May the Record Reflect

Content Warning: This episode discusses, in non-graphic terms, representing intimate partner violence survivors. Being a trial lawyer is one of the toughest, most demanding professions out there, and when you're representing family members in distress it's even more so. Hofstra Law professor Barbara Barron discusses advocacy challenges faced by lawyers working with survivors of intimate partner violence, or IPV. Although some details are particular to IPV survivor representation, trial lawyers in nearly every practice area will find Barbara's reflections on supporting reluctant or intimidated witnesses during testimony, dealing with pro se opposing counsel, and handling emotional witnesses or clients to be applicable to their own high-stakes cases. Topics4:00  What is IPV?  6:56  How IPV survivors differ from other crime victims11:23  Implicit biases judges or jurors might have about IPV  12:24  Types of evidence14:39  Special accommodations against intimidation16:09  Defendant as pro se counsel19:42  Preparing for direct and cross-examination23:22  Emotions, or none, during testimony26:12  Preparing for anxiety29:16  Counsel and vicarious trauma31:53  Public Interest Award and advocacy programs Quote“In the case of the pro se defendant, and dealing with that person and having to answer questions on cross, the questions may not be as pristine as an experienced or talented trial lawyer's may be, and it may not be as controlling a situation as anticipated. If the questions are such that it allows the witness to answer more than yes or no, where's the control?” Barbara BarronResourcesBarbara Barron (bio)Building Trial Skills: New York–Hofstra (program)Half-Day Intensives: Online (programs)

For trial lawyers, “advocacy in a hurry” — injunctions, bail hearings, requests for orders of protection, emergency custody petitions, or immigration orders — calls for making the most of the limited time you have before the court, even if it's just 15 minutes. Former Illinois Eighth Circuit Court Judge Mark Drummond shares seven valuable tips on compressing your case to fit the time available, how to help the judge quickly understand what's at issue in the proceeding, and what ethics concerns must remain top of mind for all advocates regardless of whether their time before the court is 10 minutes or 10 weeks. Topics3:43  What is emergency advocacy?  8:00  Circumstances calling for emergency advocacy16:48  Making the most of the little time you have17:40  Factors you must prove in your state18:30  Primacy and recency21:00  Appeal to the judge21:47  Written offer of proof23:15  Persuasive use of numbers23:53  Offer time limits27:00  Judges triage27:39  What judges fear31:02  Two things to be prepared for34:11  Your duty of candor to the court38:06  Signoff questionsQuote“You've spent a lot of time going through law school. You've build a practice. Clients will come, clients will go. You built your practice brick by brick on the decisions you've made, the judgments you've made, and the choices you've made. And it takes a lifetime to do that. But you know, sometimes like a child that knocks down their wooden block tower, it only takes one time to tear all that down. And no single client is worth that.” Judge Mark DrummondResourcesJudge Mark Drummond (bio)"Death Penalty Cases in a Traffic Court Setting" (article)"What Judges Want" (article)

As a sitting district court judge and 29-year public defender, NITA Program Director Judge Cynthia McCollum knows a thing or two about jury selection, and in this episode, she opens up about how to get your jurors to open up. She serves up a baker's dozen of her best tips for getting jurors to talk during voir dire, mistakes she learned from as a public defender, what to know about Batson challenges, and anecdotes about her career trajectory before and on the bench. Topics3:50  First tip for getting jurors to open up during voir dire4:47  Second tip5:45  Judge's first time in court as a new lawyer 9:48. Third tip14:24  Fourth tip18:33  Fifth tip20:08  Being a public defender, then a judge24:42  Sixth tip26:39. Seventh tip29:28  What it's like to be a judge31:48  Eighth tip33:09  Ninth tip38:25  Tenth tip41:31  NITA involvement45:06  Eleventh tip48:35  Twelfth tip50:32  Baker's dozen tip about Batson52:39  Signoff questions Quote“Everyone needs to work on their jury selection. It's not a natural for a lot of people, because you get nervous about asking those tough questions.” Judge Cynthia McCollumResourcesJudge Cynthia McCollum (bio)Batson bonuses (file)Minnesota Deposition Skills and Trial Skills (programs) 

