<img height="1" width="1" alt="" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1482979731924517&amp;ev=PixelInitialized">

The Litigation Consulting Report

50 Characteristics of Top Trial Teams

Posted by Ken Lopez on Thu, Apr 21, 2016 @ 02:22 PM


trial team win litigation traits characteristicsby Ken Lopez
Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

After the more than 20 years that we have spent in the litigation consulting business, we don't hear very many questions that we’ve never heard before. However, this week I did hear one, and the story is worth sharing because it goes to the heart of how a truly great litigator performs. The question I heard was, “What can we do better as a trial team on the next engagement?”

Consider how remarkable this is. Here was a litigator from a large law firm sincerely trying to improve the performance of his team and himself. I was deeply impressed, as this was the first time I've had someone ask that question after an engagement.

It's a very sensible question, of course. A2L's team has worked with thousands of litigation teams from the very best law firms in the world. I have watched many litigators perform near-magic in the courtroom, and I have seen teams fail miserably. There are patterns that lead to success and patterns that lead to failure.

In the spirit of the question that this litigator asked me, I started thinking about the traits of the world’s most effective trial teams. Here are 50 of them culled from my experience and that of my colleagues Dr. Laurie Kuslansky and Tony Klapper.

  1. Practice is by far the single most obvious indicator of a trial team's success. The great litigators draft their openings months or years in advance of trial and practice them dozens or hundreds of times. See, Practice, Say Jury Consultants, is Why Movie Lawyers Perform So Well

  2. Preparation. Great trial teams start preparing long before trial, and they don't ask the client’s permission to do so. Their attitude is, “If you work with a team like ours, it means you want to win and we know how to win and we're going to get that done, whatever it takes.” I think they are right. There are only a handful of law firms that I have observed that have this sense of preparation embedded in their litigation culture. See, The 13 Biggest Reasons to Avoid Last-Minute Trial Preparation

  3. Great litigation teams want their answers questioned. Great litigators are confident. They are so confident that they open themselves up to rigorous scrutiny in their approach to trial. Through a whole host of methods, they invite criticism, suggestions, fresh pairs of eyes, lay people’s opinions, experts’ opinions, and they use all of these voices to perform at their best. See, Accepting Litigation Consulting is the New Hurdle for Litigators

  4. They lead, but they can be led too. Great litigators avoid dominating all discussions. They intentionally let others lead them and be seen as leaders. Download the Leadership for Lawyers eBook

  5. They just look comfortable in front of a jury. Confidence equals persuasiviness and humans are born with an expert ability to detect it.  See, A Harvard Psychologist Writes About Presenting to Win

  6. They build narratives early. They know how important a narrative is to winning a case. They have also learned from experience that the earlier this is done, the better. A well-constructed narrative can inform everything from briefing to discovery to witness preparation. Download The Opening Statement Toolkit

  7. They understand the difference between a narrative and a theme. See, 14 Differences Between a Theme and a Story in Litigation

    storytelling for judge jury courtroom best method for trial persuasion and emotion
  8. They spend their time where they are most valuable and add the most value. How Valuable is Your Time vs. Litigation Support's Time?

  9. They begin developing their visual presentation months or years before trial. See, How Long Before Trial Should I Begin Preparing My Trial Graphics?

  10. They’re not afraid of technology in the courtroom or elsewhere. Skipping technology means losing credibility in most cases now. Jurors have come to expect it and no longer take kindly to simply being lectured to. See, Trial Presentation Too Slick? Here's Why You Can Stop Worrying

  11. They’re systematic in how they meet with their outside consultants. Great trial teams usually hold weekly calls or meetings and schedule the next event at the end of each meeting.

  12. They’re not frantic. There are so many reasons why one should not be frantic, and even when the facts are terrible, great lawyers work at a measured and even pace and don't go negative. See, 10 Signs the Pressure is Getting to You and What to Do About It

  13. They don't jockey for position with other lawyers and law firms. The worst and least effective trial teams that I have ever seen play politics to the detriment of the client in the run up to trial. See, 5 Tips for Working Well As a Joint Defense Team

  14. They exhibit a distinct lack of arrogance. I think some people confuse arrogance with ability. The best trial teams I have observed display tons of confidence, show mastery of the subject matter, demonstrate massive respect for one another and never allow arrogance to enter the picture. See, In-House Counsel's Role In Keeping Litigator Ego In Check

  15. They probably subscribe to our blog. Alright, not everyone subscribes to this blog, but 8,000 people do. Litigators who demonstrate that they hope to grow their own skill set are typical subscribers. See, 10 Surprising Facts About Litigation Consulting Report Blog Readers



    Complimentary Subscription to This Blog



  16. They realize there are too many parts in big-ticket litigation for the first chair to handle all of them alone. They know how to divide the work among attorneys, paralegals, experts, and others. The only way to build a simple case is to start with a complicated one and break it down. Truly complex cases require lots of team effort to achieve this result. See, Litigator & Litigation Consultant Value Added: A "Simple" Final Product

  17. They require their experts to work with communications and visual design consultants. Perhaps 1 in 500 experts is an expert in presenting information in a jury-friendly way, but most believe that they are. 7 Smart Ways for Expert Witnesses to Give Better Testimony

  18. They don't lose it; they keep their cool. There are plenty of stressors in the pre-trial environment. People not used to doing this kind of work would find it hard to maintain a positive attitude, but it is so critical to do so. See, 5 Signs of a Dysfunctional Trial Team (and What to Do About It)

  19. They conduct post-hearing, post-conference, and post-trial debriefings. Truly great trial teams do this, and all bad trial teams simply blame a bad judge, bad facts, and/or a bad jury. See, 9 Questions to Ask in Your Litigation Postmortem or Debrief

  20. They contemplate their thematic story right from the start and incorporate that into discovery. We're working with a number of clients now who are making sure a narrative is developed early in a case, not just on the ease of trial. This is a best-practice for highly effective trial teams. See, Planning For Courtroom Persuasion? Use a Two-Track Trial Strategy

  21. They tell you their strengths and weaknesses. When we meet with a trial team for the first time, they usually present to us as if we were potential jurors. That is, they advocate. Good trial teams do that, but then great trial teams say, "here's what our opponents will say and here's where we are vulnerable."

  22. They don’t answer their own questions, but let other people do that. Often, these answers are found in a mock trial setting. As we frequently advocate, let the data speak, don't guess or just use your gut instinct. See, 10 Things Every Mock Jury Ever Has Said

  23. Before dismissing new ideas, they consider how to apply them, no matter how new. See, How Creative Collaboration Can Help a Litigation Team

  24. They repeat back recommendations to make sure they understand them. This mirroring technique is used by many highly effective litigators and great listeners in all fields.

