“Then where Should I start?”

“Start what, for Christ’s sake?”

“Researching the history of the area. Of Derry Township.”

‘”Oh. Well. Start with the Fricke and the Michaud. They’re supposed to be the best.”

“And after I read those-“

“Read them? Christ, no! Throw em in the wastebasket! That’s your first step. Then read Buddinger. Branson Buddinger was a damned sloppy researcher…but when it came to Derry his heart was in the right place. He got most of the facts wrong but he got them wrong with feeling.”

Stephen King, It (1986).

 Although facts are important what matters to the jury is feeling. We must feel the case so the facts are felt.  To relate to the jury with feeling we begin by discovering the story of our client. To do this we emotionally connect with what our client has gone through and how this feels. Once we accomplish this and accomplishing this takes immersion into our client’s life we arrive at the emotional level of the case.

This allows us to draw on our emotional experience and connect with the feelings of our client. When we feel with our client we have emotional honesty and convey this feeling to the jury. Through emotional connection we do this naturally without trying to sell the jury.We connect with the jury in a straight forward common sense manner, avoiding legalese and complexity. 

The feeling of our client which we mirror flows into the courtroom. The jury relates to this feeling because it is honest and true to life. The facts become subservient to the feeling of the case. Our client has this feeling, we have this feeling and our feeling is given to the jury. When the jury accepts our feeling as its own the facts merge into our feeling.

Starting as a young lawyer and continuing  I consult Professors Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, for speaking and writing with power and conviction. Below are maxims from their book.

Place Yourself in the Background. According to professors Strunk and White good writing (and speaking) comes naturally without trying to effect a certain mood or temper.  Write and speak so the recipient is drawn to what you are writing or talking about rather than your emotional take on the subject. In this way the recipient is drawn to the substance.   If the substance is there the recipient will have an emotional response. 

Write and Speak Naturally.  Be yourself. Forget about imitating someone else.  Admittedly, we are all imitators and have been since babies.  The key is draw on our experiences rather than a copy of the source. This allows the message to be our message which is authentic.

Never Overwrite or Overstate. Stick to the facts without gilding or adding. When we overstate the reader or listener knows. The message is processed in a negative way like this person is trying to sell me something.

Write and Speak with Nouns and Verbs. Eliminate adjectives and adverbs. As stated by professors Strunk and White: “The adjective hasn’t been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place.” It is nouns and verbs, not their assistants, that give good writing and speaking its toughness and color.

Avoid the Use of Qualifiers. This means words such as rather, very, little, pretty, and probably to name a few. As stated by the professors: “These are the leeches that infest the pond of good prose, sucking the blood of words.” The use of the adjective “little” is particularly debilitating. “Little” is a badge of a weak speaker or writer.  The same is true with other qualifiers.

Active Voice. Speak and write in the active voice whenever you have a choice. The active voice “I will speak and write with conviction” has power. The passive voice conveys weakness: “I will try to speak or write with conviction.”

Write and Speak at High Level. When speaking use the ing.  Rather than “I’m thinken about doen it, ” say I am thinking about doing it.” This elevates you  to to a speaker with more education in the listener’s mind. The listener consciously and subconsciously hears your message as articulate. Eliminate slang in writing and speaking. This puts you at a higher level.

Make the Point and Stop. As stated by our professors “do not explain too much.”  When saying too much adverbs and adjectives creep into speaking or writing. This makes the message weak rather than strong. Shakespeare says: ” The lady doth protest  too much me thinks.”

Avoid Fancy Words. Speak and write like you are talking to a high school student. Avoid words of  trade that only fellow trade members know.  Avoid foreign language;  it sounds like you are trying to impress;  it is not impressive to deliver a message the recipient misses.

Remember John Wayne’s Maxim:  “Speak slow, speak low, and don’t  say too much.”

Eye contact leads to meaningful connection. Begin with an accepting and understanding heart,  making eye contact.  

In a jury trial I start with eye contact before speaking. I stay with a juror  (three to five seconds) then go to the next juror who invites eye contact.

When talking and listening I keep eye contact until completing a thought. I go to the next juror who invites connection; I engage with eye contact discussion. This allows me to connect. 

Try making eye contact in all conversation group and individual. It shows the person you have connected with you care.

This is my take on how a trial lawyer is like a Pocock cedar racing shell. James Daniel Brown, In Boys In The Boat (Viking 2013), discusses George Pocock, a master shell builder in the 1920s and 30s. Brown writes about Pocock’s discovery of cedar as the ultimate wood for a racing shell; with the result being “the boat as a whole [is] under subtle but continual tension caused by the unreleased compression in the skin, something like a drawn bow waiting to be released.”

