I'll be the first to admit it: I'm biased. I'm biased toward two heads being better than one. I'm biased toward more hands helping the project go faster. I'm biased toward getting outside objective help that will encourage one to take off the blinders and see things as they are - not as we are. Especially when it comes to clients and cases.
Over the years as my practice evolved my approach to focus group research has evolved. I have come to learn that we take literal responses to questions at our own peril. That's true whether we are listening to deliberations, moderated discussions or reading written responses on a questionnaire. Yet, I hear this time and again when I am asked to review attorney-run research: "When he said X he meant X because he said X; therefore, X must be true".
Imagine my professional concern when I come across copies of written questionnaires I prepared time out of mind for cases long since resolved that have been re-used and recycled just as they were written. And not for the reason you think. As much as the next person I owe what I know in great part to learning from the work of others.
My concern comes from seeing some lawyers churn out copies of written questionnaires in lawyer-run focus group research with little heed to what is being asked or why. And compound the problem by not knowing what to do with the information they might have gotten.
I'm going out on a limb here because I believe this. Yes, I have said: Get trusted, professional help to design, conduct and analyze the focus group research. Do not go it alone to figure out liability and damages. Work with a litigation consultant to uncover your case landmines, blow them up, walk the decision-maker around them, and incorporate them into the story.
I say this with a measure of confidence because I know that despite my achievements as a practicing lawyer, do I feel I can try a case today? Not with the same skill set I had when I was a practicing lawyer.
My professional role has changed and my skill set along with it. My medical and legal training brings a depth of knowledge to the trial table. What I know I can do is help develop a forensic fact pattern into a real life drama that will persuade the decision-maker.
Let me be clear: I am not averse to lawyers practicing as litigation consultants or even testing their own cases - as long as they do it with thought, care, consideration, objectivity, and arm's length dispassion about the subject matter with carefully chosen research participants who are not off the "been there done that" assembly line. Know what you want to know, what you are asking, how you are asking, and how to interpret the response. "It's not what we say - it's what they hear." [Frank Luntz] And it's not what they say - it's what we hear.
Recent Comments