OTLA Trial Lawyer Fall 2020

43 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2020 See Law Students p 44 in the focus group. We provided the students with scratch paper, a question- naire and a verdict form. Presentation of the case To get the most out of this unique focus group, we needed to take a different approach. Instead of presenting the plaintiff or the defendant’s cases sepa- rately, we presented the case as a whole. Our goal was to present the case in a neutral manner and ultimately generate a discussion regarding the specifics of what was presented. We began with an introduction of the case through general facts. The students were introduced to the plaintiff, the treat- ing providers and the hospital. The plaintiff ’s encounter with the defendant and the resulting injuries were outlined. The plaintiff ’s alleged economic and noneconomic damages were shared. The initial presentation was concluded with expert testimony and theories from both sides. We paused and opened the floor to questions and initial impressions. Hands immediately shot up all over the room. (Recall that these participants had vol- unteered, so they were naturally eager to participate.) Our transcript of the focus group indicates 55 questions and com- ments were received—mostly about the plaintiff and the medical care she received from the defendant. At the outset, we were educated on the type of information we should include in our opening at trial. For example, medicine is clearly not a law student’s forte , so it came as no surprise when questions regarding medical terminology and the procedure at issue arose almost immediately. Our experience with this group was also a reminder that regardless of one’s educa- tion level, most juries are not familiar with medical terminology or procedures, unless they have had personal exposure or training on the topic. Concurrently, our strategy was to provide as much education as possible, so the students could adequately evaluate the subsequent evidence presented to them. We utilized a slideshow, video and demonstrative exhibits. We educated our audience on medical terminology that would be used during trial, as well as the procedure at issue. We used medical devices as props to demonstrate the pro- cedure. During our presentation of the medical facts, one of the students in- formed us her partner has struggles with the same disease that landed our client in the hospital in the first place. This last student was educated on management of the disease, as she plays a pivotal role in helping her partner cope with the disease. She provided us with unique insight on how the family of someone who struggles with the disease plays a part in its man- agement and how that could be pre- sented to the jury. This law student had a unique perspective and her insight was valuable because she had exposure to the disease and thought like a lawyer — a combination that would likely not exist with focus groups comprised of people outside the legal field. Providing medical education forced us to clean up our presentation at trial. For example, terms that were used inter- changeably, some with medical and non-medical meanings, caused the par- ticipants confusion. This is something we would have inevitably run into with real jurors who would not have had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, during opening for example. This is a great example of lawyers getting so in- volved in their cases, we can overlook simple semantics that can lead to confu- sion at trial. Finally, and perhaps most impor- tantly, we learned of the negative connotations society can make regarding our plaintiff ’s illness that initially led her to the defendant’s hands. This will in- evitably change our approach at trial.