By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Early rhetorical theory and the most modern advances in cognitive science are able to find a surprising amount of common ground. Particularly when we think of the persuasive demands on legal communicators, there is much that would be recommended both by the ancients, as well as by the most current […]
Persuade With Participation, Part Two: Learn from Modern Cognitive Science Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: An attorney in our firm recently stopped me in the hall. “I’m giving a talk on how to persuade in court,” she said, “Anything I should emphasize?” Where to start, I thought, where to start? It is a broad question, as the topical range of posts in this blog can
Persuade With Participation, Part One: Learn from Early Rhetoric Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: This blog, like much of the internet, relies on RSS or “Really Simple Syndication.” For many of the photos that grace my posts, including this one, I also use the “Creative Commons” system of openly licensing content. The ideas for both RSS and Creative Commons licensing, as well as Reddit
Know the Costs of Plea-Based Justice Read More »
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 »