  25. They send drafts of their work with enough lead time for others to provide comments. Time management in litigation is a skill that must be developed and is a given with great trial teams. See, The 13 Biggest Reasons to Avoid Last-Minute Trial Preparation

  26. They communicate in an orderly, consistent manner so that the left and right hands know what the other is doing. 

  27. If they aren’t good organizers, they task someone who is to assure continuity and avoid panic. Download the Leadership for Lawyers eBook

  28. They don’t assume anything and seek to verify with facts, including mock testing that shows which themes are winners and which juror types are worst. See, 11 Problems with Mock Trials and How to Avoid Them

    mock jury webinar a2l kuslansky

  29. They don’t answer challenges by simply stating how long they’ve done this or where they went to school. See, 6 Studies That Support Litigation Graphics in Courtroom Presentations

  30. They lead, but don’t micromanage. We recently wrote about how some trial teams will agonize over fonts, colors, and PowerPoint templates while ignoring bad facts in their case during trial preparation. See, 3 Trial Preparation Red Flags That Suggest a Loss is Imminent

  31. They are respectful to junior staff and outside consultants. See, 13 Reasons Law Firm Litigation Graphics Departments Have Bad Luck

  32. They understand that their success is a team effort and approach it that way. See, When a Good Trial Team Goes Bad: The Psychology of Team Anxiety

  33. They give credit where credit is due, sincerely (not by patronizing).

  34. They lead by example. Download the Leadership for Lawyers eBook

  35. They pay their bills on time or early. I'm pretty sure most litigators don't understand how important timely payment is and how it contributes to winning cases. See, 10 Ways Timely Payment Helps You Save Money On Litigation Consulting

  36. They don't sugarcoat the possible effectiveness of the other side's narrative and thematic points and fall too quickly in love with their own narrative and themes. See, 12 Astute Tips for Meaningful Mock Trials

  37. Notwithstanding a keen awareness of what the other side will say, they don't simply respond to the other side; they build their own affirmative narrative. See, $300 Million of Litigation Consulting and Storytelling Validation opening statements toolkit ebook download a2l
  38. They pressure test throughout the course of their pre-trial development and during the course of trial itself by continuously empowering the entire litigation and trial teams to provide their own input. They eschew groupthink. See, How Creative Collaboration Can Help a Litigation Team

  39. All attorneys on the team have meaningful roles that sync with their individual strengths.

  40. They don't wait until the last minute to prepare fact and expert witnesses and instead dedicate sufficient resources to ensure those witnesses are prepared. See, Witness Preparation: Hit or Myth?

  41. Witness preparation includes, of course, careful development of an effective visual presentation that is rehearsed but doesn't sound rehearsed. See, The Top 14 Testimony Tips for Litigators and Expert Witnesses

  42. Effective litigation teams spend as much time preparing their witnesses for robust cross-examinations as they do for direct examinations. See, 
    Witness Preparation: The Most Important Part

  43. They look for opportunities to score significant points on redirect, a redirect that is thought through well in advance of trial and not simply reactive to cross.

  44. They seek candid feedback, not false praise, during trial.

  45. They get some sleep. One of my favorite, now retired, trial lawyers used to say that he never slept better than when we was at trial. He always knew he was fully prepared.

  46. They don't relegate preparation of important witnesses to junior lawyers who lack actual experience. See, Witness Preparation: Hit or Myth?

  47. They don't dismiss the level of intensive prep needed “just for deposition,” waiting for trial.  Most cases settle, and discovery can make or break a case. My favorite lawyers are just as "on" at a depo as they are at trial. See, 6 Tips for Effectively Using Video Depositions at Trial

  48. They think about details like tie color, suit color, and body language, and they work to improve their delivery at every event they participate in. See, Litigation Graphics, Psychology and Color Meaning

  49. They are grateful that they get to do the kind of work that they do. I watched a top trial lawyer and friend be interviewed recently. His attitude was one of sincere gratitude about being a litigator. That sincerity comes through in everything that he does, and it is part of the reason he is so successful in front of juries. It's something that is almost impossible to fake.

  50. Finally, they ask their litigation consultants what can they do better. So far, as mentioned in the introduction to this article, it has happened just this once. However, I have a feeling we'll get asked this question more and more. I hope this article provides a useful framework for these types of discussions.

litigation consulting graphics jury trial technology

Tags: Trial Graphics, Litigation Graphics, Trial Presentation, Jury Consulting, Courtroom Presentations, Mock Trial, Trial Consulting, Demonstrative Evidence, Litigation Management, Litigation Support, Juries, Jury Consultants, Trial Preparation, Storytelling, Management, Practice, Expert Witness, Leadership, Judges, Opening, Depositions, Witness Preparation, Persuasion

A Harvard Psychologist Writes About Presenting to Win

Posted by Ken Lopez on Mon, Mar 14, 2016 @ 04:59 PM


cuddy-presenting-win-litigator-belief.jpgby Ken Lopez
Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

I wrote about Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy's body language TED Talk in 2012. Her findings about how striking a power pose can measurably affect your persuasiveness are as relevant for litigators today as they were four years ago.

Professor Cuddy has released a new book called Presence, and it is filled with an even greater wealth of useful information for litigators. She goes into detail about what one can do to prepare for a high-pressure situation like a job interview, a competitive swim meet, or a venture capital pitch - all situations similar enough to an opening statement that we can safely assume the same advice applies.

When one is delivering as their best self, they are said to be exhibiting "presence." She says that presence is most clear to others when "we feel personally powerful, which allows us to be acutely attuned to our most sincere selves." In other words, when we believe in our message and believe in ourselves, we are in fact scientifically more believable to others - and there are ways to hack your own brain, like the power pose, to make these findings work for anyone.

Make no mistake, presence is not about feigning confidence or passion. Instead, exhibiting presence is more like being in sync with your true self. For these techniques to work and for you to maximize your persuasiveness in the courtroom, you really must authentically believe in yourself. But how?

Her suggestions for achieving presence are not conjecture. Cuddy roots her advice in solid science and rigorous study. For example, one study involved analyzing videos of 185 pitches to venture capitalists. In this setting, much like the courtroom, there is a clear winner and loser. Key behaviors (all sub-elements of presence) of all the presenters were assessed and compared with those who were successful in getting venture capital funding. 

