The Litigation Psychology Podcast

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 139 - Frequently Asked Questions, Part 3

Dr. Steve Wood and Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. answer frequently asked questions from podcast listeners and viewers. Some of the specific questions asked and answered:
- What are some of the things that jurors are highly critical of at trial that I may not be aware of?
- How do jurors perceive out-of-town defense attorneys?
- How do I get a former employee to cooperate for a deposition?
- Do jurors like attorneys who wear glasses?
- Do expert witnesses really impact jury decision making?
- How long should my opening statement be?
- Does it look bad in front of the jury if I object a lot?

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 138 - Business Development for Young Attorneys

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares tips and ideas for young attorneys to build a book of business. Doing business development is not easy, but taking the time and steps to doing it can really pay off.
Two specific ideas from Bill:
1) Writing - Write articles on topics that prospects and clients can get value from and get those articles published in a legal journal; look for niche publications which are often hungry for content. If you need help getting started on topics or with writing, partner with a seasoned attorney.
2) Speeches - Deliver presentations to different groups. Leverage the article(s) you've written and published to build your presentation content. Search out conferences where you can speak, particularly that include audiences with potential clients.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/W18
 

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 137 - Four Psychological Concepts Behind Witness Testimony Errors

Dr. Steve Wood describes four psychological concepts that help to explain why some witnesses make mistakes in their testimony performance: 
1) Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests there is a relationship between performance and arousal. Increased arousal can help improve performance, but only up to a certain point. At the point when arousal becomes excessive, performance diminishes. 
2) The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe they are smarter and more capable than they actually are. Essentially, low-ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. 
3) Evaluation apprehension is a human tendency to try to look better or the fear of being evaluated. This creates a lot of anxiety because of their concern about how they are perceived by others who are watching them and their performance. 
4) "Thin-slicing" refers to the ability of our subconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience or information. 
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/EdX

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 136 - Rebecca Brewster of ATRI on Trucking and Transportation Industry Research

Rebecca Brewster, President and COO of the American Transportation Institute (ATRI), joins the podcast to talk with Dr. BIll Kanasky, Jr. about ATRI, a research and education organization. Rebecca shares details on her background and different ATRI research studies and how their research benefits and informs the transportation and trucking industry. Bill and Rebecca discuss specific research topics that ATRI has studied including nuclear verdicts, nuclear settlements, driver shortage, CDL age limit reductions, driver health, driver compensation, women in trucking, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/2vH

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 135 - Witness Guessing and Witness Freezing

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. covers two witness deposition testimony topics: witnesses who guess and witnesses who freeze. 
1) You have to identify when a witness is guessing in their deposition. Key phrases to watch out for besides "I guess," are "I think," "I believe," "I probably," "I assume." You need to explain to your witness that even if they tell you they won't guess, their brain is wired to guess and they need to be educated on what a guess sounds like and must work with them to correct these guesses during mock deposition questioning. 
2) In addition to the well-known responses of fight or flight, there is a third response that doesn't get the same level of attention: "freeze". Referred to in psychology as "freeze appease", this survival response leads to the witness agreeing with the questioner on every question in order to appease them. When witnesses freeze, they have to appease to survive. Dealing with the freeze response requires neurocognitive training to help the witness be prepared during their testimony.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/V51

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 134 - Insights for Effective Jury Selection

Dr. Steve Wood shares his observations, insights, and experience with jury selection and what works and doesn't work when picking a jury. Steve talks about the dangers of selecting a jury based solely on demographics and the criticality of learning about a juror's experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. He emphasizes the importance of the specific questions asked and approach taken by the attorney during voir dire and recommends that counsel treat voir dire more like a focus group and dig deeper into juror responses. Get potential jurors talking to explain and express their beliefs and attitudes to figure out if they are a good juror for your side. Steve also cautions attorneys on social desirability bias which is the tendency of some jurors to give answers that make the person look good and which may be concealing their real feelings or attitudes. He suggests digging as much as feasible into juror responses and the details in their answers as a way to help support your position for striking for cause, if necessary. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/GG1