“To Pocock, this unflagging resilience-this readiness to bounce back, to keep coming, to persist in the face of resistance was the magic in cedar.” This unseen force imparts life into the shell. “As far as Pocock is concerned a shell that does not have this “life” in it is unworthy. Id. at 139.

This passage rings true of the worthiness of a trial lawyer. The trial lawyer is under a subtle but continual tension in trial-like a drawn bow. The trial lawyer must have unflagging resilience- a readiness to keep coming especially in the face of resistance. This is the unseen make up of a trial lawyer. With this make up the trial lawyer is worthy of the responsibility of representing an injured person against the resistance of the insurance industry.

Constantine Stanislavski refers to “The Magic of If” in his book An Actor Prepares. Here Stanislavski instructs acting students to put themself into the emotion of their part by imagining what it is like “if” they (are in the same situation their part places them in). Putt ing our self in the “what if”  situation allows a natural emotional spontaneity to emerge.

A few years ago I read an article in the King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin: Daniel Dugan, The Turning Point (March 2015) at 14-15, where Duggan a Trial Consultant discusses “The Turning Point.” Duggan teaches “The Turning Point” is a story telling technique using “counterfactual thinking.” “Counterfactual thinking is a technique where you ask a person to describe the opposite of the situation they are in now.” Id. at 15.

A counterfactual question “elicits rich responses revealing motivation, emotion and a glimpse at a person’s view of fate or destiny.” Id. Duggan goes on to reason that counterfactual reasoning by jurors allows them to see the case from our client’s perspective.

To illustrate Duggan suggests we invite the jury to imagine how our client’s life would be if her injury had not occurred: “Well to understand this ladies and gentlemen you will hear from Katie’s  [lay witness] who will tell you Katie’s life would  be… .”  This allows for two story lines-one a life with injury, and two a life without injury. “The gap between these two story lines will now appear huge and graphic.” Id.

And the jury goes from the typical mindset of does Katie deserve X amount of money to I get it X amount of money will get Katie’s life back on track. The jury’s verdict becomes the “tool that jurors use to make one life out of the two paths that lay before…[Katie] at the time of [her injury.]” Id. Although her injury forced Katie down her life changing path, the jurors can get Katie back on track because “they understand what it will take to do that.” Id.

Combining Stanislavski’s “if” with Duggan’s  “counterfactual thinking” allows jurors a unique perspective and gives them the tool to fill the gap between the two lives.

Several years ago when reading  Joe Dimaggio’s biography I was taken aback by Dimaggio’s usual first reaction: “What’s in it for me?” The great Yankee being first and foremost concerned about himself. Sales philosophy teaches what matters is what the buyer believes is in it for him. Dale Carnegie writes: Why talk about what we want. Although we are eternally interested in what we want no one else is, because everyone else is interested in what they want. “So the only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it.” Id.

Applied to a jury trial we know what we want, and what the defense wants, but failing to connect with what the jurors want results in a roll of the dice. This is because what the jurors want  is the key to success. We must get to what the jurors want and show them how to get it.

This is what the reptilian philosophy recognizes. The reptilian must not be forgotten, but there is more to it than a simplistic low brain analysis. We should remember the middle emotional brain and the logical cerebral cortex. When we do this we factor in the emotional component of like-ability, and the cerebral component of logic meaning we make sense.

To put this together we must first discover our client’s story. In discovering the story we feel the betrayal of our client, so we can convey our client’s betrayal to the jury. The jury must feel defendant’s conduct is conduct that demands a corrective response because society is better when people are held responsible for their actions. There must be a connection between lawyer, client and  jury so the jury understands their corrective response benefits society which in turn benefits the jury.

Continuing to discuss highlights of John A. Farrell, Clarence Darrow Attorney for the Damned (First Vintage Books Edition, May 2012):

Philosophy. The only thing worthwhile is to develop your own individuality and leave something that will liberalize the few who know and care you lived. Id. at 194. “No man is judged rightly by his fellow men. We go here and there, and we think we control our destinies and our lives, but above us and beyond us are unseen hands and unseen forces that move us at their will.” Id. at 263.

The War of Trial.  Darrow uses the analogy of war when referring to trial: I try cases in the front trenches, fearing nothing. “The front trenches are disagreeable; they are hard; they are dangerous; it is only a question of days or hours when you are killed or wounded… . But it is exciting. You are living; and if now and then you go back to rest, you think of your comrades in the fight; you hear the drum; you hear the cannon’s voice; you hear the bugle call; and you rush back to trial and to the thick of the fight. There, for a short time, you really live. It is hard, but it is life.” Id. at 326.