The results are fascinating. Four factors clearly dominated all others in determining who got funding:

  1. Enthusiasm
  2. Confidence
  3. Passion
  4. Lack of Awkwardness

If you think about the great opening statements (and the worst) you have seen, don't these factors just make perfect sense? Doesn't that last point, in particular, resonate with some experiences you've seen (and hopefully not had) in the courtroom? For me, it certainly brings up memories of poor uses of PowerPoint, courtroom technology failures, and litigators who flubbed all sorts of things in front of a judge or jury.

Cuddy goes on to discuss a study involving mock job interviews where the candidates have to speak for 5 minutes to a group of judges who, by design, appear stoic during the entire interview. Some of the interviewees prepared by using a variety of mind and body power-enhancing techniques and some did not. Like the VC funding study and others discussed in the book, the findings of this study offer key lessons for litigators.

It turns out that you can cause others to see you as more persuasive by practicing a few key physical and mental exercises in advance of delivering your message (e.g. your opening statement). Of course, these findings apply to any high stress situation where you must be persuasive or "on."

If you want to increase your presence and thus your persuasiveness, practice some or all of these behaviors in a quiet place when no one else is watching you:

  1. Make Belief: Professor Cuddy encourages that, based on scientific studies, those going into stressful situations where persuasion will be critical, should first conduct this short three-part exercise. Step one is to identify several personal values that are important to you that you know are valued by others about you. Next, identify that value or trait that you rely on most (for me, I value my ability to deliver creative thoughts very quickly). Now, reflect on a time when you did that very well. This exercise tricks your brain into getting into a state of increased power and confidence so that you come across as more persuasive.

  2. Convey Confidence to Yourself: Before your next opening (or mock opening), assume a superhero-like power pose or a victory post for a couple of minutes. Just this act will significantly increase testosterone and decrease stress hormones.  Also, before walking into the courtroom, avoid working in a hunched position, as you would when looking at your phone. Doing so causes your brain to behave in a less powerful and confident way. If you are anxious, trick your brain into treating that anxiety as a positive by repeating, "I'm excited, I'm excited, I'm excited." 

  3. Act as if: Related to the above two concepts is the idea that we really can fake it until we make it. As Cuddy analogously explains throughout the book, if you act as though you have won your case before you walk into the courtroom, as you walk into the courtroom, and throughout the entire case, the natural swagger that this will cause you to exhibit will make you more persuasive.

At A2L, we're not usually hired to increase a litigator's presence, but we often end up delivering that result. You might ask how does a litigation consulting firm like ours help litigators achieve presence? Well, by helping litigators develop their presentations, making them highly persuasive, testing the presentations, practicing the presentations, and doing all the aforementioned work while being encouraging and not critical, we normally send a litigator into battle more confident than ever. It's exactly the kind of authentic from-the-inside kind of confidence that helps a litigator be more persuasive. 

One of our mottos at A2L is that "We Make Belief." I bet Amy Cuddy would approve of our approach.

Other articles from A2L Consulting about trial presentation, trial preparation, and courtroom presence include:

 

opening statements toolkit ebook download a2l

Tags: Trial Presentation, Courtroom Presentations, Mock Trial, Litigation Consulting, Trial Preparation, Psychology, Practice, Visual Persuasion, Opening, Persuasion

3 Trial Preparation Red Flags That Suggest a Loss is Imminent

Posted by Ken Lopez on Wed, Mar 2, 2016 @ 09:24 AM


trial preparation red flags litigator behavior loss associatedby Ken Lopez

Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

In 20 years as a litigation consultant, I’ve personally seen hundreds of litigators try cases, and I have heard the observations of my colleagues on other cases, probably amounting to thousands of cases in all. So I’m in a pretty good position to evaluate what works and what doesn’t work, based on a non-scientific study of trials and trial teams.

One might think that a litigator who has been living and breathing a case for years is more likely to win a jury verdict than a litigator who has just been brought in for the trial. But I just don’t see that. Litigators do well in both situations. It is true, however, that trial teams that prepare longer and harder for trial are more likely to win.

There are, however, some trial preparation patterns that constitute “red flags” and indicate to me that a trial team may be headed for trouble. Here are three of them.

1) Extensive debates among the team about font, color, and PowerPoint templates. This often spells trouble. For example, if your litigation graphics shop (likely experts in visual persuasion) have produced more than 10 PowerPoint template/font/color combinations, and the merits of each are still being debated by the lawyers, the team is likely focusing on the wrong thing. Now a healthy debate about color, fonts, and templates can be OK. But don’t forget that there’s no real scientific agreement on what colors or fonts are persuasive, and also remember that some litigation graphics shops are experts in the nuances of color theory, font choice, and visual persuasion. So, when I see a litigator spending weeks on a template, I know we're in trouble.

2) Secretiveness about the case. Sometimes we see clients who are hesitant to talk about their case or who bristle when asked, "How could the opposition win?" The best litigators want to have their answers questioned. They are the furthest thing from yes-men or yes-women. See $300 Million of Litigation Consulting and Storytelling Validation to understand the kind of work some high-end litigators put in to generate a win.

3) Infighting between law firms. Once this breaks out, the real battle becomes which law firm will triumph rather than which side of the case will triumph. It almost always leads to a loss. If there is the slightest whiff of this behavior, in-house counsel must step in and eliminate it immediately. Allowing this sort of "drama" to persist simply increases the likelihood that the corporate budget for the arts is about to increase markedly (in the form of a losing verdict). See 5 Tips for Working Well As a Joint Defense Team.

However, all these behaviors, in my experience, can be reversed. Very often, they are simply tactics to avoid dealing with a real problem in the case. Good mock testing and good recognition of the behaviors as they are happening can often save a case in trouble. Sometimes, it is up to in-house counsel to assert their leadership and eliminate these behaviors.

Other A2L articles and resources about litigation leadership, in-house counsel, and trial preparation include:

in-house counsel litigation toolkit e-book free download

Tags: Trial Graphics, Litigation Graphics, Mock Trial, Demonstrative Evidence, Litigation Management, Trial Preparation, Leadership, PowerPoint, In-House Counsel

Jury Research and Mock Trials During Presidential Elections

Posted by Laurie Kuslansky on Fri, Feb 26, 2016 @ 11:32 AM

jury research mock trials
by Laurie R. Kuslanksy, Ph.D.

Managing Director, Jury & Trial Consulting
A2L Consulting

The litigation arena competes with the political arena in presidential election years. Everyone including large pollsters, such as Pew Research and Quinnipiac, major networks, each political party, each candidate, and myriads of social scientists and politically-interested entities are conducting research using the same resources - i.e., your potential mock jurors and facilities.