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 133 - 13 Cognitive Distortions Crippling Your Witness - Part 3

In the final part of this three-part topic, Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood discuss the last of the 13 cognitive distortions that cripple witnesses during testimony. Cognitive distortions are irrational thinking patterns where the brain makes connections that may or may not exist and can negatively impact testimony performance unless corrected via cognitive reframing. The cognitive distortions Bill and Steve discuss in this episode are: 11) Emotional reasoning - when witnesses’ emotional thinking replaces their logical thinking. Also known as “amygdala hijack,” (i.e., the fight or flight response) 12) Control fallacies - when witnesses believe they have no control over the testimony process, feel powerless during testimony, and often assume a submissive role in the question-and-answer interaction. 13) Fallacy of fairness - when witnesses believe the lawsuit isn’t “fair,” leading to intense feelings of anger and resentment and impacting their ability to deliver effective deposition testimony. All 13 of these cognitive distortions can be overcome through a neurocognitive assessment and training that addresses each individually. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/yxN

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 132 - Lessons Learned from Successful Plaintiff Attorneys

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. shares his experience working with plaintiff attorneys on cases. Bill works on the plaintiff's side when a corporation, which is typically the defendant, is the plaintiff and engages Courtroom Sciences for litigation consulting. This type of work has led to some very specific learnings about how plaintiff attorneys in commercial litigation operate and behave. Four key characteristics of successful plaintiff attorneys:
1) their desire to win is unmatched and often higher than the defense side;2) they actively and consistently use focus groups and mock trials, and in particular, employ the test/retest methodology to tweak and adjust their case to improve it, leading to much higher accuracy and confidence;3) they conduct their jury research as early as possible in the timeline of the case, allowing it to help them guide their discovery when it comes to case themes, case facts, witnesses, etc.;  4) they are very open to, and actively solicit, constructive criticism and feedback from consultants in order to help make them better attorneys.
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/G4a

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 131 - Advantages and Importance of Early Case Management

Mike Bassett, Senior Partner, The Bassett Law Firm joins Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. and Dr. Steve Wood to talk about early case management, the timing of working up a case, and what is best to do first and early. Early case management sets the tempo and helps gain momentum for the defense. Mike shares how in the first 30-60 days of a case conducting focus groups always him to know what resonates with jurors and what doesn't and the value of interviewing witnesses early. Mike talks about how defense attorneys need to educate their clients and carriers on why they need to be investing in this early case management, research, and witness prep. There is significant, tangible value in having juror perspectives while discovery is still open and before witnesses have testified. The plaintiff's bar tests cases at an exponentially higher rate than the defense bar and will test discrete issues to learn what will resonate with jurors. Bill, Steve, and Mike also discuss the characteristics of strong plaintiff attorneys: always pushing the file; always have a plan; develop their themes early; focus group cases early; create maximum risk and leverage in every deposition; are detailed oriented and very prepared. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OVJ

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 130 - Tips for Success for Trial Attorneys & Aspiring Associates

Paul Motz, Shareholder, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, joins the podcast to talk about what it takes to become a successful trial attorney. Finding good associates is a challenge these days. A couple of reasons for this is the job-hopping of associates in pursuit of a bigger paycheck and also the shift in people wanting to find more work-life balance. But Paul points out that being a trial attorney requires a different schedule and a different mentality. So what can trial attorneys do to better prepare their associates? Attorneys must treat their associates right and provide them with lots of opportunities to learn and grow. Trial attorneys should include their aspiring associates in as much of the case that makes sense and think about how to build rapport, camaraderie, and connection with their associates. Allow them opportunities to take ownership in specific situations and help associates understand that constantly switching firms is short-sighted because for a trial attorney, having an associate you can count on is invaluable. Associates who aspire to be a successful trial attorney must be willing to work hard and show initiative and take advantage of every opportunity offered to them. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/0ek