Likability- The Most Important Element in a Case. Darrow believes the outcome of trial rests on the elemental factor of likability. When the opposition lawyer is trying to bully the witness Darrow lets him continue, trusting he will antagonize the jury. It is only when he knows the jury is upset that he responds and puts the lawyer in his place. See id. at 346.

Voir Dire.  Wearing his familiar gray suit, Darrow slouched with his hands in his pockets or slowly roamed the courtroom speaking in a low voice to the jurors. The court and the jurors are all with him and the jurors are eager. “He ever so often makes some droll remark that sets the entire courtroom to laughing and instantly all tension is relived.”  But like all lawyers he makes mistakes: “He pushed too far  with one prospective juror [and asked a needles question that lead to the prosecutor excusing a good juror]. You have to know when to stop,” Darrow told friends that night. “One question too many and you lose a desirable juror, I should have know enough to refrain.” Id. at 409.

Style. Darrow uses simple words when talking to the jury and from time to time he makes meaningful eye contact with a juror. Throughout the trial he includes all of the jurors through meaningful eye contact. He has a natural demeanor as if the jury is a tribe and he is a tribal member. See id. at 254.”Everything is natural, unaffected and perfectly timed.” Id. at 435.

Tactics. Darrow once explained his tactics in a criminal case: “You try to throw around the case a feeling of pity, of love, if possible, for the fellow who is on trial. If the jurors can be made to identify with the defendant and his pain and position they will act to satisfy themselves. At this ponit the case is won. Juries will furnish their own rationalization. If a juror wants to do something , and is intelligent, he will give a reason for it. You’ve got to get him to want to do it. That is how the mind acts.” Id. at 287.

John Farrell’s biography of Clarence Darrow is an engrossing read for trial lawyers as we can learn from Clarence Darrow-the greatest trial lawyer of the early twentieth century:

What Darrow learned from his father. My father “taught me to question rather than accept. I had little respect for the opinion of the crowd. My instinct was to doubt the majority. John A. Farrell, Clarence Darrow Attorney for The Damned, (First Vintage Books Edition, May 2012) at 25. 

Voir Dire. “Darrow, dressed in homely clothes, with baggy trousers and unshined shoes,” strolled around the courtroom or draped himself over the back of a chair, or leaned into the box to question a juror. He had a soft drawl and a relaxed approach and engaged in a confidential exchange with jurors. “There was method in Darrow’s manner; he believed that a juror’s decision was inevitably based on emotion, not intellect. The more he could in quiet conversation weigh a man’s heart the better.” Id. 164.

Demeanor. The press reported Darrow to be a man of intellect and subtlety with an old shoe manner, and a capacity for getting inside the skin of a witness that is possessed by few lawyers. There is nothing theatric about him. He never strikes an attitude. He never explodes. He stands before a witness and just bores into his mind, gently, shrewdly with every appearance of wanting merely to know the truth and nothing more. Id. at 165-66.

Opening. Darrow “approached the jury and, with no flourishes or preliminaries, began to speak in his slow mellow drawl. At times he would lean forward, until their noses touched. Sometimes he’d pause to consider, and wipe his glasses. He spoke in the straight simple language of the hills and mines. One reporter said. He gave them a talk much in the same manner that the good old deacon in the little Methodist church you used to attend led the class meeting.” Id. at 172

Cross Examination. “Darrow believed that important witnesses in major cases were so well rehearsed that as a rule it is futile to go over in cross-examination the testimony already given.” Id. at 169. In the Loeb and Leopold case Darrow for the most part “decried the spectacle [of the state’s presentation of an army of minor witnesses and] declined to cross examine,” but he chose to grill a police detective who stated “Leopold’s boast about a friendly trial judge.”

“Darrow rose, swung his chair around and leaned upon it. He pressed the detective for witnesses, notes, or other supporting evidence. … When the copper hedged he pounced.

“Who was with you?”

“Nobody but he and I,” the detective acknowledged.

“Did you make any memoranda on it?”

“Not at the time…”

“Mr. officer, don’t you know that this story of yours in reference to a ‘friendly judge’ is pure fabrication made for the purpose of intimidating the court?” Id. at 343.

(The Loeb and Leopold case was a thrill killing case where Darrow plead Loeb and Leopold guilty in a bench trial where the only issue was whether Loeb and Leopold would be hung or receive life in prison. Judge Caverly sentenced the young men to life in prison).