Many services for conducting mock trials and other forms of jury research, including focus groups, online surveys, telephone surveys, ballroom studies (large format live research involving potentially hundreds of live mock jurors) and “mall intercepts” (in-person interviews) are called upon by political campaigns, pollsters and other interested parties.

Both camps need:

  1. Recruiting of research subjects
  2. Eligible adults to serve as subjects
  3. Focus facilities for space to conduct live research
  4. Online and phone survey implementers

What is the impact on people interested in conducting jury research in a Presidential election year?

Due to a finite supply and increased demand:

  1. If you want a specific date to do jury research, don’t depend on short lead time or rushes to get it. Availability is more limited than normal as there are many others in line for the same services and space. Instead, plan and prepare better instead of waiting till the last minute;

  2. Recruiters are requesting longer lead time in which to solicit mock jurors, so allow extra time to do this, including preparing in advance a list of involved people and entities with whom any affiliation or knowledge should preclude a potential mock juror from participating (“Terminants”). This can be done leisurely while other details are being hammered out, contracts await being signed, and payment is being arranged;

  3. Comparison shopping is more difficult and less effective in price negotiating. If you plan and commit to doing jury research earlier, you can avoid this loss of leverage. The closer to the date that you seek options, the less you can optimize your choice and the more you are bound by simply what is available, if anything.

  4. Survey subjects are harder to come by, especially in areas laden with caucuses or anywhere highly politically engaged.

In short, avoid coming up short by understanding that you need to plan earlier and work more efficiently in the event you may or will conduct jury research. Doing so will put you at the head of the line and save money on the bottom line.

I vote for clients enjoying strategic planning, cost effectiveness and freedom of choice. You?


Other articles related to jury research, mock trials, and jury consulting from A2L Consulting include:

jury consulting trial consulting jury research

Tags: Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Juries, Jury Consultants, Jury Selection

9 Reasons Litigation Consultant is the Best Job Title in Litigation

Posted by Ken Lopez on Thu, Jan 28, 2016 @ 03:39 PM

litigation consultant trial consultantby Ken Lopez
Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

I am very proud of A2L Consulting's role in the creation of the job title "litigation consultant." Over the years, this position has evolved somewhat, but it remains substantially similar to the way we designed it in the mid-1990s.

Back then, it was my full-time job. Today, I still get a chance to do parts of it now and then, and after 20 years, I believe it's the best job in litigation.

The role of a litigation consultant is to work with trial teams and help them develop the best visual and rhetorical strategies for persuading factfinders at trial, ADR, or in any dispute. In the 1990s, no one but the attorney-consultants at A2L called themselves litigation consultants and few if any firms offered a similar service.

Now, litigation consultants are generally litigators themselves often hailing from a large law firm. They spend most of their time directing the development of persuasive PowerPoint presentations, working with jury consultants in mock trials, and helping top litigators more effectively tell their stories at trial.

As we've written before, this role is becoming increasingly important in the litigation industry where even top litigators make it to trial only once every few years. By contrast, a litigation consultant may see the inside of a courtroom dozens of times or more per year.

If you love litigation like I do, this is the best job in the world. Here are nine reasons why I think this is so.

  1. Trial. Let's be honest, the best part of litigation is not the endless years of paper pushing in advance of trial, it's the theater of preparing for and performing at trial. A litigation consultant skips all of the pre-trial tedium and gets to engage in all the best parts of litigation. See, 11 Things Your Colleagues Pay Litigation Consultants to Do.

  2. Creativity. When we survey our clients about our litigation graphics consulting, they always tell us that the creativity we bring to the trial team, both visual and rhetorical, is what they value most. During law school, I taught myself computer animation as a hobby. Odd, I know, but clearly there was an artist who was trying to burst out. Whether you're a fine artist, an animator, or just have a strong creative bent, there are few things more satisfying than working hard to explain complicated materials to lay people using pictures and a few sound bites. SmartCEO Magazine quoted me saying, "We look like an ad agency — the classic view — everyone gathers. In the legal world, we call it a focus group, but it’s really a brainstorming session and the project group presents the case and gets feedback. Someone might say, ‘That doesn’t make sense, what are you talking about?’” Lopez makes it clear that team keeps working until no one asks that question." See, 21 Reasons a Litigator Is Your Best Litigation Graphics Consultant.

  3. Atmosphere. Some law firms are great to work at and many of those firms are our clients, but from what most Biglaw partners tell me, most law firms are lucrative places to work but are not necessarily fulfilling places to work. A litigation consulting firm, however, is typically a relaxed and creative atmosphere. It operates like a business rather than a quasi-partnership with a confusing leadership structure. While we work hard, we enjoy our time a great deal as well. See, Top 7 Things I've Observed as a Litigation Consultant.

  4. Appreciation. Our clients genuinely appreciate us, and their clients do as well. We regularly receive testimonials, gratitude, and even presents from our clients. See, 10 Things Litigation Consultants Do That WOW Litigators.

  5. Impact. We know how much impact we have because we see it all the time. Judges go on the record praising our work, and jurors often comment on the quality of work (or lack thereof exhibited by the opposition). I find this very rewarding. See, 10 Types of Value Added by Litigation Graphics Consultants.

  6. Thought-Leadership. This blog has been named among the best in litigation by the American Bar Association. It is the primary way we distribute our thought-leadership in the industry, and I think we are clearly in the top-tier of anyone doing so. I believe this is why several hundred people sign up for a free subscription to this litigation and persuasion blog every month (we're approaching 8,000 subscribers now). See, Why We Blog (and Maybe Your Firm Should Too).

  7. The people in the office. Working in an environment where Ph.D. psychologists, award-winning artists, technology experts, and litigators all collaborate is wonderful. I often joke that somehow we've managed to get all the people who didn't hang out together in high school to row in the same direction. See, 5 Surprises in Going from IP Litigator to Litigation Consultant.

  8. Winners and losers. If you love litigation, then you probably love competition. The wonderful thing about competition in the courtroom is that there is normally a clear victor. Our victories typically make up a signficant portion of the top victories of the year listed in various legal publications. See, $300 Million of Litigation Consulting and Storytelling Validation.

  9. Smart people. I believe that we are all the average of the 10 people we spend most of our time with. Working with litigation partners from Biglaw is an amazing privilege. These are some of the smartest people in the world, and many have made me a more effective person.

I think people who love their work usually do great work. Hopefully, you can tell that I love this role in our organization even if I spend most of my time in management, sales, and marketing these days. Both roles are jobs that I love.

