The Litigation Psychology Podcast

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.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 169 - Preventing Nuclear Settlements at Deposition

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talk about their latest paper published in CLM Magazine on Preventing Nuclear Settlements at Deposition and the dangers of pivoting during deposition. Steve and Bill discuss the risks to witnesses who are encouraged by defense counsel to pivot during testimony and how cases where witnesses are told to pivot settle for higher amounts than they should. They talk about the strategic and economic risks of pivoting and how a witness that pivots during their deposition is providing a direct benefit to opposing counsel. Steve and Bill describe how effective witness deposition training is predicated on a concept they call 'Embrace & Reject' and how important it is to avoid amygdala hijack during testimony.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 168 - Partnering with a Witness Training Expert

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about the difference between witness prep and witness training and how the combination of the defense attorney with a witness training expert is the perfect partnership. Some attorneys don't understand or appreciate the difference between witness prep and witness training. Witness prep is the attorney's job going over documents and exhibits and developing the legal strategy. Witness training is focused on working with the witness on their cognition, behavior, and emotion, delivering a sophisticated neurocognitive training that creates a more effective witness. Getting a positive outcome from testimony requires the combination and partnership of both defense counsel and a witness training expert. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ye9

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 167 - 5 Essential Elements of an Effective Corporate Rep

Dr. Steve Wood shares what to look for in a corporate representative and a list of five (5) essential elements for someone to serve as an effective 30(b)(6) witness:
1) Humility - The individual has to feel comfortable saying "I don't know". 2) Patience - The witness needs to wait for the questioner to finish asking their question before responding. They also have to be patient with the  deposition and litigation process as a whole. 3) Emotional poise - The witness must avoid making emotional mistakes and avoid being baited into emotional reactions by opposing counsel.4) Confidence - An effective witness must be able to embrace their conduct and be confident and steadfast when being pushed by opposing counsel. 5) Open-mindedness - An effective corporate rep must trust the process. They have to take witness training and deposition prep seriously. They also must have a strong ability to focus on the task at hand and not allow themselves to be distracted. 
Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/ph4

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 166 - Bad Words and Good Words in Testimony

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about a list of words that the brain normally doesn't think of as bad words but which can be really bad words if a witness says them, or agrees to them, in deposition or trial testimony. These are trap words that lock witnesses into inflexible positions and are a big reason why witness effectiveness training, prior to testimony, is crucial to litigation success.
The Bad Word List (aka the anti-reptile word list): always/never; must/should; required/obligated/duty; insure/guarantee; every/everything/all; any/anything; risk/danger/harm/safety; well-being; priority; important; prevent; deviate; breach; violate. Each of these words eliminate judgment and circumstances and if written in policies and procedures can get you into trouble precisely because they remove judgment from the equation.
The Good Word List (words to use when appropriate during testimony): judgment; training; experience; appropriate; reasonable; sufficient; circumstances; situation.
Words that are "Middle of the Road" Words (not necessarily good words nor bad words; use judiciously): potentially; maybe; possibly; sometimes; not necessarily.

The Litigation Psychology Podcast - Episode 165 - Myths and Truths about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

Dr. Kyle Boone, Clinical Neuropsychologist and Clinical Professor at UCLA, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) in litigation. TBI claims are increasing exponentially and Dr. Boone gives an overview of concussions and mild traumatic brain injuries and discusses assumptions, myths, and truths about the diagnosis of a mild TBI. Dr. Boone and Dr. Kanasky, Jr. discuss how these issues play out in litigation, what defense attorneys need to be aware of in TBI cases, juror assumptions about concussions, and how to best utilize and cross-examine expert witnesses in TBI litigation. Contact Dr. Boone at kboone@kyleboonephd.com.