NITA Program Director and former Resource Director Mark Caldwell joins the podcast to chat about how to effectively communicate with the various audiences in the courtroom to ensure they get — and comprehend — the information they need from you. He shares how to talk to jurors about unfamiliar courtroom procedures and substantive information, why sounding like a tv lawyer is a huge turn-off to jurors, and recommends some of his favorite lawyers from pop culture whose techniques can help trial lawyers refine their courtroom communication style.Topics3:05    The needs of the courtroom audience7:14    What “talking like a lawyer” means10:10  Juror impressions of “lawspeak”  13:53  Communicating procedural and substantive complexity20:06  How not to sound like a lawyer27:50  Pop culture examples of legal communication29:00  Why my cousin Vinny is a great trial lawyer31:42  Movies and a book to recommend51:55  Implicit bias trainingQuote“Don't be a tv lawyer, but take lessons from what you see on television.” Mark CaldwellResourcesMark Caldwell (bio)Colorado Deposition Skills and Trial Skills (programs)Films, shows, and book (list)

In Episode 62, Philadelphia trial lawyer and NITA Program Director Tom Innes introduces listeners to cross-examination math and how the idea of “less is more” increases the impact of the questions counsel poses to a witness. Control is the name of the game in cross, so Tom also shares how to shepherd witnesses through cross, why to restrict interrogatories in the phrasing of questions, and why less is even more when examining an expert. Timestamps & MoreTopics3:06    How to think about cross3:53    Objectives of cross5:05    Rules of cross-examination math  6:41    Why concision helps your finder of fact9:22    Controlling an adverse or difficult witness10:15  Cross demo14:12  Omitting the interrogatory17:00  Expert versus fact witness18:11  When to break the “cross math” rule23:26  Signoff questions Quote“Every word you put into a leading question permits the witness to decide which word they will, or they can, disagree with or work around or give you a hard time about.” Tom Innes ResourcesTom Innes (bio)Judge L. Felipe Restrepo (bio)Mary DeFusco (bio)Building Trial Skills Philadelphia (program)

In 2021, former prosecutor Steve Wood told May the Record Reflect that to grow as a trial advocate, he had to accept that he is “insufferably boring.” What did he mean by that? And, how can it help you grow as an advocate as well? In this self-deprecating but entirely serious conversation, Steve and fellow former prosecutor Laurie Gilbertson talk about the neuroscience of boredom, multisensory engagement in the courtroom, telling a compelling story, and how it all adds up to self-confidence and stronger advocacy for your client.  Topics3:27 What it means to be “insufferably boring” in court5:55 Neuroscience behind boredom9:06 Why trials are boring15:11 Bored judges, bored jurors28:35 Resting postures for hands37:07 Role of storytelling42:42 When storytelling is most important49:36 Repeating yourself without being boring57:27 Confidence1:01:36 Preparation, notes, and delivery1:14:56 Great Hollywood courtroom performances1:21:00 Signoff questionsQuote“Our task as trial lawyers, as I see it, is to do three things. One, admit that we're boring — all of us, all the time. Two, with the aid of people like Laurie, do the things that we can do to be less boring. And then three, never fall prey to the conceit that at any given time a majority of the trier of fact is paying attention. Assume the opposite. But what we can do, most primarily, is introduce change into the courtroom environment. That's our mission.” Steve Wood“. . . what I found often is that jurors who have watched so much tv, who have watched so many movies, who have read legal thrillers, who have maybe listened to true-crime podcasts — some of them, if not many of them, expect to be entertained, and when you, as the attorney, are not kind of doing all these things that Steve is talking about in terms of interjecting that change and keeping them entertained, a lot of the jurors are surprised that court is actually that boring. They expect it to be a lot more interesting.” Laurie GilbertsonResources Steve Wood (bio)Laurie Gilbertson (bio)Top 10 Tips that Make a Difference, with Steve Wood (episode)Thinking with Your Hands: The Surprising Science Behind How Gestures Shape Our Thoughts (book)

