Wyzga On Words

Draw To Reveal The Story.

Who here doodles?

When we draw we are using a basic visual tool to help make sense of complex concepts, thoughts or ideas.  Drawing can help clarify and articulate our visions to ourselves as well as others in a conversation, presentation, meeting or trial.

I often use Post-It flip charts and Magic Markers when working with clients or audiences.  Drawing provides insight and problem-solving in a myriad of ways that mere conversation or brainstorming simply cannot accomplish as effectively.

Perhaps it's true that seeing is believing.

To see for yourself, visit Legal Sketchpad:

"BUSINESS SKETCHING FOR LEGAL CONFERENCES, STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETINGS AND TRAINING.

Legal Sketchpad promotes the use of basic visual tools in legal communication. As direct as possible, as low tech as possible."

I have no dog in this fight.  I am just pleased to help spread the word that PowerPoint is not the only game in town. 

TIP:    Fall back on what came naturally to you when a box of Crayola 64 helped unleash your imagination and creativity.

Q&A Tuesday: Moot Court, Written Briefs & Oral Argument.

Q:    If written briefs pull the laboring oar in the judges' decision-making, what's the point of oral argument?

A:     To serve as a sounding board for the judges.

Time out of mind I argued the final rounds of Moot Court Competition in front of then sitting chief justices of state supreme courts.

One by one each member of the panel gave the winner (me) and the runner-up (the other guy) their evaluations and suggestions for our future practice.  This one I took careful note of: "In oral argument, do not evade a judge's questions.  The court is asking you questions so it can learn and understand your position.  Participate.  Give the court your best answer."

Imagine my surprise to read similar advice from the United States Supreme Court.  Adam Liptak writing for the NYTimes, "Are Oral Arguments Worth Arguing About?" informs us that the nature of oral argument is to involve the lawyers in the debate.  Excerpt.

"In an interview with Bryan A. Garner published in 2010 in The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, Justice Clarence Thomas was asked how often he changed his mind thanks to oral arguments.

“Almost never,” he said, adding that they may make a difference for his colleagues “in 5 or 10 percent of the cases, maybe, and I’m being generous there.”

That is as it should be, said Mr. Estrada, who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court.

“Somewhat refreshingly to our citizens,” he said, “the administration of justice has to do with the merits of the case and not entirely to do with the skill of the advocates.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court before joining it, told students at Columbia Law School in 2008 that lawyers play a relatively minor role in that highly stylized discourse.

“Quite often the judges are debating among themselves and just using the lawyers as a backboard,” he said. “One of the real challenges for lawyers is to get involved in that debate.”

Oral arguments are in any event far less important than the written briefs.

“Of the two components of the presentation of a case, the brief is ever so much more important,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Mr. Garner. “It’s what we start with; it’s what we go back to.”"

TIP:    Write your best brief.  Give your best oral argument.  Answer the court's questions with a "clear, concise and cogent" reply.  Participate in the debate.

 

 

Shakepeare In Iraq Reminds Us: Themes & Stories Are Universal.

Where were you when you saw "Romeo & Juliet", the 1968 movie?

I imagine one listen brings it back.

What chance that the themes of young love, fighting families and war could find an audience in Iraq?

Tim Arango writing for the NYTimes, "In Iraq, 'Romeo and Juliet' Portryas Montague and Capulet as Shiite and Sunni," reminds us that stories grounded in Truths with a capital "T" are indeed universal.  No matter where you go in this world, who you talk with, the stories you learn - one thing remains consistent: universal Truths apply to all places.  We recognize them.  Yes, this may be Shakespeare's centuries old story, but the audience in Baghdad sees their own story in the timeless one of the doomed lovers.  Excerpt.

"BAGHDAD — It is not poison or a dagger that takes the lives of the young lovers, but a suicide bomb. The Montagues and Capulets are divided not just by family, but also by religious sect. And the dialogue in the Iraqi adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet” is sprinkled with references to Blackwater, Iranians and the American reconstruction effort.

After a recent performance here at the National Theater, where the dramatic arts were once degraded to serve as a dictator’s propaganda, the audience filed out buzzing over the return of serious art to the Iraqi capital. Cloaked as a Shakespearean classic was a lively rendering of their own lives over the past nine years.

“It was about our reality, the killing that happened between the Sunnis and Shias,” said Senan Saadi, a university student who was in the audience."

TIP:    No matter whether you are writing a trial story for a decision-maker, a marketing story for a buying audience, or an inspirational story to motivate listeners, fall back on what you know: the universal Truths we recognize.

 

Anne Lamott Has Words For Writers & Lawyers.

I am a card-carrying member of the Anne Lamott fan club.

No question about it.

I have been insanely intimate with her books: Traveling Mercies, Bird By Bird, Plan B, and Rosie, among others.  The margins are filled with notes, the words are underlined and re-underlined.  I, like so many others, are convinced that Lamott wrote a particular book just for the reader. 

Something Lamott said rings true for all writers, and especially for lawyers who write their opening statement or closing argument but so rarely read what they've written aloud.  There's a big difference hearing with the ear:

"Nothing can break the mood of a piece of writing like bad dialogue. My students are miserable when they are reading an otherwise terrific story to the class and then hit a patch of dialogue that is so purple and expositional that it reads like something from a childhood play by the Gabor sisters. ... I can see the surprise on my students' faces, because the dialogue looked okay on paper, yet now it sounds as if it were poorly translated from their native Hindi."