If you think being a litigation consultant is something you might like to do, we happen to be expanding our litigation consulting team in our DC headquarters office. The right person is usually a litigator with Biglaw experience, a creative side, and someone who is looking for the lifestyle change that working outside of a law firm can provide. Follow any of these links on LinkedIn, Law360, or Craigslist to apply for the position.

We're hoping to fill the position during February 2016, so hurry.

Other articles related to being a litigation consultant, the value of litigation consulting and the business of litigation consulting generally include:

litigation consulting graphics jury trial technology

Tags: Trial Graphics, Litigation Graphics, Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Litigation Consulting, Trial Consulting, Storytelling, Persuasive Graphics, Visual Persuasion, Persuasion

I’m Right, Right? 5 Ways to Manage Juror Bias

Posted by Laurie Kuslansky on Tue, Jan 19, 2016 @ 09:04 AM


juror bias confirmation bias availability bias cognitive biasby Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D.

Managing Director, Jury & Trial Consulting
A2L Consulting

The most powerful thing that shapes how jurors end up deciding a case is not you but the jurors. The baggage they bring to court, not what happened once they got there, holds the most sway. Assuming otherwise is like trying to change the political persuasion of a diehard party-line voter ... in the voting booth. The odds are better that their minds will change the evidence than that the evidence will change their minds.

These preconceptions and biases are resistant to change. Understanding two powerful cognitive phenomena relating to their biases can help you assess jurors more astutely and use your precious few strikes more effectively during voir dire. It can also help you tailor your trial strategy based on who is left on the jury.

Cognitive biases such as the following can systematically impact people’s decision-making. The pairing of the following two cognitive biases can be powerful determinants of jurors’ reactions to a lawsuit: confirmation bias and availability bias.

1. Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, gather, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions [PDF]. It results in people favoring information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or biases. When they encounter an example supporting their existing belief, they place greater importance on the “evidence” supporting their belief, while discounting examples that do not support their belief, such as evidence that is not useful to proving their predetermined conclusion. In deliberations, this is likely to show up as posing questions leading toward the conclusion they already believe. If they happen to be the foreperson, or a leader, they may even paraphrase the actual verdict questions into wording that leads toward the result they believe and seek. This bias goes beyond simple selective attention; it involves actively filtering and using information, finding a conclusion first and seeking helpful evidence second. It’s like saying, “I know the answer. What’s the question?” Hence, their belief is the gate and you must get past “Go.” It trumps your evidence because information incongruent to their already-existing belief won’t get past the gateway to their thinking, memory, recall or decision-making. Hence, while you may be talking and showing, they aren’t listening or watching – unless you understand their belief first, incorporate it into your thinking, and then figure out how to make your case sync with it. Otherwise, your words fall on deaf ears.

The real 1-2 punch is the combination of confirmation bias with availability bias:

2. Availability bias or heuristic (mental shortcut) refers to the fact that vivid events affect decision making that relies on memory more than other events do. People tend to rely on the most immediate examples of an event and overestimate their probability since memory is biased toward events that are more unusual, more emotionally charged [PDF], more recent, and observed personally. The media reinforces this bias by reporting on more extreme events, enhancing their prominence (availability) in memory. As a result, people overestimate the likelihood of such events, such as carjackings or shark attacks.

Ask people outside the legal profession of any cases they know or remember, and invariably, the “McDonald’s Hot Coffee” case comes to mind and is the basis for believing that lawsuits are frivolous and damages are outrageous (although most people do not know the evidence or law in that case).

Transport this phenomenon into the courtroom, alongside confirmation bias. Imagine that certain evidence is presented in a dramatic, vivid fashion and is emotionally laden, on the backdrop of a mostly ho-hum trial, and is referred to by various witnesses. It will stand out from the rest, be remembered better, and likely have more traction than the rest. It is not just the phenomenon of cumulative evidence pointing to the same thing. It goes further – leading some to believe that the event is more common than it is.

storytelling for judge jury courtroom best method for trial persuasion and emotion

Depending on which side of the courtroom you sit, this can be good or bad news. What to do about these biases?

  1. Understand them.

  2. Explore and consider what likely jurors may believe and reverse-engineer your trial strategy and story so they are consistent with this.

  3. Make sure to explore these as best as you can in voir dire – i.e., their pre-existing beliefs and experiences that may relate to your case or client adversely.

  4. Understand their agenda. It is more potent than yours.

  5. Consider how to make your key points or events more or less memorable, depending on your case goal. If possible, consider how to make them more vivid, unusual, repeated – or not. Perhaps you need to find a way to “bury” such a negative event by neutralizing it among others, doing your best to make it ordinary.

By understanding your triers of fact better, you can make extraordinary use of ordinary facts.

Other articles by the trial, litigation, and jury consultants at A2L Consulting discussing juror bias and the persuasion of jurors generally:

jury consulting trial consulting jury research

Tags: Trial Consultants, Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Trial Consulting, Juries, Jury Consultants, Trial Preparation, Jury Selection

Why Litigation Graphics at Mock Trials Make Sense

Posted by Laurie Kuslansky on Tue, Dec 8, 2015 @ 02:39 PM

litigation-graphics-mock-trial-focus-groups.jpgby Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D.
Managing Director, Jury & Trial Consulting
A2L Consulting

Do movie trailers include the most boring part of a movie? 

Of course not. They include something to grab your attention quickly and show what the movie is about and why you should be interested in it in a few words and images. In that brief window, many viewers decide if it is worth seeing or not.

An opening statement is similar. A common mistake is to assume that more equals more. It does not. A great presenter brings forth a winning story, including why the audience (jury) should care, and thematically gets and keeps their attention without excess words. The idea is to assemble the information into eye-catching visuals that do the work for the jury, take the guesswork out of their conclusions and aren’t just a list of words in a PowerPoint being read aloud. There is no better way to summarize, simplify, organize, condense, and contextualize information than with good litigation graphics.  

That holds true at mock trials as well. A mock trial requires condensing presentation material to fit within strict time limits. Mock jurors are burdened with receiving, understanding and remembering a lot of information in a little time. Graphics help them do so, so that their interaction with the facts is not random – based on limited information, cognitive overload and an overtaxed memory – but based more closely on the key facts, issues, legal questions and the law that the sponsor of the mock trial is hoping to test.

what-is-a-patent-powerpoint-graphics-aid-litigation-graphicWinning a rigged contest isn't worth it.

