By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you say you’re going to “frame” something in litigation — no, it doesn’t mean your going to blame the wrong person for a crime…necessarily — but instead, the cognitive use of that term refers to communication that encourages a particular way of viewing the events at the center of […]
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is safe to say that the advice to use narrative in litigation can now be considered common knowledge. In many ways, it has sunk in: You won’t meet a litigator who hasn’t been told to “tell a story” through their case. But in some other ways, it hasn’t sunk in enough.
Use Narrative Persuasion Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: I have heard from many attorneys who believe that there is a correct amount of time for an opening statement, and that time is about twenty minutes. “If it’s much longer than that, you’ve lost the jury’s attention,” some will add. At times, that limit is imposed or “preferred” by
Rethink the 20-Minute Opening Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The other day after helping select a jury, I stayed in court to watch the opening statements. Happily, the side I helped delivered a tight and simple theme-based opening that centered on two big problems with other side’s conduct. When it was our opponent’s side’s turn to open their case,
Credibility: Don’t Add the Halo Before You’ve Removed the Horns Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It can be a common experience during a mock trial. You have a mock juror who ends up being way too focused on what they don’t know. They understand that there are limits to how much detail you can get into within the constraints of a shorter trial simulation, but
Combat “Partial-Picture Paralysis” in Your Mock Trial…And Your Real Trial Too Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The pandemic has been a lesson in a lot of things, including the challenges of using persuasion to build common agreement. In some ways, the past few years serve as a social science laboratory that litigators can learn from. For example, believe it or not, early on there was an
Practice Moral Reframing Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Chances are good you’ve heard about “ChatGPT” in the past week or two. Just speaking for myself, my newsfeed has included many articles, including some with ominous titles like, “Will ChatGPT Make Lawyers Obsolete? (Hint, Be Afraid).” If the topic is new to you, a quick definition is that ChatGPT is
Expect AI to Change the Nature of Legal Work…and Soon Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here’s a scenario that I’ve dealt with quite a bit recently. Counsel for plaintiff and defense both question a panel of prospective jurors, and in the process, we end up learning a good amount about the panelists’ experiences and views on the issues that might relate to the case. The
Catch Up in Voir Dire: Ten Questions to Ask when a New Face Suddenly Joins Your Panel Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Defendants in civil cases are often plagued by the reality that the “should have,” “could have,” and “would have,” aspects of the reasonable care all exist in the realm of hindsight. The tendency to believe that negative consequences are more knowable and preventable when viewed through the lens of a
Debias on Hindsight Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For anyone analyzing audiences and preparing persuasive messages, it helps to know about what is called “System 1” and “System 2” thinking. When we make decisions that are pretty quick and automatic, with little reflection, cognitive work, or even necessarily voluntary awareness, then we are using System 1. When we
Get Your Jurors to Take the Tougher Path Read More »