Oct 2011:  NBI Advanced Products Liability,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial” and “How to make Science Understandable to a Judge and Jury”

Oct 2011: NBI Advanced Trial Techniques”,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial–How to maximize Your Results”

Nov 2011: MBA “What Civil Court Judges Want You to Know”.  Mr. Llaurado was one of the moderator’s of a panel of three Milwaukee County Civil Court Judges discussing scheduling orders, pre-trial orders, use of depositions at trial, objections at trial, fundamentals of brief writing and motion practice.

I realized this had some potential for the legal profession. Jurors are accustomed to 20 second sound bites from things like the television news, and they want lawyers to get to the point and give them the information they need to decide the case. We are always looking for better communication skills, so why not give this a try?

At the 2011 Summer Seminar sponsored by the Wisconsin Association for Justice, I organized a group of four of our younger lawyers to give this a try. Two of the topics were quite technical, dealing with evidence problems and changes in insurance policies. Two of the topics were general, dealing with employment discrimination and the Family Medical Leave Act.  Each of the topics was followed by a three minute discussion session.

All the presentations went well, and I learned something significant in the process.  The format works better with the general topics, and not as well with the technical topics that deal with the language of a statute or an insurance policy. I also learned that it is important to have the presentation viewable to the presenter. In the future, I recommend either a display monitor on the podium, or a microphone that can be detached from the podium so the speaker can move around.  I also recommend that each slide, if it contains text, have short bullet points or a list, rather than the text of a statute or case.

This format forces a speaker to get to the point. It forces the speaker to streamline the presentation. And if it is a topic that is not of interest to you, the next topic will start in a short time period.

This format, or some variation of it, may be of assistance to lawyers in an opening statement to a jury in a simple case, or presentation of an argument to an arbitrator. Mediations or mock trials may also benefit from the format.  This format forces the speaker to fully prepare and organize the presentation, which can only help us get our point across.

The bills purport to adopt what is generally known as the Daubert rule, which has been the subject of a great deal of litigation in the federal courts since it was adopted there about 15 years ago. In cases we have in federal court, our experts’ testimony has never been restricted. But it can significantly drive up the costs of bringing cases to trial, further hindering injured victims’ access to the courtroom.

The rules of evidence, however, apply to all types of cases. They apply to business against business cases, to criminal cases, paternity cases, to essentially all types of court cases. The Wisconsin Court system compiles statistics on statewide case filings, showing that contracts and money judgments, typically business against business cases, or business against individual cases, outnumber personal injury case filings by more than 9 to 1. http://www.wicourts.gov/about/pubs/circuit/docs/civildispostate09.pdf

It is astounding to us that a proposed law that purports to help business, will actually make it more expensive for businesses to obtain redress when they are wronged.

Professor Daniel Blinka of Marquette University Law School, and the author of the definitive book on Wisconsin Evidence, addresses this proposed rules change in his blog:

“[W]hat public policy justifies the change? Will someone please point out the case law that illustrates the inadequacy of the current rule? I don’t see it. But I do foresee a great deal of litigation in the wake of these ill-starred revisions.”

Professor Blinka also points outs that while the proposed law may sound reasonable at first glance, it would actually create more confusion in addition to more expensive litigation. Read Professor Blinka’s blog here:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/01/07/tort-reform-2011-true-science-or-pure-mischief/