during negotiations and mediations

              Follow and Review:

              We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

              Supporting Resources:

              Guest Ben Gideon of Gideon Asen

              Email: bgideon@gideonasenlaw.com

              Website: https://www.gideonasen.com/our-team/benjamin-gideon/

              Podcast: https://www.elawvate.fm/

              Books referenced in the episode:

              On Edge: The Are of Risking Everything by Nate Silver 

              Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

              Join the
              Trial Lawyer Prep
              Newsletter

              Every month I send out an email newsletter that provides valuable insights on:

              – case preparation

              – trial strategy

              – focus groups

              – witness preparation, and

              – episodes of my podcast

              Additionally the TLP Newsletter is where I announce the opening of my Foundations Virtual Focus Group Class, and other upcoming opportunities.

                How did you hear about me?
                I am a(n):
                We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

                Episode Transcript:

                Elizabeth Larrick (00:02.592)
                Want to learn what cognitive biases you have as a trial lawyer that could be holding you back? Want to learn to assess risk better? Well, buckle up because our guest, Ben Gideon, is here to share his approach

                in this episode. Hello and welcome back to the podcast. I’m your host, Elizabeth Larrick, and we have a wonderful guest here today. Ben Gideon is joining us all the way from Maine. Good morning. Hello, Ben. Morning, Elizabeth. I’m thrilled that you invited me to episode 140 or 141. That’s incredibly impressive. well, thank you so much. And I appreciate letting me come on your podcast. I recently got to guess.

                on Elevate and it was wonderful and I’m glad to do that. And I’m excited that my audience gets to have you here today and talk about risk. So you have an amazing career, thoughtful, well put together, running your own office, many, many successful trials. So I know the folks listening are excited to hear your take on risk and how we can do better as trial lawyers at assessing risk. So let’s jump right in. Okay. Like

                I know, I already know. You think that most trial lawyers say, you know what, I can handle the risk, I can do the big talk and the walk, but in fact, we’re really risk-verse as trial lawyers. So tell me a little bit about that. Yeah. So I started thinking a lot about the concept of risk after a recent trial that I’d lost. There’s nothing like having a devastating defeat to start to frame things for you and force you to think critically about issues that maybe you hadn’t thought as much about before.

                Elizabeth Larrick (02:23.316)
                And of course the idea of risk is elevated in center of mind when you’ve just lost a lot of money and turned down a big offer and received a defense verdict. So I started thinking about my own decision-making, about the decision-making that the client had to go through to make that choice, to roll the dice with the jury. And then thinking back on my career and also about other great trial lawyers that I’ve come to know who have had a lot of great

                verdicts and just thinking about what, where the right balance is between taking risks for yourself as the trial lawyer, for your client, for your law firm. So what you said about that, it was one of the first observations I came to, which is in my career of doing this, which is now 25 years or so. One thing that strikes me is that as trial lawyers, we tend to be too risk averse that we

                settle too many cases that we probably should be trying, that we take too many low dollar offers, that we don’t put it on the line as often as we should. And when you look at the lawyers that have had repeated high level success with the significant verdicts that we all hear about that are reported across the country, first of all, one of the observations that I think is

                obvious to most people is that it’s the same lawyers that get the verdicts time and again. And you’d think, well, if everybody was doing the same thing over time, that would spread out and everybody would have, you know, their share of those verdicts, but they don’t. And one of the reasons for that is that, I mean, it seems quite obvious, but one reason is that the lawyers who get those verdicts are willing to take risks that other people don’t take. And they take those risks repeatedly.

                over time and that has a kind of self-reinforcing mechanism over a career in terms of what that does to their mindset that allows them to take on that kind of risk. Whereas if you get into the reverse spiral of not taking those risks, then your formative experiences are all teaching you that you shouldn’t take the risk and you should take a lower offer and walk away. So then the question I came to about it is, what is it about us that

                Elizabeth Larrick (04:47.535)
                that causes us not to take really intelligent risks or risks that if you were to do the just pure rational data-based analysis, that the right decision would be to take the risk. The right decision for yourself, many cases also for your client would be to take the risk, but you still don’t do it. Why is that? And I started looking and reading up on some of the cognitive research that

                kind of underlies a lot of the modern thinking about it. I don’t know how much you want me to get into all this. When it starts to get into No, no, I think it’s fascinating. Well, let me just say real quickly, because I think when a lot of times when people are risk averse as trial lawyers, we take kind of a riskier path. We do contingency fees, we get to hold onto the expenses. And one of the thoughts that I think hams up for people when you hear-

                so and so just got 21 million. so and so just got eight for me. that guy or that gal, she just got the multimillion. It’s, that’s just luck. They’re just so lucky. They get that. So that’s one of those thoughts I think that sometimes gets reinforced, which then goes back into our mindset or the brain science behind the paths that we make in our brain. And then trying to make a new path of taking risk is challenging. So talk a little through the brain science.

