by Ken Lopez Founder & CEO A2L Consulting Some people make a habit of denigrating Twitter, saying that its well-known 140-character limit makes it useless for anything substantive. There are several responses. First, it’s possible to link to anything on the Web within a tweet (just use one of the common URL-shortening utilities), so lots more information can be conveyed. Second, a lot of people read more on Twitter than they write. They use it as a sort of personal news feed, scrolling down for a few minutes at a time during the work day to see what’s new. If you pick the right accounts to follow, this works very well.

by Ken Lopez Founder & CEO A2L Consulting Earlier this week, we wrote about the best blogs for litigators to follow. In addition, LinkedIn groups are a great place for discussions of all types. Very often, these groups are the first place that one can find new trends in the industry. The fact that a group does not cover your field of practice, incidentally, does not mean that there are not great discussions going on there.

by Ken Lopez We are always interested in knowing what interests our readers – so that we can offer more helpful information on this blog as we refine our interests and learn what our readers want.

Please see an updated 2014 version of this article here: http://www.a2lc.com/blog/bid/72290/Planning-For-Courtroom-Persuasion-Use-a-Two-Track-Trial-Strategy By Ryan H. Flax (Former) Litigation Consultant What I’m about to encourage will seem elementary to the best litigators, but I’m writing from experience as a litigation consultant and a litigator when I say that many trial attorneys fail to properly develop the necessary two-track strategy for their case -- and lose because of it.

For any trial lawyer, writing an opening or closing statement is one of the best parts of a trial. It lets us use our writing skills, speaking skills, and persuasion skills like no other moment of trial. I happen to believe that the opening statement is the single most important part of a trial.

As the second quarter comes to a close, summer temps are headed into the triple digits on the East Coast, the Supreme Court heads into recess after releasing the big healthcare decision this morning (actual healthcare opinion here in PDF) and vacation season kicks into full swing (with August being the month with fewest trials in the Federal Courts). The end of a fiscal quarter also means we will soon be drawing for a free iPad for one of our lucky subscribers (we do it every quarter). As we look back over Q2, let's take a moment to review the most popular Litigation Consulting Report blog articles of the quarter. I hope that you didn't miss one of these, but just in case you did, here they are with the most popular one first. Also, if you missed the release of A2L's BIG Litigation E-Book yesterday, you'll want to download a copy of that valuable 75-page book packed with litigation tactics (complimentary for subscribers to this blog).

We have discussed many situations in which a large company faces a court challenge from a smaller company, from the government, or from a class of consumers or purchasers. Sometimes, those situations will be “David v. Goliath” cases, in which the large company, usually the defendant, must step carefully during the trial to avoid being cast as the “heavy” with all the legal and other resources. Jurors sometimes don’t look favorably on a big company.

In Part 1 of this article, we discussed how to use litigation consultants to win a case when there are no budget constraints. Here in Part 2, we tackle the opposite end of the budget spectrum: how to best use litigation consultants when budget is severely constrained. The good news is that in any case that has more than $1 million at stake or is a possible example of pattern litigation, there is a litigation consulting strategy that can fit the budget and deliver high value, regardless of budget. While every case has different needs, and there is a big difference between bench and jury trials, here is a prescription for utilizing litigation consultants in a tight budget. The primary cost difference between a small litigation budget and a large litigation budget will be the amount of time spent on testing and varying strategic approaches to the case. In a tight budget scenario, rather than relying on feedback from mock jurors and judges to help guide which themes to emphasize and the best ways to explain elements of the case, you will likely have to rely heavily on gut instinct. Of course, that is not always a bad thing.