Connect to Jurors With the Specificity of “Who”

You must connect with jurors if they are to find you convincing and persuasive. One of the prime often most neglected ways to connect effectively with jurors is to get them up to speed with the “Who” in the case early on. Jurors feel disconnected when they can’t readily figure out who’s doing what to whom and why that should matter.

Use organizational charts and other visuals that vividly illustrate the flow of communication or authority from one party to the other. Symbolize the relevance of each party to the case by using icons or other graphic devices. Remind jurors of those relationships from time to time as your case proceeds (i.e., "Is it your testimony that Mr. Smith, Ann Jones's boss, went on to say…”).

Be sure to use full names of persons, entities or objects throughout the case. As repetitious it may seem, complete references are vital. Use of pronouns or abbreviated references to important entities or objects is confusing to jurors. Jurors often have trouble just keeping track of who did what to whom. They will be totally lost if they must also concentrate on which "he," "she," or "it" the lawyer is now referring to. Certainly, well-known abbreviations are acceptable, but generally speaking, abbreviations used too often only serve to confuse jurors, and a confused juror is an unsympathetic, disconnected juror.

This you cannot afford, if you are to win your case.

Handle Your Challenging CEO Client Successfully with “Yes, and”

Successful CEOs, entrepreneurs and surgeons (among others) can be difficult clients. Their very success misleads them too often into believing they know everything about how to be successful in their legal matter. Which usually involves their wanting you to do something entirely different from what you know to be the best approach to handling their case, or themselves as witnesses.

The temptation is to say, “Look, I don’t tell you what to do in your field, don’t tell me what to do in mine.” That may work with some clients, but it’s good to remember that many powerful individuals have an underlying fear of being exposed as powerless. It does not advance your work with the client to aggravate that fear.

Instead, use the “Yes, and” approach, which basically consists of the following:

1. Don't wave aside the client's arguments. Treat your client's analyses and suggestions with respect.

2. Then, go on to recommending/doing whatever you think is best. 

For example, “I appreciate that you want me to call Ms. Jones as a live witness, and I think our most successful strategy is to use her declaration.”

Notice, it’s not “I appreciate that you want me to call Ms. Jones as a live witness, but I think our most successful strategy is to use her declaration,” nor is it “I think our most successful strategy is to use her declaration instead.” You make no attempt to defend, rebut or otherwise resist your client’s perspective, you acknowledge it respectfully, and then go ahead with what you believe is the best course of action.

Simple Words That Win With Jurors: "Thank you, Your Honor"

I was assisting with voir dire recently when opposing counsel, questioning the prospective jurors, was told by the judge to "Move along, counselor," to which the attorney replied, "But Your Honor…" I barely listened to the rest of what the attorney was saying, because I was delighted at the expression of confusion and dismay on the faces of the jurors. Opposing counsel had just lost points with the very people she would need to convince down the road, all to my side's advantage.

Perhaps the most egregious mistake a lawyer can make in voir dire is fail to fully respect the judge. Prospective jurors are not happy to be there, they do not trust the lawyers and the whole process is intimidating. Whatever else happens, prospective jurors are convinced only that the judge is neutral and therefore only the judge is trustworthy.

If the judge says "That’s enough, counselor" or "Move along, counselor" or any other such directive, the lawyer should immediately say, "Thank you, Your Honor" and do so. If the judge says, "You’re out of time, counselor," the lawyer should refrain from arguing; "But Your Honor, opposing counsel took 10 extra minutes, which ate into my time." As far as the prospective jurors are concerned, whatever the judge says, goes. If you have a legitimate grievance worth arguing with the judge, to do so out of the range of the prospective jurors.