Transcript:
Laura Clementi:
Hello, welcome to our LinkedIn Live. I’m Laura Clementi, a Solution Advisor here at IMS. Today we’re diving into the art and science of visual advocacy with one of the field’s most respected voices, Chris Ritter, author of Creating Winning Trial Strategies. Chris challenges the idea that trial graphics are just eye candy and instead reveals how the process of creating visuals sharpens key strategy. It also boosts your understanding, and thinking visually can actually elevate your advocacy far beyond words. Leading our discussion again is my colleague Adam Bloomberg, a Senior Client Success Advisor here at IMS. Adam, great to see you. It’s all yours.
Adam Bloomberg:
Thanks for the intro, Laura. Chris, thank you for coming to speak with us today about the power of visual advocacy. Why should trial lawyers appreciate the value of demonstratives? And what does the creative process look like when creating storytelling visuals?
Chris Ritter:
Well, first of all, thank you for having me. I think one thing that lawyers have to understand is that we as lawyers tend to live in an area that I call “Word Land.” It’s the area where we use words and logic and that kind of thinking in order to analyze things. There are a lot of people who don’t live there—who, in fact, rely on other things like images and other kinds of tools in order to be able to understand. Additionally, your job as a teacher—and if you think about the best teachers that you’ve had—there is always or usually always some kind of a visual component in what they do. They’re putting up information for you to be able to understand what they’re explaining or to follow their explanations. And at a minimum, that’s what the trial graphics will do in a case.
The creative process is, I’ve often described it as following five steps. There’s the uncovering, which to some extent is what I refer to as the “mental mining session.” There is the process of understanding—that is, understanding what you need and how jurors are going to relate to what it is that they need. There’s the process of simplifying—that is, taking something and making it even as simple as possible. And then the fourth step is to basically use informational design—things that have been known to work—to convey information in the most efficient way without overusing time or space. And then the fifth step, which is really not part of the creative process, is figuring out how you’re going to display that information to the jury.
Adam Bloomberg:
Okay, so in your book Creating Winning Trial Strategies and Graphics, which I have right here—second edition, congratulations—you discuss how properly constructed graphics can support a narrative and help jurors understand the case. From your experience, what are some of the common pitfalls that trial lawyers face when using visuals in the courtroom?
Chris Ritter:
I think the biggest pitfall is that they think—and hence one of the programs that I often present is called More Than Pretty Pictures—I think that oftentimes the lawyers think that if they’re going to use graphics, they’re going to use them as basically some pretty picture or some eye candy that they’re going to interpose at various points in the case. Graphics are more than that. Graphics certainly work and they help that way. They keep attention, they help explain things. But graphics—the real power of graphics, believe it or not—is in the process of creating the graphic, whether you use the graphic or not.
By forcing yourself to think visually, by taking an 8½-by-11 sheet of paper and a pencil and sketching ideas, writing down ideas, kind of flowing—having diagrams of things that explain—just that act forces you to think differently and forces you to improve on your case. And then, you know, if it turns into a pretty picture, if it turns into a graphic that you ultimately use, that’s great. But don’t neglect just the process and the benefit you get from the process in improving your overall case, whether you create a graphic or not. Think visually.
Adam Bloomberg:
Yeah, that’s one area that’s really helpful—just a simple sketch. So why do you think these mistakes undermine the effectiveness of a trial lawyer’s case and the overall presentation?
Chris Ritter:
Well, I think what lawyers have to learn, as I said, is that they need to communicate—and they need to communicate on a number of levels, not just in Word Land, but in other ways as well. I think some of that is caused by the fact that lawyers will often forget that not everybody reasons and does things the same way. I think a lot of lawyers think that they’re entitled to a jury of their clones, not a jury of their peers, right? So the people are thinking, “My way must be the way to do it.” Unfortunately, most lawyers don’t do it in a way that is something that a large number of people who are sitting on the jury are going to need or want to rely on.
And so it’s important, I think, that you look beyond the way that you do it and recognize multiple paths. I think that’s crucial to a unanimous verdict. What do I need to give folks? Not give them an unlimited menu to choose from, but what are the kinds of tools that they’re going to need to build on a conclusion, regardless of who they are, regardless of the demographics—just based on the specifics of the case. And they also have to feel like they really understand, and a lot of people really understand after they take a look at something that’s visual and hear an oral explanation.
Adam Bloomberg:
I know there’s a process in creating visually compelling demonstratives, and I imagine it’s both structured and creative. Can you walk us through that process?
Chris Ritter:
Sure. I previously mentioned that there were five steps that you needed to go through. But I think that in addition to that, what is even more important is to recognize that four of those five steps—the first four: the uncovering, the understanding, the simplifying, and ultimately the design—are steps that take iteration. It’s an iterative process. It’s an art, right? It requires you to take time to do it over and over and over again.
So generally, in the broadest sense, what I suggest people do is engage in a mental mining session as early as possible. The mental mining session is going to cover a variety of things—more than just graphics—but it’ll include an initial thought about what those graphics are. And then I think there really becomes a question of asking a series of really important questions, which is: What do I need to show? Why am I showing it this way? How do I put it in a form that makes sense—either by relating it to what I refer to as “compared to what?”—getting something and comparing it to something that people already know—or to lay it out in a way that’s easy to follow.
Using informational architecture so that you can ultimately put a lot of information without what I call triggering the “Yikes Alarm” in people who will use that document—and instead of pulling away, will be engaged by it and use what’s in there.
Adam Bloomberg:
So how do you approach the presentation phase to ensure the visuals are both effective and impactful?
Chris Ritter:
Right. Well, I mentioned there were five phases, and I mentioned the first four are always creative and they’re non-linear. The fifth stage should always be the fifth stage. It should always be the last stage, which is determining how I’m going to present this material. As I love to tell people, the message is more important than the media—or said differently, the media, the way you show it, should never drive the message. You should be figuring out what the message is. You should be figuring out what it is that you need to convey.
And then take a look at the various options that you have, whether they be something as simple as going up and writing on a blackboard, which would cause a certain way of responding and you look like a teacher—and maybe that’s what you want to be able to do. Maybe you need to show something dynamically—you need to show how it flows. That’s better done, for example, using some of the electronic programs where you can effectively show steps. But don’t decide first of all, “Look, this is a really cool thing, I want to present it this way,” because that unnecessarily narrows you.
But when you do find the right way of doing it, it should be to enhance the message—and it should be, hopefully, part of the message you’re conveying as well. So if you use a board, people are going to go, “My God, that somebody’s using a board—it must have cost them an arm and a leg to do that. It must be important.” So take the collateral benefits that you get from various types of technology and incorporate them into the persuasion process. Blow-up boards—still media, still multimedia.
Adam Bloomberg:
I love it. Let’s pick a specific case type. We know that both the plaintiff and the defense counsel are going to have to tell some sort of complicated story, right? Can you give some elements that, let’s say, the plaintiff must prove?
Chris Ritter:
Well, I think that the process is probably going to be the same whether it’s one party or the other. First of all, you need to identify what these complex issues are. And I think you need to seriously ask yourself, “Do I really need this?” And if so, what’s the best way to present it? And I ask that first question because I’m amazed how many times people will take on burdens that they really don’t need.
But let’s assume you need to explain something that’s complicated. I think it’s important for you to understand that people cannot learn in the abstract. So what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to start with a toehold. You’ve got to start with something that people are familiar with and then go from there. And whether it be securities or anything else, they need to understand at a very base level: “This is what we’re going to be talking about. Let’s ease ourselves into it.”
And then I think as you go along, help build something that seems to make sense that somebody can use—test it. I think one of the things that’s overlooked in persuasion and jury research is sometimes actually taking these tutorials that you’re going to be using, showing them to various people that represent the mock jurors, and seeing if they understand it. Run through kind of a little quiz to see if they got the points that they need. Don’t be afraid to really go back to real basics—comparing one thing to the other, basically breaking things down into small units so you can master one small unit at a time. Just basically, if you were going to teach your kid something new, or you’re going to teach anybody something new, there are certain techniques that I’m sure we all found that work well. And those are the techniques you should use.
Adam Bloomberg:
Chris, thank you again. I really appreciate it.
Chris Ritter:
Well, it’s always good seeing you.
Adam Bloomberg:
Thank you, Laura—back to you.
Laura Clementi: Thank you to our guests for speaking with us today. To discover how the IMS team can help give your case an edge, check out imslegal.com or shoot us an email at contactus@imslegal.com.
Outro: IMS has served trusted law firms and corporations worldwide for more than 30 years and over 65,000 cases. As a strategic partner for the full case life cycle, our integrated teams provide specialized advisory support, expert witness services, litigation consulting, visual advocacy, and presentation technology to elevate strategies and protect hard-earned reputations. Learn more at imslegal.com.
