New research points to an increasingly more formidable burden for lawyers and communications professionals embroiled in high-profile litigation.
It’s called the “CSI Effect,” named after crime sscene investigation TV shows. In the world of mass media jurisprudence, DNA tests are virtually always conclusive, fuzzy photos are made crystal clear, audio tapes are enhanced to reveal nuanced dialects, and witnesses always have the sharpest memories as they recall verdict-deciding details.
It’s riveting television, perhaps, but fundamentally disconnected from standard trial practice and forensic reality. The public, including jurors and prospective jurors, now expects an unreasonably heightened level of ironclad evidence from both defendants and plaintiffs or prosecutors. In the Court of Public Opinion, the CSI Effect is creating a real crisis by increasing the burden on both sides to make their cases credible.
In both courts, you either have to somehow play around these elevated expectations – or else run to the crisis by openly acknowledging the problem and speaking directly to it. In trial, that means defining the CSI Effect during openings or closings, and explicitly reminding juries of the synapse between their expectations and what should be regarded as reasonable supportive evidence or testimony. It doesn’t have to be just the judge’s job.
Outside court, both the defense and plaintiffs bar have a mutual interest in educating the public. Both sides can collaborate in getting the message out as broadly as possible, reaching prospective jurors via the tabloids as well as the New York Times. The fact that the “CSI Effect” is already a media-friendly, catchy terminology should make mass print and broadcast media outlets receptive to op-eds and commentary in their news stories on high-profile cases.
Meeting the CSI Effect head-on is one strategic response. Another is by enhancing courtroom and public communications in ways that counter the CSI Effect – and the way to do that is by communicating more persuasively on all fronts before, during, and after trial.
Additional recent research supports what communications professionals have long advised are key persuasion techniques. A study by Animators at Law (http://www.animators.com/), a visual communications consulting firm, found that, while more than 60 percent of the general public learns best through visual information, most lawyers do not. They learn by hearing and tend to present courtroom evidence by speaking.
As such, communicators, particularly lawyers, must generate ever more powerful visual elements to offset the CSI Effect. Perhaps there is an actual picture that can dazzle the audience – something akin, perhaps, to the hanging chads that changed history when people actually formulated conclusions based on what they were seeing. Alternatively, infuse your verbal communications with visual elements. Use language that allows your listeners to see what you are talking about.
The Animators at Law report, “Attorney Unlike a few aeons ago these days one lawyer does not handle all legal aspects. It’s the era of specialists and lawyers too have diversified to exclusively deal with some specific aspects of law.
So, what you must do when the need for legal counsel arises is to hire a lawyer who is an expert on what you need. Lawyers must be hired based on their experience and qualifications and not on their age, good looks, charm, nice office, or polite receptionist.
To select the ideal lawyer you must:
1. Make a thorough survey. Surf the net, look at yellow pages, ask the Bar Association for suggestions. Then make a short list of lawyers who may fit the bill.
2. Check each lawyer completely. Get references and check them out. Find out how long the lawyer has been in practice, the number of cases handled in the field you require, and the success rate.
3. Determine what each lawyer charges and his way of functioning. You do not want a lawyer who will take the file and hand it over to a junior. You need a lawyer who will handle the case himself.
4. Meet with the lawyer and go prepared with a file on your case and a list of relevant questions which will help you decide on whether the lawyer is perfect
5. Check with all local bar associations to check whether the lawyer you are considering has a good reputation and whether there are any complaints against him.
6. Find out whether the lawyer is a member of local, state, or national associations. The World Wide Web is a good source of information.
7. Check the lawyer’s bio-data carefully and read through any brochures the firm may have.
8. Weigh the pros and cons of hiring a large firm versus small firm or lawyer practicing alone.
9. Determine how much experience the lawyer has in cases like yours and his extent of knowledge and expertise. He must be able to take the required action without having to “think about it.”
Take a moment to mull on what kind of legal service you require and whether it will be one-time or repetitive. And, whether or not you will get along with the lawyer you choose. For effective handling of legal files the lawyer-client synchrony is crucial and there must be a bond and understanding between the two for the relationship to work.
An ideal lawyer cannot be located overnight. It may take several days of your time and effort. But it will be well worth it if you manage to find the perfect one to handle your case.Style Study,” advises that, in a typical trial, there are seven “visual” jurors, three “feeling” jurors, and two “hearing” jurors. For the feeling audience, think in terms of evoking “gut reactions.” Meanwhile, predominantly aural litigators “under-communicat[e] with 83% of the jury,” according to the study.
There’s a famous dictum on public speaking: “Engage the senses.”
http://www.articlefrenzy.com/Article/Tips-On-Selecting-A-Lawyer/82516
