Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Non-techies can dazzle ‘em with technology

By: dmc-admin//April 23, 2003//

Non-techies can dazzle ‘em with technology

By: dmc-admin//April 23, 2003//

Listen to this article

Chad

Image of chad displayed as part of PowerPoint presentation which Fred H. Bartlit Jr. gave during the Florida presidential election trial.

To all you trial lawyers: You’re NOT using PowerPoint, or some other evidence presentation software?

You’re not alone.

At the American Bar Association’s TechShow 2003 in Chicago earlier this month, in a room of more than 100 attorneys attending a Litigation Track program, less than a quarter raised their hands when asked if they’re using PowerPoint. Remember, this is at a tech show — where (you’d think) fairly techy people are in attendance.

The presenters, attorneys Craig D. Ball and Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., didn’t coddle those who are dragging their heels over whether to harness technology to enhance their advocacy skills. “It’s an incredibly powerful tool. I do not believe that today that you can be an effective trial lawyer without using PowerPoint in court,” Bartlit observed, adding later that those who won’t learn it are lazy.

Bartlit, of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago is also known as “the President’s lawyer” because he was one of the three attorneys who represented George W. Bush in the Florida election contest before Judge N. Sanders Sauls in 2000.

Using actual portions of his PowerPoint presentation from that trial, and others, Bartlit demonstrated just how effective electronic evidence presentation can be. Among his examples was a simple photo of a “chad” in its various forms, as well as the instructions sheet for how to vote in West Palm Beach, with a “call-out” of the key provisions. Even Democrats have to admit that it’s persuasive stuff.

How did this play to the fact-finder? Just ask the residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Case for PowerPoint

So why the hesitation to use technology among trial attorneys? Some of the excuses Bartlit and Ball frequently hear are:

  • I’m an “old fart” who can’t learn the technology.

  • Ball
    Craig D. Ball

    It’s too expensive.

  • It’s too time-consuming.

  • My public speaking skills are such that I don’t need it.

  • Jurors don’t trust glitzy presentations.

  • I’m David up against Goliath. It’s not fair.

  • My judge won’t allow it.

Looking at each point, Bartlit observed about the first that he’s in his 70s and had little trouble learning PowerPoint. If he can do it, anyone can, he said. Moreover, his staff frequently polls jurors post-trial, and he’s even heard jurors say that they were impressed that an old guy like him could be so adept with technology.

It’s not something that can be mastered overnight, Bartlit acknowledged. You’ll need to practice over the course of about six weeks to really feel comfortable with the program.

For the second point, the good news about the program is you probably already have it; PowerPoint is a standard feature of the Microsoft office suite. If you don’t have it, it’s cheap. Or check out Sanction II, a similar program that also won’t break your bank.

You’ll additionally need a scanner, running less than $100, and a good digital camera, around $300. You might want to transform video (e.g. a deposition) into a digital format; that requires Dazzle software, available at Target or Sam’s Club for about $50. And unless you try more than two cases
annually, you’re probably better off renting a projector and screen, typically available at a minimal cost.

As for the time factor, Ball, of Craig D. Ball P.C. in Montgomery, Texas (who has his own newsworthy case; he’s serving as an expert to the plaintiffs in the Enron/Arthur Andersen litigation) demonstrated that creating a call-out, or highlighting and enlarging a portion of the text of a document, for example, typically takes less than 10 minutes. That’s for beginners.

For those who say they’ve gotten by just fine with their oratory skills alone, consider this: Ball cited research that three days after jurors have heard a presentation of words only, they recall only about 10 percent of it. However, when you combine visuals with the spoken word, they remember 65 percent.

As for the jurors not “trusting” technology, Bartlit pointed out that half the jurors nowadays are under 50. That means there’s a high probability that not only do they trust technology, but also, they use it themselves.

Bartlit

Fred H. Bartlit Jr.

And there’s some truth to the call of fictional attorney Billy Flynn from the film “Chicago” to “give ‘em the old razzle-dazzle.” Ball stated, “I don’t want to suggest that we want to use these tools to bamboozle people, that we add flash without substance — but we also don’t have the right to bore jurors.”

With regard to the David and Goliath scenario, jurors don’t really care about the size of your firm. They care about making the “right” decision — and if technology helps you become a better teacher, so they can understand the issues and make that correct decision, they’ll be more inclined to vote your way, regardless of where your paycheck comes from.

A similar argument that an opposing counsel on one of Bartlit’s cases made was that his technology is “new-fangled.” The jury found the “country boy versus city slicker” analogy just as unavailing, he said.

Finally, as for courts rejecting technology at trial, they are the minority. Ball noted, “Judges get really bored, too. No one likes creative demonstrative evidence more than a judge.”

But for the handful that won’t allow it, period, your time wasn’t wasted. If nothing else, Bartlit reasoned, the process of creating a PowerPoint presentation forces you to organize your thoughts and focus on the most convincing evidence.

Tips for Persuasive Presentations

Everyone in the office should know the program. Bartlit said that delegating this to a techier staff member won’t do you any good if you need to make a last-minute change in court. And even if you bring that person to court, remember the previously mentioned “old fart” factor? You’ll come across much better to a judge and jury if you can do it with a few easy keystrokes.

As for “knowing” the program, attain a level of familiarity so your presentation is more than just bullet-pointed snippets of text that make the screeching tires sound as you call them up. “Don’t do that to jurors,” Ball pleaded.

  • Links

    American Bar Association

    Use the big screen. Judges in wired courtrooms might be inclined to say the big screen is unnecessary when they and the jurors have monitors in front of them. Change their minds whenever possible, because then the chances are better that all eyes will be on you and the image you’re projecting.

    At the same time, however, it’s a good idea to have photocopies of the key documents or images for the jurors, Bartlit said.

    It’s also preferable to use a radio mouse and stand next to the screen. You
    can use a laser pointer – but use it sparingly.

    Start out with, “My client’s story began …” rather than, “I’m going to cover eight points today,” advised Bartlit. With the latter approach, listeners count your points rather than thinking about them.

  • Keep a small digital camera in your briefcase. “The best camera is the one you have when you need to take a picture — not the one in your drawer,” said Ball. Carrying a portable hard drive for your laptop is also a smart idea.

  • Don’t limit this technology to trials. Ball said he’s created effective electronic settlement brochures, while Bartlit noted that his firm uses PowerPoint in “beauty contests.”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests