Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RSS | More
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen invites Sari de la Motte back to the show. Sari was one of our top episodes in 2019, so to celebrate 50 episodes and over 100,000 downloads we invited her to be our first returning guest. This show will cover voir dire, opening, the concept of group communication, and how all of these concepts help you form the best jury for your case.
To start things off, Sari shares that her book “From Hostage to Hero: Captivate the Jury by Setting Them Free” is now available for purchase. She reveals how her desire to help trial lawyers understand why jurors “don’t want to be there” (summoned for jury duty), how to deal with this, and then lead them from their “hostageness – their inability to say no to this process” to choosing to be a part of the jury, was how the idea for the book began. Michael adds how initially this reminded him of Carl Bettinger’s book “Twelve Heroes, One Voice” in that both Carl and Sari believe it is important to help your jury become the hero in the case. But after working with Sari, Michael sees how she focuses more on the hostage aspect, shows you how to release the jury panel from this, works to help you understand how important nonverbal communication can be, and gives practical tips to use in the courtroom.
Jumping right in Michael introduces the highly debated topic of “inclusive voir dire” versus “exclusionary voir dire.” He reveals how in the past he has used exclusionary voir dire to find his bad jurors, but understanding Sari’s thoughts on the “hostage mentality” has made him rethink his voir dire technique. Putting it bluntly Sari gives the example of “when you come in with the mindset of ‘who here is out to kill me and how do I kill them first’ that is like a poison and a disease” which then spreads and has your potential jurors wanting to find a way to get out of being selected for your jury. A different mindset where you find the people who want to help you can change this and Sari’s analogy involving hiring a new paralegal and sorting through resumes helps put everything into perspective.
Michael pivots the conversation into how important mindset is for trial lawyers. Sari truly believes “how you’re thinking, affects how you act, which affects your results” and explains how the CTFAR model can help. Michael gives the example of his mindset before his upcoming jury trial and how he is reminding himself “jurors are good people and want to do the right thing and help my client.” This example leads to Sari sharing just how useful the mindset of “the jurors love me” was for a client of hers and how the success of this led to a $10 million dollar jury verdict. And if you are thinking “this is bullshit” Sari explains the communication science behind it and why it works.
Moving from mindset back to voir dire, Sari and Michael discuss how frustrated potential jurors are in the jury selection process. When jurors are not sure why they are there and what is happening it’s critical to get to the point and say what they are in court to do. The next step is to then think about voir dire as a group process and not an individual process, because you are there to create a group and you want a group to reach a verdict in your case not 12 individuals. Michael adds how equally important it is to think about the information you share with the group, the order in which you share it, and how you shape the conversation. The order in which you share your information is crucial and your timing is too, which leads to Sari explaining how jurors will immediately think whatever principle or fact (good or bad) you bring up first is the most important part of your case.
Michael wraps up this episode with a discussion on managing energy. He shares his experiences as a trial lawyer by describing his energy level as a young attorney as being extremely high energy at all times, but then when he tried to slow down he came across as “low energy and passionless,” and now he has learned about “managing energy” to keep the jury engaged and never bored. “Ringing the bell” is an engaging way for attorneys to keep the jury on the edge of their seat and is described as a tool for great storytelling in your opening. However, these techniques are not natural and as Michael points out you have to practice before you do this in front of the jury successfully. Practice should not be confused with scripting an opening, so Sari reminds listeners this is for “the ease and the delivery of information not rehearsing it word for word.”
The episode is filled with additional great advice ranging from the importance of videotaping yourself, why it is imperative to rehearse saying the dollar amount you want a jury to award, thinking about the principles in your case, how journaling can help you in your mindset, using devils advocate questions, thinking about voir dire and how it connects jurors to you in your opening, and so much more. It’s truly a show any attorney will want to listen to more than once.
BACKGROUND ON SARI DE LA MOTTE
Sari de la Motte is a nationally recognized coach, speaker, and trial consultant. She has trained extensively with an internationally recognized authority in nonverbal communication and is an expert in nonverbal intelligence.
Sari specializes in helping trial attorneys communicate with jurors.
Sari speaks to audiences of a few dozen people to audiences of over a thousand. A sought-after keynote speaker, Sari is often asked to headline conferences across the United States.
Sari consults with trial attorneys all over the country, assisting with trial strategy, voir dire and opening statement. She conducts mock trials in her studio in Portland, Oregon and assists with jury selection on-site.
Sari has spoken for, and works with, several members of the Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only group consisting of the top 100 trial attorneys in the United States. She’s has been a featured columnist for Oregon Trial Lawyer’s Magazine, Sidebar, and has also written for Washington State Association of Justice, Oregon Criminal Defense Attorney, and other legal publications. She provides CLEs for various state association of justices around the country. Because of her unique ability to help attorneys communicate their real selves, she has been dubbed “The Attorney Whisperer.”