In this rebroadcast of our 2022 interview, we gather all sorts of admissions—about depositions—from NITA NextGen alumni Jason Young. After taking and defending thousands of depositions throughout his career, he's no-nonsense and has figured out how to make the challenges easier on himself, his clients, and his witnesses. Jason also talks about the crucial work–life decisions all lawyers face as they begin their careers.Topics 3:46 The hard part of taking depositions  5:55 Federal rules related to depositions 9:13 Witnesses, both expert and lay   11:36 Role of social media  15:10 When to video-record a deposition  17:35 The hard part of dealing with witnesses 19:40 Timelines for expert witnesses, plaintiff versus defendant 22:07 Subpoenas 25:00 Obnoxious opposing counsel 30:50 Preparing your witness 34:42 Protecting your witness 37:53 Remote depositions 40:31 Work–life balance and advice for new lawyers 44:35 Signoff questions Quote “What a lot of inexperienced deposition lawyers have a problem with is they are terrified of the unknown in depositions and afraid to follow up on things, know how to shut things down, and that really scares a lot of people. And I guess the thinking with depositions a lot of times is, you want to know more. If there's information that's going to come out that's going to hurt me, I want to know it in a deposition. If there's additional facts I need or something I didn't know, I'd rather find out in a depo than in trial.” Jason Young Resources Jason Young (bio) Blog interview (The Legal Advocate) Federal Rules of Evidence with Objections (book) NITA Deposition programs (registration) 

The wish to leave the world a better place has long inspired people to attend law school and make a difference in the important ways only trial lawyers can. According to NITA Trustee Angela Vigil and Program Director Henry Su, pro bono publico provides an opportunity both to help those in need of legal counsel and to develop one's oral advocacy skills. In this episode recognizing both this week's National Celebration of Pro Bono and the fifth anniversary of May the Record Reflect, Angela and Henry discuss a lawyer's professional responsibilities, the advocacy skillset that pro bono work develops, and how to find pro bono opportunities. They also reveal their favorite tips, common mistakes they see in depositions and trials, and qualities embodied by courtroom superstars. “I think law school lights a fire in smart and curious people for sure, so when you come out of law school, you have an idea of what kind of ways you want to apply these great new skills. That is definitely true in most recent generations and you just get rejuvenated when you talk with them and learn what they want to accomplish. I also think that, more and more, lawyers are listening and understanding that wellness and bringing your whole self to being part of your community is really important. You can't just be a lawyer who locks yourself in a room and bills a bunch of hours for decades. It's not healthy, it doesn't last, it's not good for you, it doesn't encourage diversity and community. So, I think we all—and certainly younger-generation lawyers—are recognizing that you've got to bring your humanity to being part of your practice as well.” Angela VigilTopics6:25    Model Rule of Professional Conduct 6.18:40    Pro Bono's impact on access to justice13:00  Learning trial skills through pro bono service16:44  Range of pro bono advocacy work27:35  Inspiration for doing work that is “advisory”33:45  Generational desire to make a difference35:37  Wellness and performance38:16  Obligation to provide competent representation42:25  Making time for pro bono46:15  Witnessing skills growth through pro bono53:00  Common mistakes in depositions and at trial56:54  Superstar lawyer qualities58:51  Favorite insider's tips1:00:46  Signoff questionsAngela Vigil (bio)Henry Su (bio)ABA Model Rule 6.1 (link)National Pro Bono Opportunities Guide (state search engine)ABA Free Legal Answers volunteer (registration)May the Record Reflect (Episodes 1, 2, 3, 4)The Resilient Lawyer (podcast episode)  

When people hear the term “rhetoric,” they often think of words full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Yet that is a woeful misunderstanding of the beauty and power of persuasive language and argument. In this episode rife with back-to-school vibes, Temple Law Professor Marian Grace Braccia breaks down the where, how, and why rhetorical devices belong in oral and written advocacy; reveals why rhetorical devices have an massive impact, even on the cellular level, on finders of fact; refreshes your recollection on devices you already know while introducing others that belong in your repertoire; and totally geeks out about how fun, easy, and powerful they are to use. Topics3:30    The road to rhetoric7:50    Definition of rhetoric and the Queen Philosophy10:56    What are rhetorical devices?11:59    The OGs of ancient rhetoric18:43    Recent rhetoricians20:59    Aesthetics of rhetoric27:10    Where to deploy rhetoric at trial29:12    Rhetoric in oral and written advocacy33:00    Taking rhetoric too far35:55    Easiest rhetorical devices to use40:23    Obama the rhetorician45:20    Tricolon and antanagoge50:33    Sources of inspiration54:09    Favorite devices55:19    Wait . . . Taylor Swift?57:40    Pop villains on trial1:06:23  Signoff questions Quote“On an artistic level, rhetoric and the effective deployment of rhetorical devices give us emotional resonance and memory enhancement and aesthetic pleasure, and even surprise and novelty. Some rhetorical devices like irony or puns introduce the element of surprise and novelty, and they can be amusing or thought provoking, and they make the message more engaging, more memorable.” Marian Grace Braccia ResourcesMarian Grace Braccia (bio)The Queen Philosophy (webpage)Henry V: St. Crispin's Day (video)Renaissance Man: St. Crispin's Day (video)Rhetorical devices worksheet (available for download from Episode 58's show notes under Resources > Podcasts at nita.org)

Some of the most important heads to get into are those of the jurors seated for your trial. Fortunately, figuring out what makes people tick is both interesting and fun, and Temple University Director of Advocacy Programs Jules Epstein is here to share the lowdown. Whether he's busting common courtroom myths, revealing how the camera lies, or delving into the cognitive process of jurors (and your very own self), Jules makes the case that knowing a little trial psychology can give you a competitive edge for the good of your clients.  Topics 4:02 Curse of knowledge 10:04 Goldfish attention span 13:47 Slo-mo evidence 19:16 Problems with graphic evidence 24:43 Visuals with words 27:28 Disconnect between science and law 36:30 Camera bias 43:21 Thought processes 48:55 Mythbusting 53:46 Go slow 56:12 Bonus lessons 1:00:15 Collective Wisdom  1:03:55 Signoff questions Quote “A visual guarantees that all twelve, or all eight, or all six jurors will know what something looked like.” Jules Epstein Resources Jules Epstein (bio)  NITA's free Collective Wisdom articles (link) (latest) Point Well Made: Persuasive Oral Advocacy (book) 

If you've ever been baffled by scientific, technological, or financial evidence in your case or wondered how an expert witness arrived at their conclusions, former Gwinnett County Magistrate Judge Ruth McMullin is back on the podcast to share some know-how. In this episode, she talks about why you need to deep-dive into learning about subjects outside of your college major, what fact-finders want to know about forensics and how to make it easier for them to follow, the subtle things you can learn by using subpoenas, and the impact of bias in forensic evidence. Topics3:30   Types of forensic evidence7:40   What's harder and easier about types of evidence12:03 What fact-finders want from forensic evidence13:25 Judges' versus jurors' needs17:33 Simplifying complex evidence for understanding and retention22:57 Using expert reports25:40 Impact in the post-truth era31:43 Judge McMullin's favorite forensic evidence35:18 When your agency lacks funding for competing experts37:35 Use of subpoenas40:25 Role of bias in forensic evidence44:05 Signoff questions Quote“Does this [expert] report help, does it hurt, or is it neutral? A lot of times, lawyers will see a report from the opposing side and immediately think, ‘This hurts my case.' But it you look at it and understand the parameters of that report, it may be neutral. You can save yourself a lot of stress and time if you understand how that evidence plays in with your bigger case. It may help your case, and you may look at the report and say, ‘You know what? This actually supports my theory.' So, the more you [learn about and question forensic evidence], the more you get comfortable with saying, ‘I don't have an objection to this report from the other side. I actually want it. I'm glad you got it, thank you.'” Judge Ruth McMullin ResourcesJudge Ruth McMullin (bio)The Great Imposter (podcast episode)