                Yeah. So again, after that, that recent loss, I was feeling terrible about it and trying to think through how we, how I came to that decision and whether that was a smart decision or a dumb decision. Of course, the decision to take a risk always looks dumb when you’ve lost. So, but I was trying to go back in real time and decide if I had to do it again, would I do the same thing or would I do something different? Because what lesson am going to learn for the next case? So.

                My partner actually had just finished a book by an author named Nate Silver, who somebody, many of your listeners may know from the FiveThirtyEight website. He did a lot of political statistical analysis and prognostications. So this book by Nate Silver, who wrote a book about risk, again, I highly recommend it. And what he does in the book is he compares

                Elizabeth Larrick (07:08.294)
                people that are in professions where they’re highly skilled at analyzing and making decisions on risks, such as venture capitalists, such as poker players, versus people in the mainstream, doctors, lawyers, other people who aren’t as accustomed to making risk-based decisions. And what people in those industries do is they employ what they call probabilistic thinking, which is essentially figuring out what the expected value of a decision is.

                and then making the one that’s optimal. So in poker, if you have a particular hand and you can see the cards on the table and you’re experienced poker player, you can assess what the odds of winning that hand are based on what the likelihood of you having the best hand would be, you know, just based on statistical odds and really good poker players do that. And the expected value is their odds of winning multiplied by what’s in the pot. So.

                Now, if there’s $10 in the pot and you have 50 % odds of winning, the expected value is $5, right? So as a trial lawyer, you can do the same thing. If you know what the expected verdict value is and the likelihood of winning, can figure out, well, this case is the expected value is $10 million and I have a 50 % chance of winning. So the EV or the expected value for this case is $5 million. If they offer you $1 million, that’s

                really not a great offer. I’m assuming all of those, that data is correct, right? And one of the challenges of doing what we do is getting data that you can rely on. One way to do that is focus groups, which is what you do and helping people to have at least a more quantitative understanding of risk for their case, which, you know, in the old days, you just made decisions based on your own quote unquote intuition or experience.

                or what your most recent experience might have been. So you tried a case and you did really well. That case was a rear end collision. Now you have another rear end collision. So you may assume, well, I’m going to do the same in this case. But of course, every case is very different and we all know that, right? Even one little difference can change an entire case. But assuming you could figure out, and it’s a big assumption, what the expected value of the case is, then you can make smart decisions for yourself and your clients in each case.

                Elizabeth Larrick (09:30.631)
                subtle cases where they’re offering more than what the expected value would be, and going to trial in cases where they offer less. It’s my hypothesis that trial lawyers that you hear about getting the big verdicts routinely, even though they haven’t overtly stated that that’s their process, having gotten to know many of those lawyers, I believe that’s essentially what they’re doing. They’re making

                decisions that are much more closely aligned to actual expected value, which if you do that, and this is part of the Nate Silver book, if you do that over a long term, you’re going to be far better off, right? It’s like in any individual case, you might get it wrong because if you a 50 % chance of winning, it’s 10 million and you turn down 3 million.

                and you lose, obviously in that one case, you’re going to be worse off. You would have been better off taking the three. But if you have 10 of those cases and you always make the decision based on expected value over the course of your career, you’re going to be far better off making the analytically correct decision about risk. and I think also too, but what goes into that is when you’re thinking about these folks that are going over and over again.

                and having expected value and using big data to understand all of those things. You still have that person, that brain that has accumulated the risks of going to trial like this on these kinds of numbers, these kinds of cases, that person, that brain is way more accustomed to risk than the lawyer who is just stepping into the arena and they’re taking their first million dollar or two million, three million dollars.

                you know, so I do think it’s a combination of that getting used to that risk, you know, stepping into that place, but then also again, like you’re saying, have some of these expected value and be able to compare and have that a little bit of that data to make the decision. Right. Absolutely. It’s self reinforcing in that if you, so for one, one thing is if you’re a lawyer who only gets an occasional, you know, seven or eight figure case, maybe once a

                Elizabeth Larrick (11:43.567)
                year, or even once a decade, you don’t have a diversity of those cases to balance out that risk. So you’re not in the same position as a poker player playing a thousand hands. You’re actually much more like the client who only has one case. And that’s another point I wanted to cover, which is that the risk to the lawyer is actually quite different than the risk to the client. So the lawyers who are trying

                repeatedly trying seven and eight figure cases to verdicts, they have an entire docket of those cases. So they’re similar to the poker player who’s playing a thousand hands of Texas Hold’em, right? Their expected value is going to even out over the long term and it’s going to trend toward the mean of what the actual value is. Whereas if you only have one case as the lawyer, you’re putting all of your eggs into that basket and

                you know, if it’s a 50-50 chance of 5 million or zero, you may not be in a position with your practice to be able to diversify the risk of that loss across other cases, right? And the client can never do that because our clients always only have one case. I mean, for the most part. Right. We’ve multiple times, but for the most part, they only have one case. And so then you’re in the position of advising your client about

                the risks where for you as the trial lawyer, if you are fortunate enough to have a lot of high value cases, you can afford and you probably should rationally take the risk to insist on getting expected value in your case. Whereas for your client, each marginal dollar is less valuable because the risk is so much greater for them once they get over whatever that threshold number is that they need to be secure and protected.

                from the risk of loss, right? And so that’s just a really difficult dilemma. And I think that part of dealing with that issue is just recognizing it to begin with, that you as a lawyer do have a different tolerance, potentially a different tolerance for risk than the client is. Also the lawyers, mean, frankly, different lawyers, as we’ve discussed, do also have different tolerances for risk. And if you have that case that’s worth $50 million,

                Elizabeth Larrick (14:05.867)
                but you only have one of those in your practice, can you realistically take that risk, the appropriate risk that you should be taking? The answer is probably not, and you probably can’t afford to invest in the case as you should, which is also a risk, which is why a lot of those cases do get referred to the, you know, the small number of lawyers who routinely handle and try those kinds of cases. So there’s a certain logic to it. It’s pretty interesting stuff to, you know,

                drilled down on it. It definitely will. And it is one of those things where I think people, whether you say that it is risk assessment or whether you say it is, they, this is in their wheelhouse. They have the, the war chest to invest in something that I don’t. Right. I think it’s still a matter of risk assessment. Like can I take this? You know, do I have, you know, the, it takes it to go invest the right way, but also take the risk all the way knowing

                you know, I can go in because the value of the case. think most people say, well, that person’s done this before. And also they’ve got the war chest to invest in ways that I may not even know about and don’t have time to teach myself. Whereas I do think there are people out there who have that one and they say, you know what, I got this. And they do their own investment, meaning invest in themselves and then invest in learning. And then basically find a way to build the case.

                with help or alone or whatever it may be and then really do try to take it all the way. But I think those are pretty rare. Those are the most amazing stories. And then those are the people that end up generally moving into that rarefied crowd and doing it repeatedly. I you have to start somewhere. That’s right. Yeah, exactly. I think no one’s going to hand you a 58 figure cases when you start your career. So you have to build that up. Yeah. Well, you know, take some risks to get over that hurdle. But

                Right. And then like you said, I think there are people who do, and then if you have a bad outcome, even if you have one or two, but like they just, they notch down their risk level, right. And then they do end up being referrals and, working on things that they feel comfortable with. This is what I like the data so much. And I like the focus group practice so much because I think it’s a way for us to rationally think about and manage risk. I mean, I’m sure one of the

                Elizabeth Larrick (16:28.258)
                things that you talk about a lot in your podcast is the way focus groups are used to help refine your case and to make it stronger and to make it better for trial present, get the right case frames, the right themes, troubleshoot problems, overcome obstacles on all of those things, which are incredibly important uses of focus groups. But there’s also another use of a focus group, which is to in combination, I think with some quantitative data, more on a big data level, but.

                But it starts with the qualitative data on the focus group is that you start to get more of an objective sense for the actual case value, win loss rate and risks that are independent from your own kind of subjective biases. And I think it’s really important to do that because we all bring a bias, our own bias. And of course, when we’re very deep into the weeds of cases and feel connected with our clients and the cause, it can be very hard for us to see the difficult

                challenges in the case or to do it the way an ordinary juror might look at it. So as part of this kind of risk analysis, I was reading up on the literature, which I’m sure a lot of listeners are familiar with, the Kahneman-Tversky model, which is exploring why people often make irrational decisions based on cognitive bias. And when you read that in the context of being a trial lawyer, a lot of it really rings true and also…

                you can see what the defense and insurance companies are doing to us routinely. So just to highlight a couple, some of the things they found when they did their research and how people make decisions is that people tend to perceive the risk of loss with greater value than the equivalent amount of gain, actually almost two to one, because you’re so worried about risk of losing that that elevates

                in importance in your mind. losing $100 is much more impactful to you than the possibility of gaining an equivalent $100, even though rationally it should be the same, right? Right, right. That’s one of the things they found. Another one was that people will pay extra for certainty because people don’t like uncertainty. So going back to the expected value, if you have a certain 3 million,

                Elizabeth Larrick (18:49.24)
                but the expected value of your case is 5 million because 50 % of 10, people perceive the three as being much more, as more than three relative to the five because it’s certain, whereas the five is contingent. But that again is irrational because the expected value of 50 % of 10 million at five has a substantially higher value than 3 million, right? But still people perceive that differently. And then there’s the final thing, Nate.

                they found, which is that people value things that they own much more than things that they don’t yet own. So it costs more to force somebody to give something up than what someone is willing to pay to acquire the same thing if they never owned it. And when you think about those different cognitive biases, think about how negotiations happen and mediations in a plaintiff’s case, right? They want to put enough money out there that

                they are triggering your client and the lawyers for those cognitive biases to kick in. When they put the three million out there on the table, it’s very different than you sitting down with your client and saying, would you take three million? Well, I don’t think so because the expected value in this case is five million. But now it’s on the table. In a sense, you have it, you own it, it’s yours. And now in order to try your case, you have to give that up. So that endowment effect,

                of people perceiving the value of something they own greater than something they don’t yet own, or the value of certainty over uncertainty, or the value of the risk of loss versus the equivalent amount of gain. All of those biases factor in. And I don’t know if insurance companies have studied this in terms of human cognitive decision-making as to why they negotiate the way they do. But I think some do, some don’t.

                It doesn’t matter. They’re employing these techniques and they’re very effective because we all know exactly how that works, right? Your client says, no, no, no, never, never, never. But as soon as that money is on the table, that whole discussion changes. I’ve always thought about that as well. Our clients sort of being disingenuous, you know, maybe they they’re always saying no, no, no, no, but they actually don’t really mean it. But actually, that’s not really the case. It’s that that cognitive effect has not yet occurred.

                Elizabeth Larrick (21:11.734)
                which is a real, very real thing. And when it happens, it has an actual impact. Probably at some deep level of brain chemistry that I don’t understand. If you recognize that that’s what’s happening, even if it’s still going to happen and still has a powerful impact, I think it’s useful both as the lawyer and in advising your client to think about those things and why you’re doing what you’re doing. And then going back to focus groups, you can, to some extent, I think, counterbalance those forces with actual data.

                because now you’re saying, well, you know, okay, that’s on the table. But we know from, you know, the 10 focus groups we did that the mean verdict about was this, and you had a 90 % win rate in this case. And so, yeah, that number kind of might sound good, but actually that’s offensively low for what this case is actually worth. Sure. At least it’s something to talk to your client about to counterbalance that. Sure. And I think that that definitely

                Absolutely. As far as being able to have some kind of risk assessment tool besides yourself. I think when it’s just you assessing it and telling your client, like it’s very difficult for them to counterbalance it versus if you have some focus groups or you know, if you have the ability to do that big data study, then it significantly helps them balance things out in their minds. Especially if you get there beforehand and you know, before you get to that mediation, that pressure point that they’re going to feel and it’s

                harder for them, I think in the long run, because if you, again, like you’ve pointed out, and you always have to remember that this is their one thing, their one thing. So the risk is going to be magnified versus for us who do it often frequently. And I think we tend to forget about that perception that they’re going to have versus us, even if we’re not one of the ones that always goes to trial, we still have that, this is just how it works.

                you know, okay, that’s okay. That’s going to work. You know, here we go, but just move along because we just don’t want to risk anything. But when you have the focus groups there, it’s definitely harder for you to say, Oh, we should just go against what they said and just settle now because you know a little bit more in your brain about the risk and what, what they’re saying. And the other thing about the focus groups is they find risk you completely missed. I mean, that’s why I enjoy when folks, even if you just do one issue spotting, like

                Elizabeth Larrick (23:35.449)
                it’s going to find risks you may not have known was there. And then you can assess it or you can say, this is not something that we could probably overcome given the evidence we have and what I know and what I can talk about or do another focus group to assess more risk. Yeah, I agree. And we started this new law firm about four years ago and we just revisited our sort of core values as a firm. And one of the core values we came up with is that we are going to make decisions based on science.

                and data, not fear or ego. So that’s, that is one of our firm core values now. And we’re very committed to in every case that’s moving forward to trial. Now we do multiple focus groups because we like the qualitative response from actual people. And then we, we do a big data study, at least one, and we’re committed to recommending settlement. If the case values come in above what the expected value is in the data study and to recommend trying cases of

                the expected value is less. But that’s when we have the conversation with the client about that they only get one case. And so there needs to be some adjustment there for that extra risk. That’s not just a case specific risk, but is the risk of having all of your eggs in one basket. It would be like investing in the stock market by only buying one stock, right? Which nobody would ever do. So a differential is going to be different based on their own life circumstances and

                tolerance for risk, but at least we can have that discussion with them. But we don’t recommend settling for our benefit unless it’s expected value or above. At that point, it becomes the client’s choice. If it’s less than expected value, then we talk about how much less would be reasonable to give them the discount there for that extra risk. it’s just a really great way to have an intelligent conversation with your client about this subject and to take your own ego out of it.

                to take these cognitive biases out, to take fear out of it and just try to make the best decisions we can based on the information available to us. Sure. Well, let me throw a scenario at you because this has happened multiple times with folks I know that are listening. And that is, let’s say you’ve assessed the risk. You’ve done maybe, maybe one or two focus groups. Maybe you’ve got 20 trials, 30 trials under your belt. You’ve got some, you know, multimillion dollar verdicts.