Sari is regularly interviewed on TV, radio, and in print, and has appeared in the Atlantic, Huffington Post, The Oregonian, Willamette Week and other publications. Her book, From Hostage to Hero: Captivate the Jury by Setting Them Free was released by Trial Guides in November, 2019.
For more information on Sari de la Motte you can visit http://www.saridlm.com/
-
13 – Ben Glass – Great Legal Marketing
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RSS | More
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen sits down with the great legal marketing mind and Owner of Great Legal Marketing, LLC, Ben Glass. As an attorney and owner of his own law firm, Ben Glass Law, Ben shares a unique insider’s perspective on what marketing works and what doesn’t in the legal industry that many attorneys can appreciate.
Having started his legal career like most young attorneys do, by working in someone else’s firm, Ben recalls that first big step when he ventured out and started his own firm, remembering that he was good at trying cases but suffered, as most do when they start a firm of their own, in bringing on new cases. This led him to start thinking about how to attract clients without breaking the bank, noting that of course you can throw all kinds of money at your marketing, but he knew there had to be a better way. At that point, Ben began to study the impacts of marketing on legal firms and more specifically, looking outside of the lawyer world to what other successful businesses were doing and ultimately finding that achieving results didn’t require being the highest spender.
Michael and Ben discuss the critical stages of legal marketing, not only deciding what kind of practice you want for yourself but conversely, what type of cases you don’t want and getting over the mental hurdle of turning those cases away. The views from both Michael and Ben, looking back at their own implementation of these steps, are surprisingly similar and fortunately not as “scary” as either of them may have thought they were initially. Ben also tends to remind the attorneys he works with that there is no need to succumb to any peer pressure on the types of cases they need to take on. Similarly, Michael adds his own unique perspective on his firm’s transition to becoming one that only accepts the larger cases that they can add value to in that suddenly (along with his experience as an attorney) he became the one other attorneys now refer those larger cases to consistently, versus the smaller fender bender cases, just by the acknowledgment of the types of cases he will and will not accept. Furthermore, Ben explains, having a referral relationship with someone who specializes and loves taking on the types of cases you don’t, can also be highly beneficial to your practice as well as to the clients that are seeking your expertise in helping their case. Essentially creating a win-win-win marketing strategy by setting the standard on the cases that come into your firm and having a plan to guide the rest of the cases in the right direction toward those who are better equipped to provide value to them.
In digging a little deeper into legal marketing, Ben points out that many clients have never really given a thought about finding a lawyer prior to actually needing one – usually no real knowledge of what might constitute the best attorney for their situation, no experience in dealing with claims adjusters, etc… Many times, life is just moving along happily until that disaster strikes, totally disrupting their life, and thrusting them toward suddenly needing an attorney but, when that time comes, they don’t necessarily care (in Ben’s opinion) how many years you’ve been practicing law, or how many awards you’ve had, but rather the fact that they have a problem to solve – doctors are calling, insurance adjustors are calling, their family is giving advice on what to do, and they don’t know what to do. This is where Ben’s informational marketing comes into play, by providing useful information to help those people with what they need to know now, versus the other attorneys who are basically shouting “hire me” and “look at all my awards.” This dissemination of useful info, along with MANY other legal marketing topics Ben discusses with Michael, helps to build trust with you and your firm when trying to appeal to prospective clients in their unexpected time of need. Michael also relates this tactic to his own firm’s dissemination of valuable information to other lawyers through presentations well beyond the local bar association meetings others might be waiting to get invited to.
Michael wraps up the interview with a brief discussion on the tools and resources Ben offers through Great Legal Marketing, which Ben admits, no matter where you are with your practice, getting more leads and getting more cases is frankly not that hard or expensive once you know what to do. Ben is truly a talented resource to the legal community and his impact spreads far and wide to all those we are all passionate about serving.
Background on Ben Glass
Ben has spent his career practicing law in the courtrooms throughout Northern Virginia. He is a nationally-recognized, board-certified personal injury, medical malpractice, and disability insurance attorney in Fairfax, Virginia. He graduated from George Mason University School of Law in 1983 and has devoted his career to representing individuals against the insurance companies.
Through Ben’s experience in testing various marketing techniques for his own firm, he has discovered what truly works and has implemented his knowledge into the creation of Great Legal Marketing in 2005. Hundreds of lawyers in the United States and Canada have already joined Great Legal Marketing and are watching their practices take off.
For more info on Ben Glass visit:
-
33 – Julian C. Gomez – Autonomous Vehicles: People v. Machines
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RSS | More
(11 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)Loading...
