A Benefit of Hiring A Trial Technologist
If the Technologist hired is experienced and competent, you will receive some great benefits. One of the most important of these is we spend more time in trial than most attorneys do. While we may not know the in’s and out’s of the law, we see the real world strategies and their results on a monthly basis. Many times, I get hired on a case that is very similar to one that I have previously worked. I can then give suggestions of what another attorney’s strategy was, and whether or not it was effective.
When you are in the heat of the battle you can always use another opinion. A Trial Technologist’s opinion is one that is more of an outside view. While we strive to do everything in our power to help bring positive results for our clients, we have no monetary interest vested in the outcome. We also don’t typically know the minute details of your case, which gives us a more independent view of how testimony is going. Our opinions might not be the correct one, but having a different person’s point of view is always helpful.
Recently a juror said it best when being questioned by opposing counsel after the verdict was rendered: “I’m a 1st grade teacher and one way we teach our children is through the use of projectors and PowerPoint in the classroom. Your lack of technology made some points very hard to follow”.
Jury Awards $70 million in water company dispute
For the past month a trial has taken over my life. 300 video clips, 10,000 documents and multiple PowerPoint presentations later the trial has concluded and the jury is back.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the jury’s findings I am proud to have worked on this case. It was very complex and consumed many many man hours on both sides of the fence.
I’ll give some deeper insight into some techniques used through out the trial next week (I’ve already started another trial and although it’s smaller, it’s taking up all of my current free time).
For now, feel free to read about the $70 million dollar verdict from the local newspaper.
Jury Awards $70 million in water company dispute
One Tech to Serve Them All?
I’ve worked for both sides on multiple occasions and oddly enough the majority of the time it’s at the request of my client. Cost is the reason I see it being suggested the most. The question you have to ask yourself is; will I save enough to make it beneficial to my case?
If the case is straight forward (we still work a lot of car wrecks) and there really isn’t much trial strategy involved other than presenting the evidence and facts, I think it can be very useful. Our role in these cases usually involves making clips, and calling up documents. I might create a few opening/closing slides for either side. And that’s about it.
Note that it does benefit both sides, the speed of the trial, and the general organization of the parties. In many matters, if the costs weren’t shared it would not be cost effective to use our services in the trial. It is amazing how quickly a trial speeds up when there is very little fumbling around and looking for misplaced exhibits. I think the jury, judge, and court staff appreciate it as well. Everything just flows smoother.
Now that’s a small minority of the cases that benefit from the use of Trial Technology, and the only situation where I would suggest or support the idea. Where technology really shines is when the case is complex, hard to understand, and involves hundreds of videos and hundreds of thousands of documents. In these situations I think the experience, knowledge and overall qualities of the individual Trial Tech’s come into play.
Another benefit of is on many occasions I pull a document up for my client and when the opposing attorney wants to cross examine on that document, they find they don’t have it scanned. This doesn’t happen when the Tech is working on both sides. Either it’s loaded or not (and when it’s not we rush to scan it).
Those two “convenience” reasons are the only real reasons why a large trial should share a Tech. Cost should not be one, and these are the reasons I explain to my clients:
You need independence to gain an additional outside view. A competent Trial Tech might have some great suggestions for topics/questions the attorney might have overlooked. When I’m working on both sides, I keep my mouth shut.
Also, the added stress of having giving your trial strategy to someone that is working for the other side makes for some awkward situations. I’ve never run been asked about the trial strategy of my client from opposing counsel, but if you potentially had millions at stake, how would you feel about having open trial strategy communications in front of “some guy” that is about to go meet with your adversary? It just doesn’t work. This single issue is big enough to forget about sharing a trial tech, we’re just too involved in the inner working of the case.
Another problem that is bound to come up is how do you separate the time restraints? You’ve only got one trial tech, how can they make clips during no examination times? What about at night, who gets those few valuable hours of the Tech’s time? The answer can’t be “bring on another tech” as you can then wave your cost savings away.
There are many reasons not to share a Trial Tech these are just some of them. I’ll stress again, it’s not the best idea if the case has any complexity to it at all. The only time that it would be feasible is if the case is small with not many disagreements nor strategy.
Loading...