Maricopa County Superior Court Judges Randall Warner and Christopher Whitten team up to talk about telling stories to judges. In this episode, the judges, from their unique vantage point on the bench, reveal what they want to hear or read from counsel, what they don't, how to write briefs that tell a compelling narrative, where they find inspired (and inspiring) storytelling, and the summer vacations they're dreaming of. Topics4:11   Why storytelling matters7:04   Judges' versus jurors' needs10:35 Storytelling techniques14:30 Finding inspiration19:10 Great legal storytellers21:14 Advantages for both sides of “the v”24:09 Writing interesting briefs28:57 Telling the same story at trial as in briefs30:29 Judges' pet peeves in briefs34:40 Opposing counsel's miscasting your client38:42 Storytelling about unsympathetic clients41:47 Signoff questions Quotes“Fundamentally, every case is about a story, whether it's a technical legal dispute or whether it's a fact dispute at trial, it's a competition to see whose story resonates more with whoever's making the decision, whether it's a judge or jury.” Judge Randall Warner “Even as we've tried cases less and less often, we've gotten better and better at collecting facts, and I think that's made us worse and worse at storytelling.” Judge Christopher Whitten ResourcesJudge Randall Warner (bio) (episode)Judge Christopher Whitten (bio) (episode)Building Trial Skills: San Diego (course)Dominic Gianna on MTRR (episode, episode)James Brosnahan on MTRR (episode)David Mann storytelling (course) (episode)

You've probably heard that in direct examination, controlling your witness is all about witness prep, while in cross, leading questions are the key. Those oft-repeated tenets are true, say podcast guests Judge Amy Hanley and NITA faculty member Adrienne Johnson, but they oversimplify the specific control techniques that actually work and how attorney style, hearing type, and venue factor in. Tune in as they get specific about the part of trial over which we have the least control: examining witnesses.  Topics 3:48 One task lawyers often overlook 7:08 Prep is not just for the witness 9:50 Practice questions 13:33 Witness crumbles on the stand 18:52 Leading questions on cross 21:00 Using your voice 26:12 Tips for controlling on cross 32:33 Anecdotes about control in the courtroom 36:05 Developing your trial style 38:30 Impact of venue and regions 41:22 Controlling in different types of proceeding  46:06 Script versus bullet points 55:20 Expecting problems 58:16 Examinations gone wrong, and right 1:07:07 Signoff questions Quote “I think one of the best tools for witness control is some self-control. I always say that often—most of the time—when you get an answer you don't like from a witness or that is not responsive, usually that's a ‘you' problem. You have not phrased the question well to ask the thing that you want an answer to. So the first thing I always think about when I think of a witness being out of control is whether I did a good job with my questions. Did I lead on cross? Am I introducing one fact and not asking for several facts at a time? Did I leave something up to interpretation?” Adrienne Johnson  Resources Judge Amy Hanley (LinkedIn) Adrienne Johnson (LinkedIn) NITA Women in Trial (course) Direct Neglect: Where Is the Love?, with Judge Amy Hanley and Dennericka Brooks (episode) The Tense Trio, with Judge Amy Hanley and Cheryl Brown Wattley (episode) Justice at Trial, with Jim Brosnahan (episode) Give ‘em the Ol' Razzle Dazzle, with Dominic Gianna (episode) 

