Trial Lawyer Resource Center

There is an article today in the “Maryland Daily Record” titled, “Beware of Bow Ties and Diamonds in Court.” I liked the title. But I disagree with the premise. The article by Paul Mark Sandler, a prolific Maryland lawyer and author, is somewhat more nuanced than the title suggests. But he does suggest that lawyers should be cautious in wearing bow ties or jewelry, writing that trial lawyers should be “conservative in a way that is compatible for what is comfortable” for them. He also writes of the concern of wearing expensive clothing or cuff links on the theory that “expensive looking jewelry can create a gulf that interferes with having the jury ‘identify’ with the lawyer.”

This is the conventional wisdom. But as I have written in the past on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, I completely disagree with it. I think what really “creates a gulf’ between a trial lawyer and a jury is when the lawyer is not authentic. My style is very conservative. I would feel uncomfortable with a diamond stud earring in my ear. But some lawyers in conservative suits look like your cousin who puts on that same conservative suit for every wedding, and he looks like he wants to crawl out of it. Your cousin does not look or feel authentic, which is why he looks so pained, as would some lawyers putting on the same suit. Now, some people can fake stepping outside themselves so well that they appear authentic. But I can’t and neither can most people.

I suspect that Gerry Spence would not be Gerry Spence if he followed this advice. My suggestion as to how to dress and act at trial is simple advice to follow: be authentic and be yourself.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Most states have a statutory life excpectancy statute in cases where there is permanent harm to the plainitiff. But what is the best way to explain that to the jury? Once you have a statutory life expectancy of 34.6 years? How do you get a jury to see the maximum impact?

One good way is to flip the time backwards and show them all that's happened in the past 34.6 years. Something like this:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the judge is going to instruct you that Joe is going to have these problems for 34.6 years. That's a long time. You don't need a lawyer to tell you that. You know that. But it's difficult to understand just how long 34.6 years is.

If we look backwards, rather than forwards 34.6 years ago was 1972. Richard Nixon had just been re-elected and Watergate had not taken place yet. First Time Ever I Saw Your Face by Roberta Flack was the most popular song.

1972 was 10 years before the personal computer. Our soldiers were still in Vietnam.

Think about the presidents we've had since that time and what all has happened in your life. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan twice, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice. That's a long time.

Think about all that's changed in our life since 1972. The invention of computers, vcrs, cable tv, dvd's, the internet and so on....

That's how long 34.6 years is. That's how long Joe will have to live with his pain. 34 birthdays, 34 Christmases, 34 New Years Eve's and 34 anniversaries.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Over the next year, I want to take a stack of closing argument transcripts and break them down to their basic components. There are certain items that have to be argued in every closing argument. An example of some are:

 

• Burden of Proof  – Only a preponderance of the evidence
• Empowering the jury – It’s their decision and not anyone else’s
• Personal Responsibility – That the defendant needs to take responsibility for his own actions
• Only Chance for Compensation – That the client only gets one trial and can’t come back for more money if there’s not enough.
• Intangible damages – Descriptions on how to make intangible damages real.
• Lost Wages – While it seems like a lot, it has to last a lifetime
• Life care plan – While it seems like a lot, it has to last a lifetime

 

In addition to those, there are a number of arguments that are frequently made on common themes. For example, corporate greed, a moment of neglect a lifetime of grief, cases involving a child, comparative negligence and others.

 

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks