Don’t Bust Your Credibility with Unconscious Mannerisms!

Every second you are in the courtroom, jurors are looking at you, judging you, spontaneously coming to conclusions about your competence and credibility based solely on their in-the-moment perceptions.

Because jurors have no way of knowing you through the usual means – conversation, time spent in a mutually pleasing activity (sitting on a jury does not qualify!) – their conclusions about you are based on stereotypical ideas.

For example, when you’re innocently jiggling change in your pocket, a common but unfortunate male habit, or fussing with your hair, a habit shared by both sexes, such mannerisms, innocuous as they are to you, may readily be interpreted as evidence of “nervousness.” Nervousness, in turn, is equated with incompetence, as are certain facial expressions, such as frowning or frequent pursing of the lips.

Arrogance is too easily read in one’s “steepling” of the hands (hands held in upright prayer position, with the finger tips touching, palms usually a few inches apart), or if your head is tilted a bit back so that your chin is slightly elevated.

Slumped shoulders, head tilted down, getting up slowly and plopping down with a thud into your chair are all read as “not-doing-so-well” which then slides into “loser” all too quickly.

Arms crossed over your chest bespeak defensiveness or hostility. Hands on your hips may appear overly aggressive and demanding.

It may seem like a lot to think of, while your primary focus must be on the case itself, yet credibility and competence can be reduced to a few simple guidelines:

            1. keep your hands off your person

            2. stand or sit up straight

            3. keep your mannerisms in check.

Easy enough! And with credibility intact, you’re much better positioned to win your case.

Counter the Greedy Corporate Client Perception with Stories of Care

Whether your corporate client is the plaintiff or the defendant, you are up against the public perception of corporations as greedy, uncaring entities whose only motive in any and all situations is profit-profit-profit.

Nothing new there. And usually one seeks to “humanize” the corporate client by giving the corporation a “face,” a sympathetic human being who speaks for the corporation. Preferably someone everyone on the jury can relate to and—best case scenario—want to have as a BFF. Too often, a prospect that exists only in your dreams. . .

Which is not to say that the need to put a warm, human “face” in front of the jurors isn’t important, it is, no argument there. But there are other ways to counter the “greedy uncaring” stigma.

I remember waiting for a CEO in the corporate headquarters’ lobby, passing the time by looking at the various photographs, plaques, and other such on the walls. When the legal team assembled with the CEO, the only strategy brought up to humanize the company was the “face” approach. I was confused: on the lobby walls there were plaques honoring the corporation’s sponsorship of a local soccer club, among other awards and the like. The legal team feared that listing the corporation’s community endeavors would seem like pandering. OK, I could see their point, but how did the corporation get involved with the soccer team in the first place? Out of all other possible community options?

Then I got the story. A wonderful, inspiring story that did more than “humanize” the corporation, it showed that humans, with hearts like all the rest of us, invested in more than the almighty dollar—were the engine of the corporation.

Just like WestJet and Canadian North, who in response to the wildfires earlier this year that forced 80,000 people to flee their homes in Fort McMurray, Canada, bent their usual rules to allow pets to travel in the main cabin, even without a carrier or a kennel. Your corporate client may not have as heart-warming or dramatic an example of their humanity, but I guarantee if you but scratch the surface, you will find that the corporation has stories of unselfish compassion.

After all, it’s still just all about people. And people care.

Tailor Your Approach to the Deponent Based on Choice, Not Habit

How you approach a witness in deposition has everything to do with how they are likely to respond.

If you adopt an aggressive style, you will probably be met with one of two possible responses: either the deponent will fight back, getting hostile and defensive, or the deponent will melt into confusion, “I don’t know-s,” and tears.

If you adopt a conciliatory, more friendly approach, you will usually elicit more narrative and thus more information.

If you adopt a neutral, fact-finding approach, you will probably receive informative responses, but not much elaboration or narrative.

Now, depending on your objective, one or the other of these approaches will be most appropriate. Sometimes you can choose to change approaches in mid-stream, such as starting out neutral, gently morphing into friendly, only to become more aggressive down the road.

What’s important is less the approach you choose, as that it be a choice. Too often, lawyers get in the habit of taking a deposition a certain way, and always do so. That’s great, but there may be a more effective approach available than your habitual one, given the nature of the witness and your objective.

Make your choice conscious, and you’ll be that much more successful.