TIP:     Any time you have something to say aloud, speak out loud what you've written to hear how it sounds before you have to stand and deliver your words to the decision-maker or listener.

Lawyers are Suspicious of Stories That Do Not Come Packaged in Structures.

I am delighted to have been invited to join Kathy Hansen's blog, A Storied Career!

Just in case you missed us, over the next several days I'll be re-posting the interview she conducted with me and began publishing on April 9th.

Click here for the 3rd post.

Nurses Hold the Space for Patients, Families to Tell Their Stories.

I am delighted to have been invited to join Kathy Hansen's blog, A Storied Career!

Just in case you missed us, over the next several days I'll be re-posting the interview she conducted with me and began publishing on April 9th.

Here's the second post

Content + Context + Value = Emotionally Meaningful Story.

I am delighted to have been invited to join Kathy Hansen's blog, A Storied Career!

Just in case you missed us, over the next several days I'll be re-posting the interview she conducted with me and began publishing on April 9th.

Here's the first post:

Content + Context + Value = Emotionally Meaningful Story.

What Decision-Makers Look For From The Lawyer.

A book review holds a good lesson for lawyers. 

Sylvia Brownrigg writing for the NYTimes Book Review, "A Wedding and a Funeral,"  leads with several observations sure to be shared by readers and speech listeners alike. Excerpt.

"A very good book is not only more satisfying, memorable and coherent than its lesser neighbors on the shelves. It’s also more relaxing to read. That wary inhalation as you take in the first lines — Will I believe in these characters? How distracted will I be by implausible dialogue, or forced plotlines? — lasts a page or two and then gives over to a long, slow breath of relief. You don’t have to worry. This writer knows exactly what she’s doing. She won’t let you down."

Lawyers, speakers, politicians, what are the take-aways here?

TIP:    Have you developed believable witnesses or characters?  Do they have fidelity to what we know?

TIP:    Will the listener or decision-maker be distracted by implausible rhetoric?  Plotlines that fail to hang together seamlessly?  Is your trial story or presentation congruent from start to finish?  Or does it unravel like a poorly knit sock?

TIP:     Do you know exactly what you want to convey and to whom so your listeners and decision-makers can relax into the story, go with you on that virtual journey, and "translate images into action"?

"Capital Punishment Is Little More Than Revenge."

Mikhail Khodorkovsky writing for the Sunday NYTimes, "Notes From a Russion Penal Colony," relates a story about how one prisoner "refused to cut a deal with his conscience" and thereby helped Khodorkovsky, himself a prisoner in Penal Colony No. 7, Segezha, Russia.

Why is this story important to me?  Because of something a mother told me yesterday.  Apparently, her son is caught between dating two women - but only one does he really care for.  The mother told the son that it was not fair to the other girl and he should break it off if there was no future.  The father told the son, "Everyone dates around with multiple partners - no reason you should be different." 

To whom does the son listen?  That's not for me to say.  I can tell that there might be an answer in Khodorkovsky's essay:

"To cut a deal with one’s conscience — to lie, keep quiet, “not notice,” hiding behind the claim that it’s “for my family.” To convince oneself that “such are the times,” or that “everyone does it.” Who are we really dealing with? How do we find out that the other party — the conscience — refuses to deal? When we find ourselves face to face with disaster? Or later, when we are tallying up our life and become painfully aware that there’s no more dodging the raindrops, that there remain only memories? But by then you can’t change anything."

Along a similar theme - one's conscience - is a movie I watched the other night, Pierrepoint, The Last Hang Man. 

The movie is disturbing in subject matter but made all the more so by the plodding, methodical unfolding of the story.  It mimicks the methodical technique of the executioner.  After watching a few executions the viewer could become almost inured to death by hanging.  I still blinked when the rope snapped.  What saves the story is the hangman's role: he believes what he does is sacred work.  To him, the criminals have "paid the price" with death - the slate is wiped clean.  And he has a hand in that.  This is the power of the story whether or not you agree with his posture, or believe he is hiding behind an artfully crafted excuse to murder.

Who was Albert Pierrpoint?  He was a grocery delivery man whose father was an executioner for England.  Pierrepoint feels a calling to not only follow in his father's footsteps but to become the most efficient executioner England has witnessed.  He realizes that aim only to be reversed in his convictions about the benefits of capital punishment by one of his last hangings.  After 608 executions in 20 years, Pierrepoint writes, "Capital punishment is little more than revenge."

"'If death were a deterrent,' he wrote, 'I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them at the last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown.

'It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.'"

Three's A Crowd But Not A Focus Group.

Two heads may be better than one and three may be better than that.  But if you think that three is a legitimate focus group research panel, it's not.  It's three folks sitting around a table and talking about your case. 

Is it wrong?  No. 

Can you rely on it for strategic decision-making?  Probably not.  At least not for any reliable, statistical and probative value.

What's got my knickers in a knot this time?  I was asked to set up and moderate a focus group after the attorney had done her own research.  The attorney found three people on Craig's List, brought them together for three hours and laid out the whole case before asking the trio a question: "What do you think about what you just heard?" And then she wondered why what she heard was misleading information contaminated by biases which did little to advance the case.

TIP:    Focus groups vary in size, style and content depending on what the attorney needs to accomplish.  Matt McCusker, blogging in Deliberations for the American Society of Trial Consultants (of which I am a board member and co-chair for this year's 31st Annual Conference in New Orleans), offers a viewpoint about focus group research, "Don't Call Me Fluffy: One Perspective On Mock Trials."  It's worth visiting before you do it yourself.