Just lost a “MIST” case. For those who do not know a “MIST” case is what we call an automobile collision case with little or no visible damage to the colliding cars and injuries to plaintiff that cannot be seen. Examples include injuries to soft tissue- thus, Minimum Impact Soft Tissue=”MIST.”

At trial I used techniques learned at Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College (TLC). The techniques are  simple. First, know ourself and how we feel about our case. Second, tell the truth to the jury including concerns we have about the case. Third, relate to the jury in a non lawyer natural common sense way. Fourth, show and tell the story. At all times include the jury.

Losing is hard. Losing leads to doubt. Doubt about taking a case to trial. Doubt about being a trial lawyer. Doubt about trial tactics.

On reflection I believe losing is an inevitable result when we try tough cases. There are “MIST” cases I have been successful prosecuting. On reflection I see that it is important to try tough cases. On reflection I have no doubt about the TLC Method.

Trying tough cases gives a legitimately injured plaintiff a shot at justice when the insurance company says pound sand and take little or nothing for your injuries. The only way to succeed in a tough case with little or no offer is to try the case.  By taking on the insurance company in a “MIST” case we stand up for an injured person who deserves fair compensation. This is our charge as a trial lawyer.

Losing is an essential part of the success equation. All successful people have been losers. For me I learn far more from my losses than from my successes. A Loss causes reflection. Reflection leads to retooling techniques. Retooling makes me better. Plus, insurance companies know the only lawyer who can win a case is the lawyer who will try the case. Insurance companies know we will lose sometimes and so will they. When an insurance company deals with a lawyer who will try the case it treats the case more seriously which translates to paying fair value more often in cases where the injured plaintiff is represented by a known trial lawyer.

So I move on to the next trial.  I have learned from my loss. I look forward to trying my next case using the TLC Method- total honesty in a pure and simple way like a regular guy rather than a trial lawyer with a trial lawyer mask.

This post gives my take on Trial Lawyers College  (TLC) where I attended and graduated in the class of July 2012:

Wyoming. TLC is on Gerry Spence’s Ranch in Western Wyoming. Most students fly into Jackson Hole, and take a TLC charter from Jackson to the Ranch. This means seeing the beauty of Western Wyoming on the way to the Ranch. The Tetons are the highlight of the ride, but all of the country from Jackson to the Ranch is beautiful.

The Ranch. The Ranch is located two and a half hours east of Jackson. The closest town is Debois which is a cool cowboy town 40 minutes west of the Ranch. The accommodations at the Ranch are spartan, clean and fine. The Ranch facilities are well maintained ranch buildings. The food (buffet style) is great given the chefs cook breakfast, lunch and dinner for about 75 people. There are abundant morning opportunities for working out-climbing Spence Mountain a four mile hike from 7000 to 7900 feet,  jogging/walking a country road,  fly fishing (I caught 10 fish-catch and release), and working out in the Ranch weight room. The Wind River, which runs through the Ranch, gives a pastoral setting and  good vibes that make the Ranch a magical place.

Classmates. Although The Ranch is a cool place what makes TLC a great experience is the people. In my class we had 54  male and female lawyers of all ages and ethnic groups, from all over the United States with half being criminal defense lawyers and half being plaintiff injury lawyers. We promptly formed a close bound with 25% of the class as we were divided into four equal groups for the first three days. These are the psychodrama days where we learn who we are and who are peers are. We learn to take off our mask and be our real self. We then integrate back into the collective group. For work sessions we are divided into smaller groups. In this way we get to know all of our classmates in our three weeks together.

Instructors. The instructors are TLC graduates. They are quality trial lawyers from around the United States who take a week off to come to TLC to teach the TLC Method. Work sessions are not lecture like a typical law school or continuing  legal education class. Rather, work sessions are about doing. We learn from doing and showing. Typically an instructor asks our fellow classmates who act as jurors during a work session: “Is he like a lawyer or a real person.” If the answer is lawyer we are not in the TLC Method.

TLC Method. We learn to try cases using the TLC Method. First, we must be ourself. We must take off our mask and face the jury with honesty and without any pretense or legalese. We become one with the jury. Second, we show the jury our client’s story rather than tell the jury about our case. Third, we role reverse with the opposition witness allowing us to see the world as he sees the world. This allows for a sensitive humanistic cross examination instead of an aggressive lawyer like cross. It is the exception to the rule to destroy the witness. Finally, we close the case as we have started the case-we highlight the theme and the story, show the jury what justice means and give the case to our jury.