Episode Transcript
Tom Hagy (00:04.11)
Welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. I’m Tom Hagee, longtime litigation enthusiast, editor, publisher, and now podcaster. I’m founder of HB Litigation, which is now part of Critical Legal Content, a business I founded in 2012 to serve as a content marketing department for law firms and litigation service providers. And now here’s today’s episode. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating.
If you want to reach me, please check out my contact information in the show notes.
Tom Hagy (00:39.118)
So let’s say your case involves a man who has suffered traumatic brain damage and his family who has filed suit against a company they blame for his injuries has found some home movies of their dad playing cheerfully with his grandchildren. This was before the accident. He was demonstrating a full set of faculties that that aren’t there after the accident. You wonder how might a jury respond to the video? When in the trial should it be presented?
Might there be any surprise reactions, unintended consequences, I guess, to a side by side comparison of the before and after of the man. What if the video was uncovered close to trial? You haven’t had it all this time and then they get turned up, you know, in the attic. How are you going to get answers about it’s use quickly? How are you going to get feedback on it in time to make adjustments to your presentation? That’s what we’re going to talk about on today’s episode of the emerging litigation podcast. We’re going to dive into a solution for this problem.
That is remote trial focus groups. And we’re going to talk to Elizabeth Larrick, a seasoned trial attorney who discovered she had a knack and a passion for jury research, for case strategy and for prayer and for preparing witnesses. And she talks about this all through the use of focus groups conducted remotely. Now she’s done more than a thousand of these.
Can you imagine? So she’s got a lot of experience behind what she has to say. So listen in, she’s going to share these insights into, and to conducting these sessions and in a way that will empower attorneys to refine their trial strategies. Also will empower them to gauge the credibility of witnesses and their own credibility for that matter. It also can help measure the value of evidence and helps tell compelling stories that win in court. We all want to win in court. We all want to win in life, but let’s focus here. We’re going to talk about how virtual focus groups differ from traditional mock jury situations, the unique advantages of virtual focus groups, how they can help lawyers sharpen these presentations, the presentations of their arguments and their evidence. We’re also going to get a sense of how it can help determine the value of cases. We’re going to touch on some of the little things too that matter, like an attorney’s choice of socks, how that might sit with a jury if he comes in when they’re particularly flashy. So who knew that they could be a factor in attorney credibility, but
Tom Hagy (03:05.592)
We all know such a thing can, it raises questions too, like which is worse? Do you want to have an attorney wearing attention grabbing socks or no socks at all? And Elizabeth and I kind of landed on not wearing them could be worse. guess it depends on ankles. It all depends on the ankles. So let’s not, let’s not judge everybody. We welcome your thoughts on this because we know you have them and, and, and we want to hear them. Sometimes I get off track. Like I think I just did We did end up talking about some of my favorite things, which is a bizarre, a bizarre trend where people are using artificial intelligence to turn themselves back into babies, you know, videos rather, you know, than actually going back in time. So, you know, you’ve probably done this, people have probably done this for you. sometimes though, when people do it, the baby image comes out and the baby has a complete set of adult teeth. It’s a disturbing look. It’s more disturbing than you might imagine. And I’m going to show you with that.
Check your socks, check your baby teeth. Here’s my interview with Elizabeth Larrick of the Austin, Texas based Larrick Law Firm. I hope you enjoy it.
Elizabeth, thank you very much for talking with me today. I really appreciate it. This is an interesting topic to me. And that’s where you say it’s a pleasure to be here. I’ve never been on such a professional… No, I’m kidding.
Tom Hagy (04:31.176)
Elizabeth, thank you very much for doing this today.
Sorry, I did it again.
No, I don’t care. Let’s forget it. So let’s just get right to it. So why don’t you tell me a little bit about what you do first, or tell me or tell our listeners what you do.
Elizabeth Larrick: Yes, Tom, thank you so much for having me the podcast. I am excited to be here so much that I keep interrupting you, but it is so natural. Yes. I am a lawyer here in Austin, Texas, and I did plaintiff’s personal injury for many years, got in the courtroom, some trials and really just found that I had a knack and a love for helping folks with focus groups and witness prep. so I
So natural.
