By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Regular readers know this blog frequently focuses on the principle that social science matters in litigation. Knowing about public opinion and psychology helps the persuader understand and adapt to the audience. But, going further than that, social science also frequently finds its way into the court’s decisions, particularly when a […]
Cite Social Science to the Court Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The Reptile (Ball & Keenan, 2009) is about as hot as a cold-blooded creature can get. The theory, focusing on trying plaintiffs’ cases by aiming your appeals at the primitive drive for personal safety and security, seems to have struck a chord with plaintiffs’ attorneys. With regular seminars, a growing family
Don’t Underestimate the Power of a Unifying Vision: A Return to the Reptile Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Remember the list of fallacies? For many of us, it might fall in the category of things we learned at one point in our lives, probably in a logic or communication class, and then mostly set aside in our practical lives. After all, it can seem a little pedantic, or
Know Your Fallacies Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm To celebrate the first Monday of October, I’m reviewing Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the recent history of the Roberts Court. One thing is again made clear: Toobin knows how to find the story in the law. That is the same thing that all good trial attorneys are aiming for,
Leading Motives and Trailing Personal Stories: Lessons in Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Oath” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm Imagine a typical employment discrimination case, subject to all of the ambiguities of human motivation. To the plaintiff, it is a story of good if not exceptional work performance cut short by a decision to terminate based on race, gender, age or disability. To the defendant, it is a story
Realistically Compare Your Employment Fact Finders Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm In the week since actor and director Clint Eastwood made a surprise appearance at the Republican National Convention, his speech has become infamous. The chosen rhetorical device of engaging in a dialogue with an imaginary Barack Obama, represented by an empty chair, has spawned countless internet memes and has even
Note the Challenges of an Empty Chair Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Matthew Salzwedel in Lawyerist recently wrote about ethos, pathos, and logos in legal writing. In case you’re trying to remember that early college course in philosophy or public speaking, let me remind you of Aristotle’s famous trilogy: Ethos relates to your credibility, pathos lies in your ability to appeal to emotions,
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: Use All Three in Your Legal Writing and Oral Argument Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: (Used by the kind permission of Art Lien, courtartist.com) Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been fixated on the historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court focusing on the healthcare law. As I’ve reviewed the transcripts and audio recordings of the unprecedented six hours of oral argument, I’ve been struck
Practice the “Three P’s” of Oral Argument: The Example of Paul Clement Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: All eyes are on Justice Kennedy at the conclusion of last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As a closely analyzed swing vote, the Justice’s words are scrutinized like the tea leaves of the upcoming verdict expected in June. In a well-researched piece
Aim Your Oral Argument at Your Judge’s Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A lot can happen in fifty-two seconds. In last week’s historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the President’s healthcare reform, the Justices allowed an unprecedented six hours of oral arguments. While still not appearing on television, the Court allowed the next best thing: same day
Oral Arguments: Cut In To Your Case Before You’re Cut Off By Your Judge Read More »