By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Formally, a legal case creates a situation calling for a factual judgment combined with a legal judgment. At a more basic level though, it calls for a moral judgment. It’s not necessarily the kind of morality we associate with religion or high philosophy, but the kind we apply practically in […]
Prime Your Jury for Moral Judgment Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here’s a “don’t do that” lesson. After calling his client and her husband “toothless cooties,” in what he thought was private communication, well-known Colorado plaintiffs’ attorney Chad Hemmat suffered a $2 million judgment (including $1.5 million in punitive damages) when the client took him to court over inadequate representation and,
Criticize Clients Carefully Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: If you’ve seen the Pixar animations feature Monsters, Inc., you might remember the slogan of the company in the title: “We scare, because we care.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys, particularly those who are followers of the Reptile approach to persuasion, may well have the same slogan. Since the perspective focuses on the idea that
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Let me start differently in this post, with a ‘Tale of Two Tales.’ Here is tale number one: First, From the Plaintiff’s Perspective: It is January, 2010. Brian Starr, a computer storage engineer on contract for GiganTech Industries has come up with a rough design for the UltraDrive, a radical
Overlap Your Stories Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Who leads and who follows? That question can be critical to understanding and adapting to your jury. The individual who sets the agenda, guides the discussion, and leads uncommitted or wavering jurors to a conclusion is obviously worth a closer look than those who take their cues from others. A
Spot Your Jury Leader Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: If you aren’t on Facebook, you may not have seen this before (and if you are, then you might see it, with different words, just about every day). The image and text above is called a “meme,” the “Condescending Wonka Meme” in this case. It’s a joke, of course, but
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Before a recent presentation, I was chatting with a Texas medical malpractice defense attorney when she shared the following: Plaintiffs’ lawyers have changed. They’re all talking about “safety” now, and that word is finding its way into every deposition: “What is the safe procedure?” or “What would’ve kept Mrs. Johnson
Respond to the Reptile Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Take a look at the picture above. See the duck (looking to the left)? Now, see the rabbit (looking to the right)? Now try to see them both at the same time. If you’re like most people, you can’t. Instead of seeing an image that is simultaneously a duck and
Switch Between Analysis and Empathy (Because You Won’t Get Both at the Same Time) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is one thing to know an act has a chance of resulting in harm, and it’s another to intend that harm to occur. Or is it? Consider the example of a company that is aware of a small risk of electric shock if repairs are done without powering off
Treat Knowledge as Intent Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Sheep tend to placidly eat what’s in front of them. Wolves, on the other hand, hunt. Now, with that distinction in mind, think about how we now typically gather information. There may have once been a time when the average American came home from work, turned on the television, and
Treat Fact Finders as Information Wolves, Not Information Sheep Read More »