A key consideration for conducting a worthwhile mock trial is to ensure balanced presentations for both sides or risk distorting the outcome because the deck was stacked in your favor. An unearned “win” is a false positive. It is better to do no jury research than to do bad jury research. Part of what is required to perform good mock jury research includes presenting good litigation graphics, for both sides, by as good a presenter for the opposing side as yours, taking equal presentation time for both sides, and showing unlikable evidence as a minimum starting point to pressure test your case.  

Being penny-wise, but pound foolish isn't worth it, either.

Anyone who rejects litigation graphics at a mock trial for budgetary or other reasons is probably litigation amateur. Top-tier litigators wouldn't dream of doing it that way at a mock trial. If money is the barrier, there are many ways to accomplish the goal cost-effectively, including a hybrid of in-house and outside professional support, re-allocating resources in a more productive manner, or providing the consultant with the total budget that can be apportioned for the mock trial and asking for their advice on how best to achieve the goals of the trial team and client within budget.

Don't get caught empty-handed.

The absence of litigation graphics at a mock trial creates easily avoidable problems. It is foolhardy to believe that no one will notice and it can wait “till the real trial.” On the contrary: patent-litigation-timeline-trial-inventiontypically during mock deliberations, foreseeable questions arise that would have been so easy to remedy with basic graphics that were missing.  “When did that happen?  Who did that first? Who was he?  What was the name of that agreement?  What did it say?”

A lot of time is often wasted trying to figure out a simple fact that was missed because it was said, not shown -- and thus, not remembered or unclear. Counsel ends up looking foolish for omitting them. As a result, the expense “saved” in not providing graphics for the mock trial is eclipsed by the unfavorable distortions that result. Their absence and the "savings" are not applauded in the end. Better to provide them from the beginning.

Other free articles and free resources about mock trials, opening statements and litigation graphics from A2L Consulting:

 

Tags: Trial Graphics, Litigation Graphics, Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Trial Consulting, Litigation Support, Jury Consultants, Psychology, Storytelling, Practice

Who Are The Highest-Rated Jury Consultants?

Posted by Ken Lopez on Tue, Dec 1, 2015 @ 07:00 AM

top jury consulting firms top rated voted jury consultantsby Ken Lopez
Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

Every year, our firm receives awards in a variety of litigation consulting and blogging categories. I don't often promote those achievements in this blog, as I regard the blog as primarily educational in nature.

However, I do believe that there is real value in knowing which firms your peers are rating highest in the industry. Not only does this help you save time and energy when you want to engage a litigation support firm, it helps you know the up-and-coming firms and what the market trends look like.

Recently, Legal Times, one of a few elite legal publications remaining, asked its readership to identify the best consultants in a variety of categories including e-discovery, legal banking, legal recruiting, and many more. I'm happy to announce that A2L Consulting was voted the number one jury consultant ahead of other industry giants FTI Consulting and DecisionQuest.

Screen_Shot_2015-11-30_at_8.00.34_AM.jpgI've always admired those firms and the work that they do. We are friendly competitors, and I congratulate them on their achievements.

The leader of our jury consulting practice is jury consulting industry veteran Dr. Laurie Kuslansky. Coincidentally, she has held leadership positions with both of the other two top-ranked firms. Her record and reputation in the industry are excellent, and her bio/CV/references can be viewed or downloaded here.

Dr. Kuslansky shares my view that jury consultants alone are not to be relied upon as gospel for advice on jury selection, theme development, and storytelling. This method of jury consulting is antiquated, but still practiced by many jury consultants.

The preferred method for assisting top trial teams is, rather, to listen to the data developed by conducting well-designed mock trials and focus groups. The data is in the form of feedback from mock jurors or mock judges. Any jury consultant can offer a gut instinct (no matter how suspect that instinct is). However, it takes a great jury consultant and jury consulting firm to show restraint and properly interpret the data and feedback from mock jurors and focus group members and know how to blend art and science. The magic comes when a jury consultant can properly obtain good data, interpret it, wisely season it with insightful judgment, and taking in the input of the trial team.

Blindly applying data or narrowly focusing on instinct each has its perils. Likewise, asserting oneself as the smartest person in the room is hardly the team approach clients prefer.

None of the user polls are perfect, but they do provide a useful guide by which to at least assemble a list of potential vendors to consider when potentially headed to trial. The complete Best of the Legal Times 2015 Guidebook may be downloaded by clicking here.

Other A2L Consulting articles about jury consulting, jury consultants, and conducting mock trials:

mock jury webinar a2l kuslansky

 

Tags: Trial Consultants, Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Trial Consulting, Jury Consultants

7 Bad Habits of Law Firm Litigators

Posted by Ken Lopez on Wed, Oct 28, 2015 @ 11:08 AM

attorney bad habits lawyer trial courtroomby Ken Lopez
Founder/CEO
A2L Consulting

In our role as trial consultants, we frequently work with some of the top law firm litigators in the nation, as well as with in-house counsel for some of the nation’s major companies. Ideally, we form a cohesive team that works seamlessly to provide outstanding trial representation and to win cases.

Occasionally, we find that law firm litigators are engaging in bad habits that can increase inefficiency, cost the client money, and decrease the chances of winning at trial. Here are seven of them.

1. Lawyers designing PowerPoint slides. Anyone who went to law school can of course use PowerPoint. Generating PowerPoint slides is not difficult, and lawyers are smart. Many lawyers can even make PowerPoint slides that look nice. But:

a. It's not about pretty slides, it's about effective slides, and the rules for how to create those take years to learn. See Litigation Graphics: It's Not a Beauty Contest

b. A lawyer doing slides costs the same or more per hour than a litigation graphics expert doing slides. Classically, you could cut your own hair, but why would you? See How Valuable is Your Time vs. Litigation Support's Time?

c. A lawyer creating slides does not know the tricks of the trade. See Trial Graphics Dilemma: Why Can't I Make My Own Slides? (Says Lawyer)

d. A lawyer creating slides will likely tell a chronological story instead of an effective story. See Don't Be Just Another Timeline Trial Lawyer

e. A law firm might claim to have in-house litigation graphics expertise (See 13 Reasons Law Firm Litigation Graphics Departments Have Bad Luck). But ask yourself: How many trials does that law firm do per year? For even the largest firms, that answer may be a couple dozen. How many cases does that lone artist work on? A small percentage of what is already a small number? Contrast that with a litigation consulting firm with graphics expertise that might do 50 or 100 trials per year concentrated among a handful of key staff. See With So Few Trials, Where Do You Find Trial Experience Now?