Elizabeth Larrick (05:14.936)
about five years ago, right before the pandemic, turned everything over to do trial consulting and wound on my firm. And so that’s what I’ve been doing here for the past couple of years, but all along have always been doing focus groups, been taught, you know, witness prep, but really just had a good sense of listening to folks and being able to help lawyers understand that and then translate that into opening statements and jury selection and fun stuff like a cross exam.
Okay, well, very cool. so when we get started on the basics here, we’re talking about focus groups, we’re talking about doing them virtually like we are right now. Is this virtual really? No, it’s not really virtual. It’s just remote. Virtual would be like if we were avatars or something, I think. Nevermind.
I think people get a little, it’s one way or the other, Zoom focus groups generally gets us real specific about what we’re talking.
Tom Hagy:
Yea, I’m an editor. So these things concern me a lot. It’s like when we say, they say, it a webinar or is it a live meeting? Well, it’s both. You know what I mean? So all right, that’s boring. Let’s dive in then to talk about kind of the basics of what we are and what we aren’t talking about with a Zoom focus group.
So, know, we, most time when lawyers think about focus groups, think mock juries. That is not what we’re doing through Zoom. It’s just, it’s way too complicated. So these are really simple groups that meet for an hour, two hours, three hours with, you know, eight to 10, 12 folks. And we’re doing, you know, neutral feedback, you know, just to find what our blind spots are. We’re doing opening statements to do some advocacy to figure out what are our case themes.
Elizabeth Larrick (06:59.978)
And we can even do witness credibility, have people watch clips and tell us what they think. So it’s a very flexible space. And what is so unique about right now is so many people have the technology and have used Zoom. have the internet. Whereas before the pandemic, it really was impossible to find a group of people who had all those capabilities. And now everybody does.
Great. Yeah. Yeah. It was fun to hear some of the stuff during the pandemic of things that didn’t go well. But I remember there were actual trials taking place. And I do remember, you know, there were a couple of jurors where one guy was pushing his grocery cart around with his kids in the grocery store while he was on trial. Another one was just lying down in his bed.
They thought maybe he was going to smoke pot or something, the way he was reaching for something that looked like a bong. It turned out to be a soda bottle. Then there’s the famous, the cat lawyer.
Yes, yes.
Yeah, God bless him. I wish you’d look him up and see what he’s up to these days. One thing you said about these focus groups is you can, it’s not a whole, like a mock jury, but you can pinpoint specific issues that you want to get feedback on. Is that right?
Elizabeth Larrick (08:23.48)
Absolutely, yes, and that’s probably the better way of concisely saying it than the way I did.
That’s why I did it.
Tom Hagy (08:32.75)
No, I didn’t put that way. Well, okay. So one of the things you also talked about was witness credibility, which is really interesting, I think, to me and would be to other attorneys. So do you have some examples of ways you’ve tested witness credibility in different types of cases?
Yeah. And I would just say from an attention grabbing standpoint, like people are into watching videos. Like YouTube is still the number one search engine. People love it. And so for us as lawyers to just play small five, seven minute clips of people and then just ask people to judge it, like they love it. Like, absolutely. So they get their popcorn out, like they’re into it. So, you know, we have a personal injury cases where we’ve done folks just to try and figure out what’s their credibility when they’re explaining their injuries. We’ve had people who are in discrimination cases where they’re having to describe what it is and then basically asking our focus group, does that sound like discrimination to you? Because, know, these people were highly educated group of folks and they were overcomplicating it. And so it became a like let’s test them before they go to deposition because. Right. If you don’t get it right, you’re MSJ it out and you you’ve lost. So, that’s a great place to practice when you have that kind of pressure of an MSJ. But you know, one of the funnest things about doing the witness credibility is the contrast because what jurors are comparing it to. So you always like to have two people that are in the case so they can contrast them and say like, that we liked that one or we didn’t like that one or compared to them. And so we, we like to do this a lot when we have our business divorce cases, because you really want to know like, okay, who’s one credible, but also like when you compare them side by side, you know, what, what ends up happening in their minds. And just here, a recent example we had was, you know, a super polished, you know, witness he had on his blazer. He’s, you know, got these great answers. He’s very polite.
