07 Tuesday Jan 2020
Posted in Oral Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Sharpen Your Oral Presentation Skills.
On Your Feet: Some Simple Steps to Presenting in Person, by Joseph Regalia, Appellate Advocacy Blog
Even though this post is written for attorneys who want to hone their oral argument skills, I think it also works for those who speak or teach, regardless of your audience. -CCE
10 Saturday Sep 2016
Posted in Closing Argument, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Using the “Rule of Three.”
Remember the Rule of 3: It’s Simple, Logical, and Effective, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™
So simple, but so persuasive. It is especially useful in oral argument, which is the topic of this post from Dr. Broda-Bahm. -CCE
[W]hen litigators are looking for a way to paint a bit of style and rhetorical effectiveness into their oral arguments, openings, or closings, the rule of three ought to be one of the first items in your tool box. Focusing on — you guessed it — three reasons, this post will explain why.
07 Friday Aug 2015
Posted in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Litigation and The Art of Storytelling.
Tags
Art of Persuasion, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques
Tell It: The Top 10 Posts on Story, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2015/07/tell-it-the-top-10-posts-on-story.html
The ‘story model’ (Hastie, Penrod & Pennington, 1983) for litigation persuasion is appropriately considered gospel at this point. At the same time, there is an art to it. In most courtrooms, I see litigators who are aware of the need to tell a story, but not necessarily versed in the techniques of storytelling. As I’ve explored from time to time in this blog, beyond laying out the events in temporal sequence, there are some nuances relating to structure, imagery, audience, and point of view. In short, there is a substantial ‘advanced course’ in narrative that effective trial lawyers should study. To make that a little easier, here are our top 10 posts so far on storytelling in trial. . . .
15 Sunday Jun 2014
Posted in Acronyms, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire
≈ Comments Off on Are Acronyms Effective or Alphabet Soup?
Tags
Abbreviations, Acronyms, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Persuasive Litigators Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques
DUA: Don’t Use Acronyms, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigators Blog
I’m monitoring a criminal trial this week, and at the end of opening statements, the judge looked at the jury and said, ‘Okay, both sides have been referring to ‘AUSAs’ — they know what that means and I know what that means, but I’m guessing that you don’t know that that means?” Head nods from the jury. ‘It means ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney,’ continued the judge, “so please fill that in wherever you hear it.” Good solution? Better than nothing. But it would have been best if both sides would have simply used the title instead of abbreviating it. The tiny amount of additional time it takes to say ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney’ rather than ‘USA’ is well worth it in terms of clarity and understanding.
But some attorneys, experts, and other witnesses continue to love the economy of the acronym. But particularly in spoken communication, and particularly in front of a jury, that economy comes at a cost: meaning lost in translation and increased cognitive workload even when it is translated. Practical persuaders before a lay audience are well advised to avoid acronyms almost entirely. Okay, I say almost entirely — there are some exceptions (and besides ‘Generally Avoid Acronyms’ would have been ‘GAA.’) The few acronyms that ought to still be used are those that have such widespread familiarity that they almost become words in their own right: USA, CNN, or ASAP. In all other cases where the acronyms don’t benefit from automatic translation, the litigator is best off choosing the full expression and not the acronym. This post takes a look at a few reasons, implications, and replacements for trial persuaders looking to lose the alphabet soup of acronyms. . . .
31 Saturday May 2014
Posted in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire
≈ Comments Off on The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.
Tags
Closing Argument, Elliott Wilcox, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Trial Theater Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques
Ask For What You Want, posted by Elliott Wilcox, Trial Theater Blog
Mr. Wilcox’s suggestions on how to verbally ask for what you want can also be translated into a persuasive legal writing technique. The logic works either way. -CCE
How many times a day do you ask judges, clients, or co-workers to do something or to give you something? During any given week, you probably make hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of requests. You ask your co-worker to work on a project, you ask your assistant to handle a client issue, you ask your kids to help with the dishes. . . . The number of requests that you make each week is staggering. But how many of those requests are actually granted? Have you ever had a problem with someone not doing not what you asked?
Why? You’re a lawyer. Shouldn’t you be the master of persuasion who can get what you want, when you want it, and how you want it, every single time?
Unless your name is ‘Svengali the Master Manipulator,’ chances are that many of your requests are not being granted, or at least not being carried out exactly the way you’d like to see them handled. But it’s not because your requests are falling on deaf ears. In fact, your listeners are probably hearing exactly what you’re saying. The problem is that you’re asking for the wrong thing. . . .
22 Thursday May 2014
Posted in Closing Argument, Copyright, Exhibits, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on How Graphics Were Used In Historic Copyright Case.
Graphics for a Historic Copyright Case, by Michael Kelleher, Consent Legal Blog
As you prepare for oral argument in an important hearing, you may realize that you need quick help to create or revise graphics. Today’s blog post comes from this type of scenario, and it has the added interest of coming from a high-profile copyright dispute pending in the Supreme Court. . . .
08 Saturday Mar 2014
Posted in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Persuasion, Law Clerks, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”
Tags
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Juries, Lunch and Snack Breaks, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Persuasive Trial Strategy, Rocket Science Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques, Trials
Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”), by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog
It comes as no surprise that a hungry person, be it the judge or members of a jury, find it difficult to concentrate and focus on your client’s case. Long stretches of testimony and argument are hard enough to follow, especially if the case is complex with numerous exhibits and witnesses. Regardless how comfortable the chair, sitting for long periods trying to listen carefully to a case is hard work.
There is more than one way to consider your audience at a trial or hearing. Persuasive argument is one. Excellent trial preparation using technology is another. Considerate and well-timed rest and meal breaks are another tool that can be used to your advantage.
The Rocket Science Blog mentioned in this post can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3dg5e8n. – CCE
Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions. But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors. Case in point: lunch and snack breaks. Recent research discussed in the excellent Not Exactly Rocket Science blog appears to show that judges’ decisions vary as a direct effect of the proximity of their morning snack or lunch break. In case you are using your morning break or lunch hour to read this post, I’d like to make it worth your while by applying the study findings to the more general issue of your decision-makers’ mental work load and offering some recommendations for anyone who needs to make arguments to a potentially fatigued audience. . . .
17 Monday Feb 2014
Posted in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witness Preparation, Witnesses
≈ Comments Off on Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.
Tags
Conservatives, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Judges, Juries, Liberals, Persuasive Litigator, Politics, Trial Tips and Techniques
Account for Ideological Intolerance, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™
It’s Valentine’s time again. It’s a holiday of love, but in the political world, we’re moving out of yet another debt ceiling standoff and there is no love lost between the two sides of the spectrum. Liberals point to yet another, albeit failed, attempt to hold the country’s full faith and credit hostage, while conservatives point to yet another increase in an already staggering national debt. Neither side can understand the values, arguments, and priorities of the other. And that’s just the debt. Add in social welfare programs, marriage equality, and — as the actual sign from an Arizona gun shop above testifies — gun control, and you’ve got a pretty bitter divide. Polling shows that we are politically more ‘tribal’ than ever before. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, liberals and conservatives appear to use their brains differently when assessing risk, and are resistant to applying basic empathy across the political aisles. . . .
16 Wednesday Oct 2013
Posted in Affirmative Action, Employment Law, Oral Argument
≈ Comments Off on Oral Argument of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
Argument recap: Figuring out Kennedy – Again, posted by Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog
http://bit.ly/1bUHO3q
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.