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Michael Cowen sits down with automotive products liability attorney, Julian C. Gomez, to discuss his expertise on product cases, specifically dealing with autonomous vehicles (AKA: Robot Cars). Most attorneys can relate, but the gist of every other talk Michael has ever heard on this topic, before Julian’s, was that we’re going to get robot cars, they’re never going to crash, and they’re going to put everyone out of business in 5 years. This is certainly what the automotive industry is trying to promise, but the data we have to date suggests otherwise.
Julian’s beginnings, getting into the field of automotive product cases, started back when he clerked for a judge who was the first in the country to try a Ford Explorer/Firestone case. He was able to sit through the trial and learn from some of the best lawyers in the country, which sparked his interest and set him on this path. When Julian started doing automotive product cases, he noticed the engineers were starting to address the legal issues as opposed to the engineering issues behind them. He points out that the engineering is really not all that difficult – the vehicle uses data gathering devices, puts the information into a data processor, which processes the data based on an algorithm, then an answer or result is spitting out, and makes the vehicle do something. Getting too far into the details can sometimes overcomplicate things, which Julian compares to the area of autonomous vehicles and states “I don’t have to be a computer engineer, to know that my computer is broken or to know that it’s working.”
Julian then describes the different levels of crash avoidance technologies (1-6) to include all sides of the vehicle along with the various types (signaling warnings to taking full-blown actions with the vehicle). He goes on to talk about how the levels start to gray out based on human data input as well as how there really are no “driverless” vehicles on the road today, despite what you hear on the news. He also discusses a recent AAA report addressing the confusion regarding the different types of autonomous systems due to the industry, and manufacturers, because there is not a standardized naming structure for these systems.
Interestingly, Julian explains the current way they are measuring the level 3-5 type autonomous vehicles is through disengagements, where the human driver has had to take over the car’s actions instead of it driving itself. In comparison, Apple had roughly 1 disengagement every 1.2 miles whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Waymo had roughly 1 disengagement every 10,000 miles. And while there is a huge disparity between the top performers and the bottom, and numerous tragedies throughout the industry, Julian points out the real problem is there haven’t been enough vehicle miles driven to know how safe they are going to be. He also talks about the millions of vehicle miles driven each year compared to the thousands of deaths that occur on the road, and then extrapolates the data from when Uber had its recent fatality, based on the number of vehicle miles driven by autonomous cars at that point, to determine we would be experiencing around 1.6 million deaths each year. He brings this point home by stating even if you cut that number in half multiple times, it’s still much more than what is happening today on our roads.
Another problem Julian points out is the conflicts that occur between an objective algorithm system in the computer within the car working with a human subjective system. He gives a great example of how we’ve all seen cars, even before we started driving, interact in different ways when the driver is planning to turn right (IE: roll slowly through the light, even if it’s technically not the correct way). As humans, we are able to gauge how much space/time we have between our vehicle and the vehicle turning in front of us, whereas autonomous cars look at it from the standpoint of what the rule is and how it will obey that rule.
Michael points out how the computers can only do what they are programmed to do, making the job of the engineers to think of every possibility and then the safest possible outcome for each of the scenarios unfathomably enormous. Julian notes that as humans, the second most common function our bodies perform (breathing being the first) is seeing. We have been “seeing” and processing things through our eyesight for our entire lives, since day one. Some even suggest for a computer to process the amount of data we have seen in our lives, the computer would be the size of a warehouse, much less the size of a car, or the size of a computer in a car. Julian also discusses the responsibility to predict the unknown, which is nearly impossible, as if to say “tell me everything you don’t know.”
Michael and Julian recount the unfortunate incident in Arizona with the self-driving Uber car, the details of which are likely not what you might have heard previously, nor are they what you might expect (hint, hint – the frontal collision system was turned off, but by whom? Listen to find out). Also, perhaps somewhat shockingly, was the fact that the case was settled in 10 days, which Julian notes, might give you a sense of how Uber felt about their culpability in the case. Michael and Julian also discuss the perceptions of the “auto-piloted” cars as set forth by the marketing departments of the vehicles and how they are not exactly in line with what the cars are actually equipped to do.
The episode concludes with Julian revealing his process for evaluating which product liability cases to take on as well as the “why” behind them versus simply going after damages, the results of which could do more harm to the legal industry than good when the wrong type of cases are pursued. They also make some predictions as to the future of mass-produced autonomous vehicles and where they’ll likely be used. As this technology continues to evolve, this episode drives home (no pun intended) the vast areas of the unknown in the auto industry in regards to where blame should be placed in such an environment where humans are sharing responsibility with computers, along with the engineers and companies who design them, to keep our roadways safe for everyone.
“Please note the TLN19 discount code mentioned in this show has now expired.”