Elizabeth Larrick (10:48.802)
And then the next guy was like the disheveled guy, like barely has his buttons on, like he looks sweaty and they felt so bad for that guy. And it was like, you know, that was not what the lawyers wanted to hear. They wanted the, you know, the Polish guy to be the, the, the one. And he was too Polish. So then they were trying to scramble to get ready for trial. And it was just kind of like, my gosh, if this character shows up, this disheveled, you know, I got taken advantage of person, like they’re not real.
like the jury is going to go with that guy. So it becomes really entertaining, but also just when you have this contrast of the different witnesses, it really helps amplify what your problems are with your witness.
Yeah, yeah. The impressions that humans give on other humans is like they say it’s within the first few seconds. So you I somebody up and say, I feel bad for that guy. Look at.
yeah, absolutely. And that’s what we, you know, we ask them, you know, what question would you, would you want to ask this witness? And I’ve had them come back and say like, I wouldn’t ask that guy anything. He’s not ever going to tell the truth.
Right, right. There you go. Yeah, saw, yeah, the two polished things could come up. We had, invited jurors to a conference of trial lawyers once and they were from an actual case. And one of the lawyers was there on the panel and one of the jurors, mean, they, they’re not trying to impress anybody. They don’t care. They got their, paid them something. They’re, on their way. They’re going to lose their jobs. And so the respect they have for lawyers was, it was.
Tom Hagy (12:17.87)
Either did or didn’t. But anyway, they said, this guy came in, he’s obviously fit. He’s got his thousand dollars suit on and he’s, you uh, watch obviously was a Rolex and all this stuff. And the lawyer is sitting there and he said, I didn’t want to hear from him. I didn’t trust him. And the lawyer is just sitting there rubbing his head. It’s like, you know, here I am trying to look professional and, and it’s really, it’s working against me.
Yeah. Yeah. And it’s, it is so amazing having done as many trials as I have, like that lawyers will still kind of go out of their way sometimes to be flashing. I’m like, you are sinking yourself here. Like you don’t the fancy socks, like, know, or you’re, got a subtle tie that’s got stuff on it. It’s like, you know, just,
think it’s funny you went right to the socks. I did. Has that come up before? has. really? Okay.
Yes!
Yeah, I was a lawyer and he was he had on a really expensive pair of Nikes, which was unusual. And then these bright orange socks. And I was just like, what? What are we doing here, You know.
Tom Hagy (13:23.054)
Yeah, all right. Well, let’s well there’s a there’s a key takeaway right there And you should wear them also I think
That’s right. That’s right. Please watch your socks.
yeah. Well, yes, that’s also very important.
So you’ve tested other credibility in other contexts. had mentioned, you talked about discrimination. What else did you have? had PI case?
Yeah, personal injury case. know, occasionally people will get tripped up on our fifth amendment, right? Where it’s like, there could be a place where somebody should take it, but what does the jury think about it? And so, you know, we had here recently where we tested both ways, right? Where in one focus group, he took the fifth and another focus group, he just told what happened. And the gap of imagination that allowed those people to
Elizabeth Larrick (14:12.568)
create the worst case scenario was really like, my gosh, we really have to now dig deep and figure out if he needs to take the fifth because it could really end up hurting his credibility.
Right, sure. Yeah, can see why that… Yeah, people make that assumption, you know, why would you take it if you don’t have to?
And sometimes people don’t penalize them. absolutely, if that’s my right, I’m not gonna get tripped up by that. But I think because of the scenario of this case where there was just this giant gap of information, nobody was telling what happened in this particular evening. And so then it became, okay, well, you have the information and you’re not telling us, know? Versus just like, were you drinking that night? I take the fifth, something simple like that.
Yeah, that makes sense. So, yeah, I’m jumping around a little, so you’ll just you’ll
I’ll flow, you go.
Tom Hagy (15:06.762)
just flow. So what about, because a lot of lawyers want to know certainly what the value of their case is, assessing damages, I don’t know, maybe it would help with settlement or something. So what, how does this, have you had experience with that? How does it work?