In our second interview on The Effective Deposition, Program Director and author Carl Chamberlin returns to the podcast to talk about witness preparation. Joining him is NITA Trustee and Program Director Whitney Untiedt, and together they share tips and perspectives on witness prep sessions and how to ready your witness for the procedural and substantive aspects of being deposed. Carl and Whitney also talk about the ethics obligations of counsel and the ramifications of the recent ABA Formal Opinion 508. 7:20   Timing and length of prep sessions12:52 Tips to optimize prep21:09 Procedure and process of being deposed23:07 One concept and three rules28:37 How witnesses should answer34:15 Answering after an objection36:21 Handling opposing counsels' tactics45:42 Goal of substantive preparation49:54 Reluctance to disclose55:57 Ethics obligations58:28 Demo|1:02:20  Implications of ABA Formal Op. 5081:08:03  Signoff questions Quote“We as lawyer operate on ‘our' time. Our time is valuable, and our time is calculated in six-minute increments, and our time is scheduled to within an inch of our lives, but when we sit down with our witness for a depo prep session, it's no longer our time. It's our witness's time. This is their time to shine.” Whitney UntiedtResourcesCarl Chamberlin (LinkedIn)Whitney Untiedt (LinkedIn)The Effective Deposition: Techniques and Strategies that Work (book)Beginning the Effective Deposition, with Carl Chamberlin (podcast)Whitney Untiedt Puts the “Pro” in Pro Bono (podcast)Deposition Skills: Florida (course)ABA Formal Op. 508 (opinion)

Content warning: Mentions of sexual assault. Brief, non-graphic discussions of questioning the venire about sexual assault occur at 32:20–32:59 and 42:25–44:34.Experienced trial lawyers are accustomed to being the ones asking the questions, but in this episode, NITA NextGen faculty member Adam Kendall finds himself in the hot seat for once.  He's answering our questions about voir dire: building rapport with the venire through icebreakers and humor, eliciting useful information from potential jurors while introducing bad facts about your case, and what you can glean from jury questionnaires. Adam also talks about the developing trend of limiting or eliminating peremptory strikes. Topics3:39   Primary goal of voir dire4:06   What to pay attention to5:09   “The quiet one”9:03   Icebreakers to build rapport11:18 Voir dire by the judge14:22 Strong personalities among jurors16;25 Ideal foreperson qualities17:50 Eliciting strong opinions and reactions19:19 Introducing bad facts21:12 Using humor24:12 Signaling legal issues26:27 Nationwide changes in peremptory strikes32:05 Jury questionnaires35:53 Online research of the venire41:50 War stories46:50 Signoff questions Quote“People who are too eager to be on a jury scare me.” Adam Kendall ResourcesAdam Kendall (LinkedIn)Building Trial Skills: New Orleans (course)Not Just for Trial! How to Use Exhibits from Day One (Register for Adam's live webcast on March 26, 2024)

Taking a deposition presents enough challenge as it is without the interference of obstreperous or obstructive counsel, yet it happens anyway and you must be prepared to deal with it. Following her appearance on a NITA panel webcast on depositions in November 2023, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Wilmington Law professor Veronica Finkelstein returns to NITA's studio71 to answer viewers' questions about how to manage misbehavior in the deposition room. She also reveals how to be a passionate advocate for your client without crossing those lines yourself, to reclaim your time when the opposition wastes it, and to wield the unexpected power of a deposition binder.Topics4:16    Counsel who won't control their client8:36    Witnesses “forgetting” their records12:14 Counsel who try to confuse your witness15:46 Disruptive, but not inappropriate, objections19:21 Tracking time wasted on abusive conduct23:26 Court reporter tracking wasted time27:21 Being zealous but not obstreperous29:37 Speaking objections35:05 Continuing objections39:51 Written discovery requests43:36 “The usual stipulations”46:58 Contents of a deposition binder57:07 Signoff questions Quote“People get pretty quiet when you have the controlling case in your jurisdiction in your hand and they have nothing.” Veronica Finkelstein ResourcesVeronica Finkelstein (LinkedIn)Reduce the Abuse: Managing Obstructive Opposing Counsel During Depositions (webcast)Building Trial Skills: Colorado (course)