BACKGROUND ON JULIAN C. GOMEZ
Julian C. Gomez is an attorney in McAllen, Texas. Julian was raised in South Texas. Julian is a ninth-generation Texan and his family still ranches on their original Spanish land grant. Julian graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in Agricultural Economics and was a member of the Corps of Cadets while at Texas A&M.
After graduation, Julian spent time on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as an analyst in the cattle futures and options pits. Julian graduated from the University of Houston Law School in 2000. Julian was a law clerk for Filemon Vela, United States District Judge, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division and a law clerk for Reynaldo Garza, United States Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Julian founded The Julian C. Gomez Law Firm and has practiced there since.
Julian has a national and international practice focusing primarily on catastrophic product liability and negligence cases, mass torts, and contingent commercial litigation. Julian is a past Chairman of the American Association for Justice’s Products Liability Section (the largest organization of plaintiffs product liability attorneys in the U.S.); on the executive board of and the vice president of continuing legal education for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, on the board of directors of and co-chair of continuing legal education committee for the Attorneys Information Exchange Group (the largest organization of plaintiffs automotive product liability attorneys in the U.S.); has served on plaintiffs’ committees in national mass tort litigation; is a graduate of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; is a graduate of the American Association for Justice’s Leadership Academy; is the special liaison to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on behalf of both American Association for Justice’s Products Liability Section and the Attorneys Information Exchange Group; regularly speaks at international, national, statewide, and local continuing legal education courses on topics ranging from federal jurisdiction to products liability; is the 2017 Men’s 40-44, –69k Texas Weightlifting Champion; and has a 3:45 marathon time.
Julian is a U.S. Coast Guard licensed captain, is on the board of directors of the USA Weightlifting Foundation (the foundation for United States’ Olympic weightlifting athletes) the board of directors of McAllen Educational Foundation (the foundation for the McAllen Independent School District), and the board of directors of the Texas International Fishing Tournament (the largest fishing tournament in the State of Texas). In his free time, Julian loves spending time with his number one legal assistant, his daughter, Averri; and is an avid outdoorsman, rancher, photographer, snow skier, and tarpon fly-fishing angler.
For more information on Julian C. Gomez visit his website at https://www.jcglf.com/
-
01 – Joshua Karton – Turning off the “Act” in the Courtroom
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RSS | More
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)Loading...
In this episode of Trial Lawyer Nation, Joshua Karton joins Michael for an introspective discussion on trial psychology and communication.
Joshua’s perspectives on turning off the “act” in a courtroom and getting back to just being (real) are deep and enlightening to listeners at all levels of the industry. The idea of “getting out of your own head” is turned upside down as Joshua challenges attorneys to embrace their role not as one there to protect themselves or their own ego, but rather as someone who is there to defend and protect their client and thereby connect with jurors who could see themselves in the position of the client one day and wanting the same protection.
Joshua shares what he believes allows people to trust through using everything you’ve got and not leaving anything in reserve. Joshua also breaks down the concept of not using negative objectives (such as not wanting to bore the jury, not wanting to piss off the judge, not wanting to embarrass yourself) that can’t be done, and instead of committing to objectives that are incompatible with the negative. Michael shares an application of this concept through the evolution of his own practice and how it’s propelled his success and allowed him to alleviate many of the stresses that tend to plague and follow most lawyers.
Joshua expounds on the power of goodness and how the recent political landscape has challenged this approach of connecting with jurors and how deep the need to be right has become a critical hurdle in the courtroom. Michael takes these ideas a step further by discussing how they have affected even the validity of eye witness testimony and the influences of psychodrama sessions. Self-awareness weaves its way throughout the podcast as the main theme that bolsters the success of attorneys in the right frame of mind and holds back others.
The episode concludes with a thoughtful discussion on the lens jurors see things through and how being aware of how you are setting yourself up to be perceived can change dramatically based on a single choice all attorneys have control over.
Background on Joshua Karton:
JOSHUA KARTON, president of Communication Arts, specializes in the application of the communication techniques of theatre/film/television to the art of trial advocacy. He serves on the faculties and develops curriculum for AAJ, the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyer’s College, NITA, the JAG Corps, ABA, NACDL, National Criminal Defense College, Loyola and California Western Schools of Law, state t.l.a.’s and criminal defense associations, as well as maintaining a professional practice of individual case consultation and witness preparation. Thirty years of work in this field culminated in his preparation of the winning oral argument to the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and the 2016 Lifetime Achievement Award for Excellence in Advocacy from Stetson University College of Law’s Center for Excellence in Advocacy. He co-authored Theater for Trial, released by Trial Guides November 1, 2017.
For more on Joshua Karton visit: https://www.trialguides.com/authors/joshua-karton/
