It doesn’t matter which side you represent, you must tell a
story. For plaintiff, this is obvious: there’s a wrong to be righted, and it
always has a story. For defense, this is equally true, though not always
acknowledged.
You see, it’s not about “the other side of the story,” for
that places the control back in plaintiff’s hands. Plaintiff still defines the
terms of the game, the boundaries of play. It’s about “the other story” where defense
presents an entirely different scenario for jurors to experience. Now the
playing field is level. Jurors can choose to be convinced by one story or the
other.
The truism “the best defense is a good offense” holds. Instead
of defending, defense now speaks to plaintiff’s claims by showing how they fit
as legitimate, “good” pieces within defense’s story. So, for example, with a med mal case, defense
could include as part of its story, how Doctor’s procedure/process is highly
regarded - the best possible and safest course given the patient’s condition.
That Doctor trusts, relies on, and has seen excellent results from the
procedure/process. That Doctor used various diagnostics to validate Doctor’s
choice. That Doctor’s was employed a well-thought out decision-making process
(“decision tree”). And of course, to
include in the story as well, how plaintiff neglected Doctor’s instructions,
and the alternate causes for plaintiff’s current condition.
As laborious as the above may seem, giving the jurors a rich
and many-pronged defense story, as opposed to simply defending against specific
claims, will greatly increase your chances of – a winning case.
No comments:
Post a Comment