Yeah, that is like one of the number one questions I get all the time is like, well, they tell me how much it’s worth and I say yes, but it’s not really reliable. It’s just eight to 10 people. I there are other tools out there that can really get you much closer when you do like a big data study that’s got 2000, 3000, 4000 inputs, then you really can statistically come back down to what would be, but with these eight to 10 people,
What’s more important is just testing what is the information that you have. A lot of times people rely on life care plans, right? That put together how much people are going to need for care and household modifications and medications for the rest of their lives. And it’s fascinating to have just testing that kind of information because we are as humans programmed to focus on the present right now.
Well, I will worry about the future later. Like what’s happening, you know, that’ll take care of itself. And so it’s very like, it’s interesting. And lawyers take a lot for granted to think, well I put this together. We got a great doctor’s going to get up there. And I’m always like, yeah, you need to test it though, because you could totally lose a bunch of credibility if you know, they’re saying this guy needs a ramp and he needs all these things. And then the guy lives in a house with like a flight of stairs and yeah.
They’re going to put that together real quickly. So, you know, some of those little things of testing, like the credibility of it and, putting together the story of the damages itself is sometimes pretty precarious. If you don’t have enough before and after witnesses, we’re just relying on like maybe a spouse or our child, you know, there’s a little bit of credibility there. So it’s helpful just to have those pieces tested to make sure we’re good or
Elizabeth Larrick (17:18.018)
were missing on stuff and going back to those videos, you know, one of the coolest focus groups I’ve done here recently was, an older gentleman had a traumatic brain injury and no doubt, I mean, got hit right on the noggin, you know, where you can’t dispute that. But what was cool was they, his daughters had taken videos of him with his grandkids before and then after, and it was night and day. And
The focus group was like, we were so glad we had those 30 second clips of him, you know, playing whack-a-mole with the, with the little kid or holding the baby. And then afterwards, like there’s just, you can’t do any of that. So it’s, it’s amazing. Like the little things that we may have in our lives that really help jurors understand damages.
Yeah. So you’re using images, tell a story, and you’re presenting evidence. So for lawyers who want to use this, can you help them craft the sequence of events in telling these stories?
Yes. Yeah. I mean, I think with focus groups, they really tell you the sequence you need because we’ll, we’ll, you know, fashion the story one way and then come back and do it in a different way to see which way hits them. But yeah, from a, from a standpoint of brain science and like primacy, what are we saying first recency? What are we saying, you know, last, but how are we helping create the story that we have to be very conscious of organizing it? Otherwise it’s just mass chaos in their minds. It’s just computer.
Right. Yeah. It’s just kind of a fire hose. Look at all the stuff I’ve gathered. Now I will blast it at you. So have you had examples where leading up to trial that the focus group has caused the lawyer to want to shift their strategy?
Elizabeth Larrick (18:54.926)
That’s
Elizabeth Larrick (19:11.47)
Absolutely, absolutely. We recently tested a case. They were right on the doorstep of within 30 days. They were coming up and they had I would say probably three what they considered key violations by the defendant and there were more but they thought these three these were the most important violations and we put it to a focus group and tested it and it came back. They had one right, but they had
two others that were a lot stronger. So what we did was we took that information, we rearranged their opening to focus on those top three and then took the rest though. We didn’t ditch it. We put it in a cross exam and then in closing he was able to say we prove these three things, but then we also proved these other three. So they had, you know, more on their list of things they proved, but it became super important to just focus on those three for opening instead of trying to give them.
all six and prioritize it in order of like first in time.
Yeah.
Tom Hagy (20:16.802)
Yep, I gotcha. The sequence I’m telling a story is obviously critical to how effective it is, how people receive it and remember it. And so you’ve mentioned a couple of times, you know, people love videos. How are you able to effectively present demonstrative evidence, pictures, other things that people can look at and engage their reaction to those things?
Absolutely. I have a good relationship with a medical, illustrationist and, she works with another lawyer that we do a lot of focus groups and, we will just put those images up. What makes sense? Does it look bad? They, know, could you gather all these injuries or maybe it’s too much. So those are also really easy, quick ways where it’s just, you know, show them the picture and kind of ask them what’s injured, you know, sentence people will say, you’ll have a group of people that get it.
And then you’ll have a group of people who are like, I need you to walk me through this. So there’s always a little balance, I think for everybody who’s sitting on the jury, you need to have a nice balance. But sometimes you get these medical illustrations and there’s 50 words on the side of the image. And they’re like, I can’t even pronounce that. I can either. So yeah.
Some of the animations, I mean, I haven’t seen any even recently, but they used to be, some of them were just so incredible. know, 3D animation. I imagine now with animation and AI things, they must be able to create some incredible, you could turn people into babies, for example.
That’s right.
Tom Hagy (21:56.438)
and babies that have an unusual amount of teeth.
That’s right. Yes. I definitely, I have seen that recently. You’ve seen that?
What kind of bizarre person would make a baby of themselves with teeth? That’s just so strange. Have you seen, this is a complete sidetrack, of course we’re talking about you, but have you seen, there’s a clip where a husband, it looks like he’s coming home from work, he’s dragging, there’s a baby in the high chair, and mom had painted eyebrows on the baby. It’s, yeah, it’s the best. Okay.
Making fun of babies. mean, it’s hilarious.
Yeah, yeah. I don’t know why babies are so funny. You know, just a very basic level. Where are these people when you’re doing this? So they just sitting at home or they, you know, the grocery store? What power?
Elizabeth Larrick (22:46.242)
No, no, we don’t let them do grocery store. We, you know, we obviously have to set some rules up. can’t be driving in a car or they can’t even be a passenger in a car. And trust me, if I people show up on the bus and I’m like, this is not going to work. Right. So, so yeah, we have a little bit of rules, but most of time they’re showing up at their kitchen table or we definitely have people show up sitting in their bed and, know, we just, you know, we have a few lighting requirements and things like that. And, you know,
Please try not to smoke, but you know, again, the more relaxed people are, the better feedback.
Try not to smoke. think that’s good tip, I think for anybody on Zoom. It’s like you must… When they do that, you just take it to black and white and it’ll look like a talk show from the early 60s. Because everybody was smoking. So are there any like misconceptions that people would have about this when you approach lawyers? Tell me what that conversation’s like.
think one, most people are like, Whoa, you’re using zoom to do this. I never would have thought about that. Like absolutely using zoom. People have a misconception that these are giant six hours zoom mock juries and they’re just not, mean, these are like you said, they’re issue spotting, they’re finding our weaknesses, they’re quick check-ins to see and get an outside perspective. And, you know, they’re not intended.
to replace a mock jury, but they’re intended to you be able to get an, a look at what the jurors think before you begin discovery. After you take that major deposition, did you score all the berries in the bucket or was it just you, you know, provided thinking you got the, you got the person. So, and I would just think most people, when I tell them you can do this, you, somebody in your office can learn to do this. They’re generally is like, well, you know, what if we do it wrong? Right.
Elizabeth Larrick (24:42.126)
Most of the time I’m like, you’re still going to learn something even if you do it wrong.
Yeah, you’ve learned that you need to learn how to use Zoom.
That’s right. Or, you know, have somebody else do it because you argue with everybody. Communication skills at all levels when you’re doing these as a lawyer.
Yeah.
Tom Hagy (25:03.071)
Are lawyers also presenting on these? Of course they are. Yeah. So, that must be great education for them.
I always hope that people see that there’s a lot of value in just getting up and presenting to a group of strangers who like they’ll look at you, get a third head or they’ll tell you like, that’s dumb.
Yeah, yeah. As as a podcaster who I only thought I was going to be doing audio when I started doing video, I came to realize, my God, I make a lot of faces. I I’m paying attention to every word, but sometimes I’m like my eyes are doing things I don’t even know about. I’m looking at different. I mean, it’s like just pay attention, man. You know, just focus.
It’s it. You don’t you underestimate how much you move and your mannerisms and very few people naturally have that plain not going to move affect like the total skill. When people say, that’s just natural. I’m like, no, it’s not. Trust me. I have seen the best of the best and it is 100 % of skill you have to.
Yeah, I first found out about it from my wife because we would have conversations and she would say things and I think I’m just listening and she’s saying, are you making that face? I’m not making it. You clearly don’t want to do this or you don’t like this person. I’m like, no, what are you talking about? then I see myself on here doing this. like, yeah.
Elizabeth Larrick (26:34.806)
So I think I have a very expressive face, so I have to like poker face it.