                Elizabeth Larrick (26:00.981)
                And the risk assessment comes back on a case and lo and behold, they get a settlement offer that’s more than that. The client says, no way, I want to risk it all. So how do you, in that scenario, have you have basically a completely risk averse client? How do you navigate that? I mean, there are clients who truly want their day in court and they want the catharsis of having justice done. And personally, I believe that that has great value and

                I would be thrilled to have clients that wanted, that pushed us to try cases that, you know, where we could take a chance that even went beyond what the risks says. However, I think my experience and probably yours too, that’s pretty rare. Our clients don’t tend to be highly risk averse. I find the opposite is much more true that most clients are very worried about going to court. They don’t want to.

                have to be in a courtroom and testify. For our clients, everybody who does plaintiff’s work for the most part, our clients are not. They don’t have resources that allow them to take risks at a high level. And they probably, for the most part, should not be doing so. I find it’s much more the opposite that when you start to get multiple seven figures on the table, clients are very wary to put that at risk to go to court.

                And I totally agree that most people fall into the category of being high. You know, they don’t want to do it, but most people don’t have multi million dollar cases. Most of them have, you know, smaller cases. And what I find when you actually kind of dig into this person who has this absolutely not, there’s absolutely no amount of money that can ever cause nothing’s ever going to fix this. You know, typically there’s something else emotionally that is going on. And that’s where

                you know, yes, we can have all this intelligent conversation, but at the end of the day, I think we have to really think about the emotional things that are going on because there are times where we may get a verdict one way or the other and we talk to the jury and what has happened is something that’s emotional and subconscious and like, you know, all they can tell us is, I didn’t like your tie been in your thinking. Okay. Well, that really probably wasn’t the thing that made you decide.

                Elizabeth Larrick (28:22.493)
                Yeah. No, I mean, I just had a client in the office two days ago and this was a case we did a data study on. And what I found is actually most of the time, the data studies come back with numbers that are higher than what I would have expected. Back in the days before we did data, my intuition would have valued them below what actually juries are valuing them. So that’s been a nice revelation for me.

                I think that’s part of the culture and climate we’re in right now with a lot of the nuclear verdicts and that people are willing to see value in other humanity. And also just there’s a lot of anger out there and people are expressing that in verdicts. But in this particular case, the results came back considerably worse than we would have expected. And there’s some atmospheric reasons why that’s probably the case. So we settled with one of two defendants for what was what I think beyond expected value for the entire case.

                And our client, just like what you said, she is not, she was not particularly thrilled with the settlement, but for the party that settled, they also agreed to do something, a non-economic thing beyond the settlement. And this case involved a death of a child and they’re willing to do something to recognize that probably didn’t cost a lot of money, but it was very meaningful to our client and made her feel like they took the claim seriously.

                that they were taking responsibility for it. so, yeah, there are definitely cases where there are things beyond money that are very meaningful, whether it’s a day in court, just having that jury say, you know, the other side was wrong and you didn’t do anything wrong. Well, and that’s still pretty rare that most, but you anything will non-economic would come through. But I just think, you know, most of the time when you have somebody who has something else emotionally that they want to be satisfied.

                for what it be to be, it is to be heard. Maybe it is to be, you know, you know, acknowledged in the sense of, and many of the times it never happens, right? Even if you have a jury of like that doesn’t give an acknowledgement by the defendant, but that’s just kind of one of those things where we are on the other side, right? Of where we’re trying to convince somebody else of the risk knowing we’ve done, you know, the research and, it is pretty rare that those happen, but they’re out there. I mean, I, clients are

                Elizabeth Larrick (30:44.177)
                They’re complex humans, just like everyone is, and people are have, they’re going to be different motives and lots of layers, probably in every case. But what I’m trying to focus on in terms of thinking about the risk here is more that I don’t want to be making decisions based on my own ego or fear. If I can take that out of the equation, at least that’s one big factor to remove. Now my client’s going to have fear. My client has an ego. My client has many desires and are not necessarily driven by

                know, crunching numbers and expected value of cases based on focus groups and big data. I get that, but I don’t want to be making decisions on that because I’m the professional here, right? And I should be trying to make smart decisions, not take dumb risks because it would serve my ego to get a verdict, but on the flip side, not caving into these cognitive biases that might be impacting me because, I’m afraid of the risk of loss or I’m valuing the certainty of

                dollars in my pocket over the greater value of going forward, which I shouldn’t be doing those things as the professional in the relationship. So the reality is, as you know from doing all these focus groups is, first of all, none of these are precise science. It’s not in poker, you can look at a hand and say, if I have this hand, I have the third best hand you can have, and my odds of winning are 72.5%.

                You can never get to that. don’t think we’re ever going to get to that in our business. There’s not enough human nature and jury decision making is too unpredictable to be subscribed to that kind of analysis. But the reality is when you do big data and combine that with a qualitative focus group where I think you can get pretty close, I think you can get within a range that gives you a pretty good sense. You know, are you at a 70 % win rate or are you at a 30 % win rate?