Cognitive bias is a barrier that lawyers must overcome in court—and it's not just biases of the jurors they must consider, but those, too, of the judge, opposing counsel, expert witnesses, and even one's own self. New Orleans trial legend Dominic Gianna returns to May the Record Reflect to talk about how persuasion science can help you clear the tricky bias barrier. He presents the five most consequential cognitive biases to trial lawyers, the impact each has on fact finders, and suggests how you can connect with a diversity of jurors in the post-truth era. Topics4:08    What is cognitive bias?6:55    Five common cognitive biases7:35    Confirmation bias10:40 Anchoring bias13:31 Hindsight bias18:00 Availability bias24:48 Dom's mantras for helping jurors process information25:35 Affinity bias28:52 Stupid lawyer tricks32:18 Impact of our own biases34:36 Biases from the bench39:42 Appealing to a panel of judges42:24 Expert witnesses bias impact on testimony, interpretation of evidence44:09 Cognitive biases of opposing counsel47:06 Persuasion in the post-truth era57:51 Signoff questions Quote“Jurors don't vote for the evidence. They vote for their views, and so as advocates, we have the obligation to our clients to try to understand those views. Where did those views come from? Where are they based? What attitudes, beliefs, and values, led these people, this person—this particular person—to a belief system that is so strong that he or she will ignore information that seemingly contradicts that confirmation bias?” Dominic Gianna ResourcesDominic Gianna (LinkedIn)Deposition Skills and Trial Skills: New Orleans (courses)“Give 'em the Ol' Razzle Dazzle (podcast episode)“The Secrets of Persuasive Legal Storytelling,” with David Mann (podcast episode)“Off Broadway and Into Court,” with Kevin Newbury and Kate Douglas (podcast episode)

Many a young idealist register for law school with visions of Atticus Finch dancing in their heads, but only the rarest few have those dreams come true. NITA Trustee Emeritus and national treasure James Brosnahan is among them. In Episode 49, this legendary legend reflects on a life in law that has included face-to-face encounters with such cognoscenti as Chief Justice Warren Burger, Senator Orrin Hatch, and the Kennedys. He also talks about his viral LinkedIn series on vocal quality and breaks down the six essential qualities of a commanding speaking voice that have served him well over his 60+ years in the courtroom. 4:28   Voice quality videos on LinkedIn9:05   Evaluating your own voice quality11:25 Tempo17:22 Volume20:53 Tone and mood25:16 Warmup exercises28:20 Emphasis and emotion30:06 Speech harmonizing and collecting voices35:15 Favorite voices37:05 Clarity42:59 Pauses41:57 Arguing before SCOTUS52:04 Interrogation by Orrin Hatch56:21 Controversial representations1:00:16 Defending the Constitution1:03:35 Speaking truth to power1:07:29 Boston Irish and the Kennedy agenda1:14:39 What Jim has learned at NITA1:19:03 Signoff questionsQuote“The goal, which is not easy, is to be like an actor who can throw the voice up into the second balcony. That's what you want to do. The equivalent in trial is to be sure that every word that you pronounce is heard by Juror 1 in the back row and Juror 6 in the back row, because if they haven't heard what you've said, it's like it never happened.” Jim Brosnahan ResourcesJim Brosnahan (bio)Jim's video series (LinkedIn)Justice at Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases (book)Publio Delgado, speech harmonizer (YouTube)