Yeah, there’s a fine line between looking psycho though. You know what mean? You don’t want to just like.
Yeah, you got to get the knob, the journalists nod and the.
Yes, they’re very good at that on like the daily shows and things like that where they mimic reporters. They’re mm hmm. They’re listening while they wait. Are the are the people you pull in? I wonder, are you able to test like different jurisdictions or that would be interesting to me? It’s like, OK, well, we’re going to maybe we’re going to do this. Try this in the city. I don’t know, Houston or whatever, but maybe Beaumont or maybe Port Arthur. Yeah, I’m showing off by all the different towns.
You are, look at you.
Tom Hagy (27:17.742)
Yeah, yeah, but because the different jerk pulls are gonna be different. Did you ever use it that way?
Elizabeth Larrick:
Absolutely. tried to do as much as we can. try to make, if people want very specific, like we have to have all people from Port Arthur. Generally I say like, okay, well let’s get a little bit wider. Cause guess what? It’s okay if somebody is in Pasadena or like 30 miles down the road, we’re not going to be too different, but I’m not going to put you a Dallas person in there. But we have general groups where it’s just generally Texas, Oklahoma where
That’s going to be fine for the majority of issue spotting or weaknesses and strength.
Yeah, yeah, it would just be so fascinating to test different parts of the country too. I mean, I don’t know, you probably haven’t had to do that, but I don’t know. It’s just interesting for me. Like how does a New Yorker see something versus somebody from Oklahoma City or something?
We did some testing for some folks that were going to trial and they were very similar cases, but one was in Seattle and one was in South Dakota. So we ran the exact same presentation, but in two different places. it was fascinating how they had similarities, but then they had complete differences on how they thought about these big trucking companies.
of the other things that I find really fascinating that having done over a thousand focus groups, you know, starting well before my, my last five years. But one of the things I find fascinating and listening to people and because news used to stick news stories would stick and people would talk about it. But the news information travels so fast that things just don’t even stick anymore. And so My example that is here in Austin, had an Amazon truck that for whatever reason went off the rails, not paying attention, ended up running into think 10 or different cars, killed five people instantly. And it was on the news for, you know, days and days and days and days. Well, shortly thereafter, I had a focus group and I know it made national news, but we had a focus group just in San Antonio, not a peep.
Elizabeth Larrick (30:23.624)
And we had, were doing a case with Amazon involved and I was just like, how is it that this is not, nobody brought this up, but it happens more often that you think that we lawyers think, well that’s going to be top of mind. That’s going to be something people are going to be thinking about. And I have to tell them like, it’s not because you pick up your phone, you’re in a whole different world. You put your phone back down. Like, you know, we have so much information that rushes at us that as lawyers, we really can’t rely on, people are going to be thinking about that. We really have to be very conscious and focused about what we give people to think about, how we organize it. Because while we think people may have grasped that story or grasp the importance of having rules for like, they don’t, it just goes in one ear and out the other. So it’s definitely one of those observations that I’ve seen. And also people, you know, always ask me,
Well, what about political affiliation? And in the past few years, I can tell you like that is just not a moniker of trying to figure out who the juror is for you or is not for you because you ask people, they don’t know either. They’re guessing, right? You may ask somebody who they voted for, but that doesn’t necessarily at all translate into what we used to or what the science, the jury science used to be was Oh, well, if you’re red, then we’re then you’re going for this or if you’re blue. And it’s just like, no, it’s it’s out the window right now. And it’s not anything that when people ask me, I’m like, please don’t rely on that. Like, you know, people just don’t know. And they’re just as confused as I as we are about it. So it’s not a way to like, you know, put somebody in a camp of a yes or no for your case.
Tom Hagy:
Yeah, yeah. mean, so are you? I mean, because you talk about news, because I would think I spoke to another jury consultant. She happened to be from Texas, also Tara Traskin, if you know her. But she she was talking about how people and she’s doing jury selection, how differently people are consuming their news and how the news is influencing their opinions of of experts.