                You you definitely can get a lot closer than you could with your gut without it. So, yeah. So obviously, Ben, I think I can hear that you really like big data. I think I can hear that. And we talked about some of wrong ways to assess risk, which would be ego or fear. So what’s another way that maybe would be the wrong way to assess risk? Well, I think one way is to is to use a small sample size to

                Elizabeth Larrick (33:05.917)
                have large scale extrapolation. So if you do one focus group and you had a great result, that doesn’t mean you’re going to win your trial. And if you had a bad result, it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose your trial because we all know as long as it’s a small sample size, it’s highly influenced by individual people or just like you said, maybe what you wore in your tie that day or some other factor. Sure. Well, and I think if you’re just going to do one focus group, you shouldn’t be targeting, is it a win or a loss? You should be targeting.

                what are they saying, how are they saying it, you know, that kind of stuff. you know, totally agree. The one shot doesn’t get… Yeah. And also, I mean, I think you can always stack your presentations to dictate your outcome in your favor. So, I mean, if you’re not honestly confronting the real difficult arguments that the other side has, whether it’s in focus groups or doing data studies, you might get very favorable results and you might feel good about that. But that it would be a big mistake to use that to

                make decisions or to advise your client because you’re not really, you know, honestly presenting the case. And I think having that discipline to try to honestly confront the difficult problems in your case, even if you didn’t use the data for predictive quality or anything is worth it alone because that exercise is going to make you a much better lawyer and make you much better prepared for trial because

                It’s not fun, but you’re dealing with the difficult issues before you get in the courtroom and you figuring out solutions to them. So, right. And you definitely don’t want to be doing that in the courtroom. But I think another way that we often and frequent do this, and it’s not just that we just as trial lawyers, but we go down the hall or we call somebody up when we ask them to give us their risk assessment and then really rely on our neighbors or our, you know, our colleagues assessment of things we do. And we also, I think,

                And this is one of the Kahneman and Tversky points as they call it availability bias. But basically you tend to put greater emphasis on things that are easily accessible or right in your face at the moment. So if there was a big verdict in a similar kind of case, you would tend to say, well, I’m likely to get a big verdict in this case, even though maybe that same kind of case, was nine bad verdicts before that, that you didn’t hear about.

                Elizabeth Larrick (35:26.063)
                It’s the concept that, you know, when people are at the beach, they’re worried about shark attacks, even though that happens, at least in Maine, that’s happened once in the last century. But it did happen a couple of years ago and everybody’s afraid of shark attacks now just because of the recency and, kind of that being front and center in someone’s mind, which I think is why people that start getting verdicts to that becomes their recent experience. Well, I just had a great verdict. So now the next case, what are you thinking about? I’m thinking about my last case and

                that gives you that extra confidence that things are going to go well the next time. And you know, the reality is we’re also in somewhat of a confidence game. So there’s a value in just having the confidence, which, you know, when you do the focus group and you do your data and you’re if you’re doing it with robust process and thinking critically about the difficult issues and the other side and you’re still winning and feeling good about it. Yeah, you get some extra confidence going in the courtroom as you feel like you’ve got the win in your sales and

                that itself, I think has great value. Absolutely. And I do think you can gain some certainty out of your case, you know, running them and figuring out the case frames and the sequencing of evidence, which is again, brain science, right? Primacy, recency, you know, all the things that we can take advantage of because we get to go first. And again, knowing that things are working at the focus groups, that definitely gives you that confidence and certainty. So, okay. So what’s a key takeaway that we need to give folks before we end our episode?

                What I’d like to see people do is just step back and reflect on the idea of risk and think about where you are in that, in the process of arbitrating that both internally in your own mind and trying to confront your own biases and egos and fears and also the perspective of your client and where they’re coming to you from this. I think if you can step back and even just

                thoughtfully consider those things, you’re going to make better decisions for yourself and for your client. And whether you decide the way to do that is with more focus groups, more data, or just thinking more critically about your case and not falling prey to those biases that may affect us otherwise if we’re not aware of them. I think that would have a lot of value for folks. I know it has for me. Absolutely. Absolutely.

                Elizabeth Larrick (37:43.165)
                Just to give people a little bit more of a reference point, Thinking Fast and Slow is probably the best book you could recommend as far as learning Daniel Kahneman and their work they’ve done. Yes. Yeah, I would start there. And then Nate Silver, his book is Thinking in Bets. No. It’s On the Edge. On the Edge. He’s got a couple of books, but that’s the one I was referring to. Okay. Okay. Awesome. Well,

                Ben, thank you so much for joining us. If you guys want to talk to Ben more, and I know he loves to talk folks about big data. He actually wrote the preface for jury ball that just came out. So, you know, if you have questions about big data, please, we’re going to have Ben’s contact information, the show notes, along with the links to those books. If you’re interested in that, Ben, thank you so much for joining us. You have given us lots of wonderful gems here about assessing risk and cognitive bias and things to be aware of. So thank you so much.

                Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity and thanks for coming on my podcast, Elizabeth. It’s great. Of course, of course, of course. Thank you so much for tuning into this episode with Ben Gideon. You can find his contact information in the show notes along with the two books that were recommended during our episode. And if you want to learn more, you can join the trial lawyer prep newsletter. Thank you.

                How to Work in Your Trial Strategy with Your Client’s Testimony [Ep 137]

                In this episode, Elizabeth goes into crafting authentic client testimonies to enhance courtroom success. She emphasizes avoiding scripted testimonies that erode credibility and offers strategies to naturally integrate case themes into client testimonies. Elizabeth outlines three key steps: avoid making clients memorize phrases, review their past statements, and conduct prep sessions to help them organize thoughts on damages or liability. This approach ensures that testimonies subtly echo case themes, maintaining authenticity and strengthening trial strategies. 

                In this episode, you will hear:

                • Crafting authentic and impactful client testimonies for courtroom success
                • Avoiding pitfalls of scripted testimonies to maintain credibility
                • Integrating case themes into all trial stages, from jury selection to opening statements
                • Strategies for making client testimonies resonate with jurors
                • Emphasizing authenticity and emotional connection in witness preparation

                Follow and Review:

                We’d love for you to follow us if you haven’t yet. Click that purple ‘+’ in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We’d love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast.

                Supporting Resources:

                Have a challenging client or up-coming trial that you want to polish client testimony?

                Book a free call: https://calendly.com/elizabethlarrick

                Episode 131: What is Trial Strategy and What it is NOT

                Join the
                Trial Lawyer Prep
                Newsletter

                Every month I send out an email newsletter that provides valuable insights on:

                – case preparation

                – trial strategy

                – focus groups

                – witness preparation, and

                – episodes of my podcast

                Additionally the TLP Newsletter is where I announce the opening of my Foundations Virtual Focus Group Class, and other upcoming opportunities.

                  How did you hear about me?
                  I am a(n):
                  We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

                  Episode Transcript:

                  Elizabeth Larrick (00:02.604) Do you ever wish your client would give testimony at trial that echoed your case themes? You are not alone. Most trial lawyers want every piece of their trial to echo or repeat

                  the case themes and trial strategy. Welcome to Trial Lawyer Prep. I’m your host, Elizabeth Larrick, and thank you for joining me today. This episode combines two of my favorite topics, witness prep and trial strategy, which by the way, if you are struggling with a client who is having difficulty, having clear testimony for deposition or trial, book a chat with me and let’s see if how I can help. Now,

                  You want your client to echo those case themes, give some great testimony that also kind of assists the lift in the case for those things. And trust me, there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. So let’s talk a little bit about the wrong way, which would be having your client memorize language or phrases.

                  So they’re echoing back the exact same thing or scripting questions and having them answer in a very scripted way. Let’s give an example, which would be if you are a follower of the edge or reptile mantra, one of the questions that’s asked in voir dire is what is your passion? Now, I don’t have any problem with this question. It’s great. But what ends up happening sometimes is lawyers can get a little lazy.

                  Elizabeth Larrick (02:19.713)
                  And instead of coming up with a different way to ask that question, they have the exact same question to their client to try and like weave that theme in there. It is really obvious to the jurors what you are trying to do. So why would that not maybe work? And that would be number one, it’s very robotic. It’s very scripted. It’s very mechanical.

                  And what happens is number two, the jury just doesn’t believe it at all. They know that it’s scripted and not persuasive, which then leads me to the last point of losing credibility, which is huge for your clients. They already have the opposite end of the belief in them because they’re bringing this lawsuit. They’re taking people away from their lives. And most jurors are a little upset about that. And so they judge our clients scrupulously.

                  And so we go for these kinds of low level hanging fruit, it really causes them to lose credibility, which is extremely difficult for them to get back. So let’s talk about the right way to weave trial themes, trial strategy into your client testimony. Number one, we gotta have a trial strategy or case theme. So if you don’t have one of those, that’s okay. Jump back to episode 131, where we talk about what

                  trial strategy is and is not. And hopefully that will help clarify some things. So once you get that in order and you know, all right, here’s where the order of proof is going to be. Here’s how we’re going to weave this theme into opening and jury selection and through these witnesses. And so you want to ask yourself right out the gate, where does the client fit in? What is a topic that they can actually take on their plate, testify about?

                  and do so in a way that actually does echo your case themes. So thinking about, let’s take liability first. There are cases out there where it would be really difficult for the client to add to a case theme or trial strategy when it came to liability because liability requires expert testimony. Maybe it’s a product liability case, maybe it’s medical malpractice. However, a place where I find it is helpful for clients to testify when it comes to strategy,

                  Elizabeth Larrick (04:39.297)
                  on liability is rules. So car wrecks are a great example here. We have rules of the road, but there are rules pretty much in every case. And there are things which I would call expectations that our jurors will have of our clients. so liability and rules are a great way to pair those things together when the client gets on the stand. Let’s turn then to damages. Typically people will have a damages theme. You’ll have before and after witnesses along with your client who are gonna testify.