2. Paralegals running trial technology. This is pretty common, and I'm not as adamant about this as I am about content creation. Still, when something goes wrong, you want to have one or more people on the team who have been to hundreds of trials, not a few. You might save some money by keeping the service in-house, but the savings are small if any, and the trade-off is a lot of risk. Free Download: How To Find and Use Trial Technicians and Trial Technology 

3. Conducting in-house mock trials. I call this getting high on your own supply. You should pick mock jurors from a broad base of people that mirrors your likely jury. See 11 Problems with Mock Trials and How to Avoid Them

4. Lawyers running PowerPoint at trial. It often works, but it often does not work. Why would you allow your litigators to create risk with almost no benefit? See Making Good Use of Trial Director & Demonstratives in an Arbitration and 12 Ways to Avoid a Trial Technology Superbowl-style Courtroom Blackout

5. Outside litigators who are afraid to ask for help. Litigation is one of the few competitive areas in which people are afraid to rely on coaches, best practices, and experts, and that makes no sense. Even Michael Jordan had a coach. See Accepting Litigation Consulting is the New Hurdle for Litigators

6. Outside trial counsel who is afraid to ask for a needed budget item. They often see a pie of a set size, and asking for budget for a mock trial or other litigation consulting support, might take pie away. You should instead see a pie whose size can be changed when it makes sense. See In-House Counsel Should Make Outside Litigation Counsel Feel Safe

7. Outside litigators who conduct frighteningly last-minute preparation for trial. I really think the days of the cowboy litigator who rides in at the 11th hour and charismatically bends a jury to his will are largely over. The opposition is much more sophisticated now, and so are juries. See The 13 Biggest Reasons to Avoid Last-Minute Trial Preparation

Have you ever seen any of these habits play out?

Other articles and resources by A2L Consulting focusing on trial preparation, the relationship between in-house counsel and outside litigators and on winning cases generally include:

in-house counsel litigation toolkit e-book free download

 

 

Tags: Trial Graphics, Trial Technicians, Mock Trial, Litigation Consulting, Trial Technology, Litigation Support, PowerPoint, In-House Counsel

Top 7 Things I've Observed as a Litigation Consultant

Posted by Ryan Flax on Wed, Oct 7, 2015 @ 12:42 PM

litigation consultant best in the industry graphics storytellingby Ryan H. Flax, Esq.
(Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting & General Counsel
A2L Consulting

I’ve passed another anniversary at A2L Consulting and in my time as a litigation consultant I’ve been both surprised and reassured about the state of the litigation business and its players (I also wrote about my surprises upon beginning my career as a litigation consultant). I’ve seen both the very best and quite bad litigators in action and have consulted for both. Although some litigators don’t live up to my high standards, I’m impressed by many litigators as both professionals and people. Here are seven of my observations over these years that I think might help you in your practice.

  1. Many Lawyers Confuse Chronology With Storytelling

It is almost universally accepted that storytelling is important to engaging an audience (including a jury) and that framing a client’s case as a compelling story is key to doing your best at trial, particularly in opening statements. But more often than not, when I ask a litigation team what their client's story is, rather than explain “why we’re really here” as they would to a jury and illustrate some conflict and emotionally valuable moral that is critical to juror engagement, they rattle off some chronological series of events that led to a legal injury to their client or some misconstrued relationship by the opposing party. These are not stories and presenting a case framed this way, while possibly interesting to a legal scholar, is not compelling to a juror.

I’m surprised that so many smart litigators fall into the chronology trap and forsake emotional connection to engage jurors. I don’t advise pandering to a jury or excessive emoting by a litigator, but for a jury to care about you and your client and generate the stamina jurors need for a trial, litigators must tap into their emotional brains. This is not done by an information dump, a calendar, or using a lot of words.

A story answers the question posed above – why are we here today, in this courtroom? A story also has all the stuff you learned in grade school: a beginning, middle, climax, and end, characters, setting, theme, and moral.

  1. Some Lawyers Focus Too Much on Too Small Things

It’s easy for litigators (even more so for the associates doing the day-to-day stuff) to over-focus on every detail. The prospect of overlooking a potentially key piece of evidence or being surprised by an unknown fact exposed by opposing counsel is frightening for attorneys (it was for me), so we often wind up thinking way too much about every little thing in a case. This is called being “in the weeds,” and when you’re there it’s exceedingly difficult to escape without help. It happens with the selection of evidence, with witness prep, and even with the development of graphics, where sometimes counsel wants to very carefully think over every aspect, e.g., choosing what font style and color palette and slide aspect ratio will best work for their case.

On each of these things, I urge counsel to take a step back and delegate where possible so they can focus on the BIG PICTURE. The best first-chair litigators do this naturally, and the rest of us need to do it deliberately. Attorney time and brainpower should be spent on figuring out what it will take to win. Let litigation graphics consultants decide what font works best for your opening statement presentation. It will be a relief when you do.

  1. Many Litigators Don’t Know What Tools Are Available

Even though the litigation consulting industry has been around for decades, I still find a lot of lawyers really don’t know what we do (in total) and what persuasive tools are at their immediate disposal. Often, my first conversations with new clients include questions like, “What all do you do?” The concepts of litigation graphics, presentation and persuasion consulting, trial technology, and jury consulting are not concrete ideas in many litigators’ minds, and I often have to educate clients on what we have in our (their) toolbox.

Most often, such attorneys think of litigation graphics as discrete images created for specific points they want to make during trial. They don’t understand that, while that’s a part of our work, such graphics won’t alone provide the immersive visual experience necessary (particularly during opening statements) to persuade jurors.

Also, many litigators seriously consider doing their own graphics and/or in-court technology presentation. They have Microsoft PowerPoint and Word and can cut and paste and they’ve heard that iPad apps make evidence presentation easy. The former is never a good idea and, while the later might be true for some situations, e.g., a hearing or very small trial, it’s not going to work in any bigger trial that could have hundreds or thousands of exhibits. There is a lot to know about crafting persuasive trial visuals and there are professionals who do nothing but build trial databases, edit deposition videos, and run trial presentation software to create a seamless trial for you and your jurors. Litigators should understand this and use professionals (and let your paralegals focus on what they should be doing as well).

  1. Litigators Still Wait Too Long to Bring in a Litigation Consultant

Even though they know better, most of the time litigation teams wait until just weeks before trial to engage a litigation consultant / jury consultant / graphics team / trial tech. Even though they know waiting makes it a more difficult budget-sell to their client, leads to an uncomfortable rush to develop graphics, may make mock jury exercises impossible, and forecloses the possibility of building discovery around what they learn from a consultant, they wait. I urge early planning for trial (at the complaint/answer stage), which is the right time to develop that important two-track litigation strategy, and begin working on your case story and graphics as early as possible. Although we can certainly help you late in the game, we can do a lot more before halftime.