Elizabeth Larrick (32:37.42)
Well, so fascinatingly people, I think it’s like, it’s an abnormal amount of people are getting their news from social media and lawyers think, well, that’s the question I need, but you have to go deeper than that because it’s like what social media, because you know, if 50 % of adults are consuming their news on social media, but which is it? Because tick tock, unfortunately is a lot of people’s news source. But then the crazier thing is like, people that are following or getting their news from social media are following like news promoters, not actual news channels or actual journalists. So it’s very skewed and it’s kind of all over the board. So when people ask, it used to be a very popular question. Well, how do you get your news? But now it’s like, okay, well, what social media channel is it? And, you know, how do we draw conclusions from that? Well, I mean, it’s just that the news is very skewed.
Tom Hagy: Yeah. Yeah. on what you’re watching.
Yeah, it is. I mean, I’m I’m a trained journalist. And, you know, and I’ve and I mean, I and I watch the news. I love social media. I get a kick out of it. I follow comedians and I love I’m a drummer. I love drummers. I see. I see what a terrible drummer I am. But I also look look for news. And sometimes I’m just I’m appalled at how twisted some stories are or
Tom Hagy (34:09.111)
They’ll put up a screaming caption. It’s so funny. Recently, you see testimony and different outlets will say, look how this guy destroyed this witness and then look how this witness destroyed the senator in his same clip. And some of them are like, it’s clips from, don’t even know when they’re from. Like, when did this happen? What did it happen? Then you look even closer and say, this is AI. This isn’t even, mean, you know.
So, and I’m supposedly trained in this. I don’t know. I worry about what people are being trained or how they’re being educated.
Elizabeth Larrick:
Yeah, yes. And that’s why I said like now, mean, not, you know, definitely more than ever, but yeah, now it is so vital and important for as lawyers standing up in the courtroom with jurors to be number one teachers because we have to, well, one, do the jury research to figure out what the attitudes are, what are you up against? And then number two, to come in and understand like it’s, you know, it’s, it’s a mile wide, but an inch deep. People don’t know unless they’re have had their specific life experience, which is the same as the case, which is really rare, know, really standing up and putting your teacher hat on in a way to help them come to the education they need to, to then make decisions in the case.
Tom Hagy: Yeah, yeah, that’s good advice. Just educating them, also without making them feel stupid.
Elizabeth Larrick (35:40.8)
a challenge for most lawyers. I get I get I love all the
Tom Hagy:
No, do. So do I. I have loved them for over 40 years. I’m often the guy defending lawyers. I’m a lawyer. like, oh, God, please don’t do that. I’m like, a lawyer is the person you’re going to want when things really hit the fan for you. 99.9 % of them are just awesome, just trying to make a living, trying to do the right thing. And yes, of course.
So you use it to also help people pick jurors, I guess, or get an idea of maybe what kind of jurors they want. Is that something you do?
Elizabeth Larrick:
Yeah, sometimes I think if you’re going to do that, you have to do several, like you have to do quite a few to be able to kind of put all that information together. But a lot of times what we’re doing is we’re getting people just to practice and hearing reactions to your questions and being able to navigate. I mean, that is a huge skill in and of itself for jury selection.
Tom Hagy:
Yeah, very cool. All right, well, I really appreciate it. Is any final thought you want to give to somebody if you had like 30 seconds to say why you should try this, why you should do a focus group by Zoom?
Elizabeth Larrick (36:50.594)
No, we are. We are well trained lawyers and to get an outside perspective from potential jurors is mind blowing and inspire so many ideas and creativity for trial beyond what you and your team can come up with because you’re in that box. They’re in a whole other box. And if you can spend an hour or two hours with folks and learn three or four things that will take your case to the next level, just do it. It’s very inexpensive. It’s easy to do.
I’ve got lots of resources on my website, two really large blogs. I’ve done podcast episodes about it and even offer free webinars every once in while for lawyers to learn how to do it.
Tom Hagy: Okay, good. Maybe we’ll do another podcast and then we can have a focus group folks watch and judge me.
Elizabeth Larrick: Okay. I mean, if you want that, mean, most lawyers do not want to do that. They are not into that.
Tom Hagy (37:47.818)
I would think it would be an awesome service for an associate, you know, to get on and do this. I just think it would be a great service for them. So Elizabeth, Larrick, thank you very much for talking with me today. It was pleasure.
Elizabeth Larrick: Thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed my time.