                  And there are things definitely that the client must tackle on damages. However, sometimes it can be done in a way that will echo your theme. My example would be if betrayal is one of the themes that you have in your case and having your client testify about the trust and examples of that trust and how it led to blind trust. And then again, having the rug pulled off underneath them.

                  There are great ways to weave in your case themes, thinking about liability and damages. But what you want to do on this first step is just see where is it possible? Where do they fit in? And maybe they’re not the best witness for fitting in the theme, either on liability or damages. So think about that. Get your little bucket. Okay, where can they help on liability and where can they help on damages? And the next thing to do is to step two, which would be, let’s go see what they say.

                  meaning let’s check the deposition. How did they testify already around these themes? If at all, sometimes they don’t at all. And then where in our prep sessions can I designate some time is to sit and listen to them talk through some questions that you may have for them. And so in this second part of just really seeing what they’ve said and then listening to them, like learning their language and how they actually explain and have stories,

                  I like to use an organizational chart. I find it really helpful because it helps me be able to listen, right? And they have the knowledge that they’ve got to fill this chart out together. But basically we just take a giant notepad, we divide it into four different squares and we walk through each square looking at, okay, what are examples of either it’s the physical injuries or maybe the mental injuries that have

                  Elizabeth Larrick (07:00.239)
                  kind of change things, examples of that. And the four squares, which would be home and family, social, work and me. And as we go through and your job is a lawyer’s just to ask questions again, how has this impacted? And just listening and writing up those examples. The hope is that you’ll have a great page that is filled full of lots of examples. And then you can in that last step, right? Step number three of trying to work in

                  the case themes through the client testimony, is to sit down and really craft those questions very well. And sometimes they’re very simple questions. They’re not long-winded questions, they’re not kind of the wind up questions. They’re just really simple questions. And most of the time it’s really about signposting to help the client know where you’re going, but also have the jury follow you. But having done the work of listening to them in that second step,

                  they will feel very comfortable knowing about what you want them to say. That’s generally the number one thing people always tell me, what do want me to say on the stand? You want it to be normal, natural, you want to be very conversational. And that’s why doing this, working in your case theme does take some time because you want to feel really confident in your case theme and your trial strategy.

                  So timing of this preparation really comes very close to the time of actual trial. Because at that point, maybe emotions and limiting have been ruled on. You’ve heard a lot of the themes that will be coming out of the defense. You know really well what your other testimony is and your opening statement. And then being able to do this work with your client will really help you be very clear about what place that they may take on their testimony as far as helping the theme or echoing.

                  and where they won’t help. Maybe you have other witnesses that can help and tell different stories or fit in different ways with your case themes. So you may be thinking, well, what if I go through these three steps and it doesn’t work? Meaning there’s nothing that I can get the client to, you know, testify along with my case theme. Well, sometimes I always say, let’s go back to the drawing board then and let’s think about it. What does the jury need to hear? What does a client already have to say?

                  Elizabeth Larrick (09:23.567)
                  It’s not a bad thing if there can’t be any overlap between case themes and case strategies. Typically there is, it’s just having to go back through and think about it in a different way, either through the jury’s perspective or working a little more on your questions. Or one the things I always suggest too is looking to other witnesses that maybe are testifying more clearly or have a better memory. There’s lots of memory issues sometimes with our injury clients. And so that significantly helps go back and rework

                  but also, I would say two main tips here, which was number one, try to avoid putting a lot of pressure on your client when it comes to case themes and strategy. Typically, I don’t even mention any of those things to a client because the thought of even walking to a courtroom and testifying for a group of people is terrifying. The risk that they are already taking in bringing their case to trial is already overwhelming to them. To try and add another thing that they must

                  understand, educate themselves, and then feel pressure to fit in is too much, right? So again, this is why my second tip is subtlety here. We don’t want to be hitting anybody over the head with our case themes over and over and over again. And so you have to be very subtle in how you work these things through and making sure that it works very naturally with your client and how they think and how the information is stored in their minds. But yet you’re pulling out in a way so the jury understands. All right. So

                  If you’re thinking, have this trial coming up, but I’ve got somebody who I don’t communicate well with, or maybe they would be challenging to try and understand where they could actually add on a case theme, the link in the show notes to book a free call with me and see if I can help with that. All right, let’s recap really quickly. Number one, please don’t make your client memorize words or phrases in order to echo the themes you have in your case. Number two, figure out what they’ve already said.

                  and then listen to them in a prep session and help them organize some of the things for damage and disreliability where you can then craft questions that subtly echo the themes that you have in your case. And again, if you’re thinking, I’m not even sure I have a theme or a trial strategy, visit that episode 131, link will be in the show notes. All right, thanks so much for tuning in.