Keep Clients Happy by Keeping Them In the Loop

Clients dislike surprises, especially unpleasant ones. This holds true for small surprises, such as finding out at the last minute that a meeting was rescheduled, and for large surprises, such as finding out that the worst possible jury has just been impaneled for their trial.

Every case has its “surprises” – aka problems; some can be anticipated, others cannot. In your eagerness to maintain credibility and be an effective problem-solver for your clients, you may neglect to inform clients of problems in timely fashion. Inevitably, you then find yourself with the double headache of trying to appease an unpleasantly surprised and irritated client, and of trying to resolve the original problem.

Most clients need and want to be informed about the troublesome aspects of their case. Client-satisfaction surveys show that a primary source of client complaints is that lawyers do not inform them about problems until the problems are so big they can no longer be ignored. To top it off, clients complain that lawyers are unrealistic, usually minimizing problems and overestimating their ability to deal with them quickly and easily.

Diminish the surprise factor by informing your clients of potential problems as soon as you begin working the case. Be upfront with your clients. Do your best to keep them in the loop as much as possible. Hopefully, you’ll avert most of those problems and your clients will be the more satisfied because of it.

Not “The Other Side Of The Story,” The Other Story

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.

A Simple Technique to Help Jurors Discredit a Lay Witness

When you’ve had a hand in making a decision, you’re that much more likely to go along with it. Jurors are no different. Questions in cross-examination that allow jurors to arrive at the unmistakable, inescapable, conclusion you want them to, are far more effective than ramming the conclusion down their throats or risking a sympathetic answer from opposing counsel’s witness.

For example: The lawyer is cross-examining a lay witness at the scene of a bus-pedestrian accident. The lawyer represents the pedestrian.

Question: Ms. Smith, did you see the bus as it came towards the intersection of First and Main shortly before the accident?

Answer: Yes, I did.

Question:  Could you tell us what the color of the light was for the bus as it came down First?

Answer: It was green, a green light.

Question: Really? But isn’t it true that when you spoke to the police officer shortly after the accident you said the light was red?

Answer: Oh, well, I’m sorry, I was a little nervous. I’m sure the police officer report is right.

The jurors may very well believe the witness, since she’s being humble and apologetic and who wouldn’t be nervous after witnessing an accident? The lawyer meanwhile has lost the opportunity to show the jurors that the case isn’t as cut and dried as defense would have them believe.

A more effective way to approach this might be:

Question:  Could you tell us what the color the light was for the bus as it came down First?

Answer: It was green, a green light.

Question: Ms. Smith, did you talk with a police officer right there at the scene, just after the accident?

Answer: Yes, I did.

Question: And did that police officer ask you what color the light was for the bus as it came down First?

Answer: Yes, I think he did.

Rather than pounce on the witness at this point and give her the opportunity to sympathetically correct herself, the lawyer could produce the police report and show (visuals work!) the portion where Ms. Smith unequivocally said “The light was red,” and simply end his cross on that note.

The jurors can now come to their own conclusion that Ms. Smith is, for whatever reason, being less than truthful, and are now much more likely to accept the police report as stated, which was exactly what the lawyer wanted them to do.