The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 179 - Operant Conditioning & Witnesses - Part 1

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discuss the concept of operant conditioning and how it can be used with witnesses, particularly during deposition prep. Dr. Wood defines operant conditioning as the creation of an association between a behavior and the outcome. There can be both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, though its important to understand that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Negative reinforcement is the elimination of a negative stimulus, not punishment. When working with witnesses to make them feel comfortable and confident about their performance during witness prep, its important to balance the negative feedback with the positive and be specific with the positive feedback so the witness understands what they are doing well and can draw on that as the prep continues. Negative feedback has to be constructive and the timing of any feedback, positive or negative, must be given at the moment that it is recognized. The witness must be able to recognize the association between their answer and the feedback. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/erz

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 178 - Expert Advice on Negotiation in Litigation

Bill Mitchell, Founding Partner, Cruser & Mitchell joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss negotiation in litigation. Bill Mitchell shares his philosophy on managing litigation and comments on the lack of focus on the negotiation phase of litigation vs. the outsized focus on trial, when fewer than 1% of cases go to trial. Bill talks about mistakes that he sees defense attorneys making including not identifying the leverage point for every case and not being an open communicator and engaging in open discussions with opposing counsel. Bill Mitchell discusses his approach when dealing with plaintiff attorneys who are not willing to negotiate and how important communication is in those situations. Lastly, Bill talks about timing for negotiations, parachuting in on cases, and how he handle multiples co-defendants. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/mEq

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 177 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Litigation

Gene Kissane, Partner at Cole Scott & Kissane, John Nunnally, Attorney at Ragsdale Liggett, and Billy Davis, Partner at Bovis, Kyle, Burch & Medlin join Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the hottest topic in the legal industry today: Artificial Intelligence. The group discuss their initial perspectives on how they think AI is going to impact the legal field and litigation, what the discussions are about AI in their firms, and how they are using AI today. They talk about whether AI is an existential threat to law firms and how lawyers will adapt their way of doing business since the introduction of AI. The group shares ideas about efficiencies that they can see when leveraging AI including as a starting place for drafts and for business process applications such as accounting and billing. They have a broader discussion about the billable hour and flat fees and how AI may have an impact there and how important it is to recognize the places where AI can help and where its not appropriate to use in the legal space. The group also talk about what clients may expect from their firms with regards to using AI as well as whether AI is an advantage for plaintiff's attorneys over defense attorneys. Lastly, the panel discusses how questions about using or not using AI in specific cases such as med mal and transportation may come into play and be leveraged as a potential new standard of care. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/9hn

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 176 - Dogmatism and the Dogmatic Juror

CSI Litigation Consultant Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss the concept of dogmatism in jurors. Ava defines what dogmatism is and shares the different perspectives of psychologists about whether dogmatism is a personality trait or is domain specific. Steve and Ava talk about open and closed systems of thinking and how dogmatism doesn't allow an individual to change their perspective, even in the face of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They also discuss how to approach jury selection to identify dogmatic jurors during voir dire and whether and how someone can be lifted out of their dogmatic belief state. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OBB

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 175 - Plaintiff Trucking Attorney Joe Fried - Part 2

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues his conversation on trucking litigation with plaintiff trucking attorney Joe Fried, Founding Partner of Fried Goldberg LLC. In this episode, Bill asks Joe about the behavior of some plaintiff attorneys who express disdain for the insurance company, who refuse to settle or negotiate, and take a very aggressive stance in dealing with the defense. They also discuss how defense witness ""pivoting"" kills credibility at deposition (and trial) and greatly helps the plaintiff's attorney make his/her case, and that while being on different sides of the table, plaintiff and defense attorneys are actually very similar in what they both wish to accomplish and how they want to make the world a better place. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/YRy

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 174 - Plaintiff Trucking Attorney Joe Fried - Part 1

Plaintiff trucking attorney Joe Fried, Founding Partner of Fried Goldberg LLC, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about a wide range of topics in trucking litigation including the importance of sincere and effective communication in the litigation process, the definition of a nuclear verdict, how Joe approaches a case from the outset, and how juror anger is only one of the factors influencing nuclear verdicts. Bill and Joe also discuss the hesitancy on the defense side of settling, the staggering differences between the plaintiff and defense bars regarding communication, training, and sharing of information, how clients pressure defense attorneys to take cases to trial even when it is best to settle, and their perspective on jury selection and how less is more in opening statements. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/KrO

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 173 - The Gig Economy

Jacqueline Altman, Partner at Naman Howell & Jason Goodnight, Partner at Fraden, Farris, Quillin, Goodnight, Roberts + Ward join Steve Wood, Ph.D. to talk about the gig economy. They discuss the complications and challenges from a litigation perspective for this growing, but still relatively new, industry. Jacq and Jason describe what the gig economy is, how broad it is, and how little case law exists today specific to the gig economy. The group discuss the similarities and differences of gig economy litigation when compared to other areas such as transportation or patent law. Jacq, Jason, and Steve also talk about how the plaintiffs bar has become more aggressive in targeting gig economy companies, what gig economy companies need to look for in their corporate representatives, and how to address jurors who may not be as familiar with gig economy companies and practices. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/EgG

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 172 - Podcast Listener Mail

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer podcast listener questions: 
- How will AI change the legal industry and who will benefit the most, plaintiffs or defendants?- Are all nuclear verdict juries angry? How do I spot angry jurors in voir dire?- How do I handle witnesses who are dealing with personal issues?- Why do witnesses have such a deep desire to pivot and why are Yes/No answers so unsatisfying for witnesses to give?- Do attorneys welcome you with open arms when you are brought in on a case?- I need to mock try my case but I don't know if certain evidence will be allowed in. How do I deal with evidence that may or may not be allowed in?

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 171 - Parachuting Attorneys

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about attorneys who "parachute" into a case late. These parachuting situations are happening more often, especially when the excess carrier gets involved and brings in their heavy hitter, but the geographic and culture differences of an outsider can have a material impact on jurors. It is possible for parachuting attorneys to win over a jury but there are some very specific things that must be taken into consideration by the outside attorney: 
1. Be authentic - Do not try to appropriate the local geography/culture (e.g. east coast attorneys should not wear cowboy boots if they are trying a case in Texas or Montana). Be cognizant of cultural differences such as the speed at which they speak, etc.; 2. Be passionate; jurors want passion from the attorneys representing both parties;3. Be respectful; do not talk down to the jury;4. Utilize local counsel; local counsel needs to play a significant role in the case because it will help with diversifying the team. It's important to not have a table full of attorneys from outside the venue. 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 170 - Working with Non-Native English Speaking Witnesses

Oscar Lara, Shareholder at Rincon Law Group, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about translators for non-native English speakers or foreign-born witnesses and the challenges of working with interpreters during witness preparation and for testimony. Much of Oscar's  practice involves working with many Spanish-speaking witnesses and he shares the challenges of working with these witnesses, of using interpreters during witness prep, and the difficulties associated with different dialects. Bill, Steve and Oscar talk about how the language barrier can also be a challenge for jurors in a trial setting and the additional difficulties for witnesses who are able to speak English but it might be more broken English or speak with a heavy accent so they are not great communicators in English. The group also talks about regional and language differences in the jury pool and how to assess jurors on their ability to comprehend English during jury selection, the irrational fears of foreign-born witnesses, and the importance of building trust with these witnesses.