  1. A Lot of Litigation Graphics are Subpar

When I get the chance, I always go to my client’s opening statements and then to as much of the rest of their trials as possible. So I get to see the litigation graphics developed by/for opposing counsel. I’m consistently underwhelmed.  It's impossible to say whether these poor visuals directly led to the oppositions' losses at trial, but they didn't help.

More often than not I see a lot of text-heavy graphics – a severe barrier to juror engagement and communication. I see a severe lack of style, clarity, and intentional design - this screams lack of preparation and deliberateness in presentation. There are key visual presentation concepts that, if understood and followed, lead to persuasive graphics, e.g., font type, color choice, simplicity, complexity, branding, style, and others. There is no shortage of information about these concepts out there, but it seems most folks are not paying attention. We are.

  1. Lawyers Don’t Spend Money Where It Can Help Them

Litigation consulting, jury research, trial graphics, and trial technology cost your client money – very true. But the ROI on these services far outweighs their expense in bigger cases. The cost of a typical larger litigation, such as an employment case, hovers just around $1M. A typical bigger patent case costs about twice that amount. However, the services and tools that could be used to hone your persuasive game at any stage of such litigations turn out to be a very, very small fraction of these costs.

Take a big-time patent and breach of contract case where our client won over $300 million in damages. The costs for A2L’s services were well below $200,000, about 5% or less of the litigation budget and about 0.005% or less of the damages award. I know that our services played an important role in the victory, even though the trial team was beyond outstanding.

But, we still see litigation counsel struggling to decide whether $30,000 or $50,000 is the right spend for a mock jury focus group (a $20K difference that could be the difference between scientific data results and seat of the pants analysis) or whether to spend $12,000 to have a professional trial tech hot seat operator at trial (they should), or whether they can make their own graphics for opening statements in house (they cannot). In my view, saving a penny to lose a dollar makes no sense.

  1. Practice is as Important as Everyone Thinks

Finally, it’s been shown time and time again that practicing oral argument makes sense. The more you practice, the better you’ll do. It takes time, but again, the ROI on this time investment is tremendous. When litigators do several full speed run-throughs for opening statements or oral arguments, I see them do a fantastic job at the real thing. They don’t need notes, they know their subject matter, they are and appear more comfortable, they seem more reasonable, and they use their graphics perfectly in a compelling way.  Not practicing so that you can feel and seem more spontaneous at opening is a recipe for a poor performance.

Practice. And start early.

Other articles and resources about storytelling, litigation consulting and trial preparation from A2L Consulting:

a2l consulting top 75 articles of all time

Tags: Trial Technicians, Litigation Graphics, Jury Consulting, Mock Trial, Litigation Consulting, Demonstrative Evidence, Trial Preparation, Storytelling

Confidential A2L Consulting Conflicts Check Form

Join 8,100 Subscribers and Get Notified of New Articles Every Week

Watch Now: Using PowerPoint Litigation Graphics to Win - Webinar

using powerpoint litigation graphics

Free Litigation Webinars - Watch Now

ryan flax a2l litigation consultants webinar recorded


patent litigation webinar free litigation graphics demonstrative

Featured E-Book: The Patent Litigator's Guide to Trial Presentation & Trial Preparation

patent litigation ebook 3rd edition

Featured Free Download: The Complex Civil Litigation Trial Guide

a2l consultants complex civil litigation trial guide download

Free Webinar - Integrating Expert Evidence & Winning Arguments - Watch Anytime.

expert witness teach science complex subject courtroom webinar

Nationally Acclaimed - Voted #1 Jury Research Firm and #1 Demonstrative Evidence Firm in the U.S.

voted best demonstrative evidence consultants

A2L best demonstrative trial graphics consultants
best demonstrative evidence litigation graphics consultants

Download the (Free) Storytelling for Litigators E-Book

describe the image

Considering Using a Trial Technician at Your Next Trial? Download this first.

trial technicians trial technology atlanta houston new york boston virginia

Featured Free Download: Using Science to Prevail in Your Next Case or Controversy

using science to win at trial litigation jury

Featured FREE A2L E-Book: Using Litigation Graphics Persuasively

using litigation graphics trial graphics trial presentation consultants

Free Jury Consulting & Trial Consulting Guidebook for Litigators

jury consulting trial consultants guide

Timelines Appear In Most Trials - Learn how to get the most out of using trial timelines in this ebook

trial timelines graphics consultants litigators

Featured Complimentary eBook - The 100-page Antitrust Litigation Guide

antitrust ebook a2l litigation consultants

Featured Complimentary eBook - Leadership Lessons for Litigators and Litigation Support

leadership lessons litigation law firms litigation support

Featured E-Book: The Environmental Litigator's Guide to Trial Presentation & Prep

environmental litigation trial presentation trial prep ebook a2l

Authors

KenLopez resized 152

Ken Lopez founded A2L Consulting in 1995. The firm has since worked with litigators from all major law firms on more than 10,000 cases with over $2 trillion cumulatively at stake.  The A2L team is comprised of psychologists, jury consultants, trial consultants, litigation consultants, attorneys and information designers who provide jury consulting, litigation graphics and trial technology.  Ken Lopez can be reached at lopez@A2LC.com.


tony-klapper-headshot-500x500.jpg 

Tony Klapper joined A2L Consulting after accumulating 20 years of litigation experience while a partner at both Reed Smith and Kirkland & Ellis. Today, he is the Managing Director of Litigation Consulting and General Counsel for A2L Consulting. Tony has significant litigation experience in products liability, toxic tort, employment, financial services, government contract, insurance, and other commercial disputes.  In those matters, he has almost always been the point person for demonstrative evidence and narrative development on his trial teams. Tony can be reached at klapper@a2lc.com.


dr laurie kuslansky jury consultant a2l consulting







Laurie R. Kuslansky, Ph.D., Managing Director, Trial & Jury Consulting, has conducted over 400 mock trials in more than 1,000 litigation engagements over the past 20 years. Dr. Kuslansky's goal is to provide the highest level of personalized client service possible whether one's need involves a mock trial, witness preparation, jury selection or a mock exercise not involving a jury. Dr. Kuslansky can be reached at kuslansky@A2LC.com.

Articles by Category

Follow A2L Consulting

Member Red Well Blog
ABA Blawg 100 2013 7th annual

Follow Us on Google+

A2L on Google+