By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: “Love” may mean, “Never having to say your sorry,” but litigation does not mean that. In some defense cases, sure, what’s needed is an all-out answer that denies everything the plaintiff is saying. But in other cases, there might be something to apologize for. Consider, for example, a large corporation’s […]
Find Your Six Ways to Sorry Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Watching a mock jury deliberate about damages can give you the idea that when it comes to numbers, jurors can be a little random. For example, a jury might see a big difference between $500,000 and $1 million in one moment, and then act as though there is little to
Add Numeracy to Your Jury Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Trial lawyers are used to persuading with their arguments and with their evidence. But what about the voice? It stands to reason that tone matters, but does it matter enough to influence persuasion? Some attorneys, even while understanding that they need to be heard and need to keep an active
Persuade With Your Voice Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: This past week, the U.S. Senate impeachment trial started in earnest, and the House Managers began laying out the arguments underlying the two Articles of Impeachment. While opinions are divided on the quality of the presentations as much as they’re decided on the substance of the charges, one clear star
“Let That Sink In:” Learn from Adam Schiff’s Rhetorical Pause Techniques Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Litigators are used to arguing, refuting, and persuading. When it comes to selecting jurors, they’re also used to uncovering bias. But what is “debiasing”? While my spellchecker continues to reject the term, academics have been applying and studying the concept for many years. It means reducing or mitigating the effects of a
Add “Debiasing” to Your Trial Communication Vocabulary Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Both theory and experience say that there are two kinds of thinking. One is focused thinking, zeroing in on a topic, analytically and systematically. The other is diffuse thinking, abstract and constrained only by association or whim. If focused thinking marches across the terrain with destination and purpose, then diffuse
Focus on the Focused, but also Deal with the Diffuse Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: When you stand in front of a jury, laying out your opening story or closing your arguments, who are you talking to? “To the jury, of course.” Yes, but which jurors in particular? The conventional wisdom is that you should be talking to your tougher audience. In other words, in
Choose Your Persuasive Target Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Yesterday was an historic day in the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than eight hours, Democratic and Republican members of the body gave short alternating speeches for and against the motion, before impeaching Donald Trump for abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. Watching the livestream on background as
Reduce Repetition: Four Ways to Break the ‘We’ve Heard This’ Reaction Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Every day, we are reminded that we live in a new age that can be called “post-truth.” We pay a lot of attention to external sources of misinformation, whether it is motivated public figures, partisan news networks or questionable private news blogs, not to mention the variety of memes, bots,
Expect that Jurors Might Generate Their Own Fake News Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There is one habit of attorneys that promotes precision in analytical thinking, but often interferes with the ability to clearly communicate with the audience. That habit is the tendency to divide points into sub-points, and to further divide those sub-points into sub-sub-points, and so on. For example, in the world
Don’t Ask Your Audience to Follow Substructure: Five Reasons Flat Structure Is Better Read More »