Every trial advocate enters the courtroom hoping for a “one and done” decision that favors their client. But appeals do happen, and if you're waiting until the verdict is read before you start thinking about what comes next, you're already bringing up the rear. Judge Randall Warner of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County joins the podcast to discuss the potential appeal issues you should be thinking about during litigation, the pretrial phase, and at trial; what issues are ripe for appeal (and which ones aren't) and their impact on your trial strategy; and how to preserve the record for appeal in real time. He also lets you in on what he says are the most undervalued, hence underutilized, tools in your advocacy kit and how you should be using them to your advantage.Topics3:35   Different considerations for different trials5:10   Common mistakes6:13   Basics of appeals8:59   Reverse-engineering your case10:24 Appellate specialist on the trial team11:22 Good appeal issues13:00 Bundling your issues14:10 Poor appeal issues15:06 Pretrial preservation considerations16:11 Motions in limine}17:52 Bench memoranda19:57 Preservation at trial22:20 Objections and evidence26:16 Staying in the judge's good graces27:17 Jury instructions31:22 Verdict forms38:49 Damages40:38 Bench memorandum for jury instructions42:12 Motion to acquit45:26 Career advice to younger self46:33 Signoff questions Quote“I'm a fan of bundling issues. So, for example, if you've got one issue that's a sufficiency of evidence issue and another that's a jury instruction issue and a third issue that's an evidentiary objection or a couple evidentiary objections, and they all point to the same wrong result, those issues — independent of what the standard of review may be on any one of them — kind of work together to create an argument for prejudice for the case overall.” Judge Randall WarnerResourcesJudge Randall Warner (bio)“All Mixed Up about Statutes: Distinguishing Interpretation from Application” (article)“All Mixed Up about Mixed Questions” (article)“Efficiency in Motion” (article)

At a time when more cases settle than go to trial, the deposition has become of utmost significance. Our guest Carl Chamberlin draws upon his experience taking and defending depositions in private practice as well as teaching deposition skills for 30 years. As the new author of The Effective Deposition, the topic is top of mind lately for Carl, so he joins us to talk about how to kick off a truly effective deposition with introductory matters and preliminary and substantive questioning techniques—and he even asks a few questions of his own. Topics3:22   The purpose of depositions6:20   Difference between gathering information and obtaining information10:38 Why depositions are important12:30 Physical settings for remote depositions14:15 The “usual stipulations”17:20 Getting commitments21:27 Commitments in remote depositions24:42 Preliminary questions29:51 Structure of substantive questioning33:30 First demo36:57 Key phrases for asking open-ended questions38:25 And ones to avoid43:01 Drilling down into a substantive topic44:18 Second demo1:04:19 Paying attention and listening1:06:40 Using exhibits1:10:15 Dealing with interruptions1:13:56 Carl's early depositions1:16:53 The Effective Deposition1:21:36 Signoff questions Quote“We want to make our questions clear and concise. Simple. The clearer the question, the better the answer. The fewer the objections, the more powerful it is.” Carl Chamberlin ResourcesCarl Chamberlin (LinkedIn)NITA Publications (book)

Content Warning: A brief, non-graphic mention of a sex crime case occurring from 29:34 to 30:49.Everyone likes to start off on the right foot, and your opening statement is a crucial place to do it. It's also Assistant U.S. Attorney Brooke Latta's favorite part of trial, so she joined the podcast to discuss her best tips on telling the right story, using visual aids for maximum impact, and pulling out all the stops to captivate your jurors. She also talks about some of her own openings at trial and what she holds to be the G.O.A.T. of opening statements. Timestamps & MoreTopics3:00   What's fun about openings?4:07   Rhetorical and legal goals6:05   Crafting an opening8:46   Workshopping it10:54 Figuring out the right story to tell13:00  Telling auditory stories for visual consumers14:36 Some good don'ts15:30 Visual aids17:10 Court clearance for visual aids19:01 Objections21:53 Case weaknesses23:50 Closing your opening24:42 Openings and closings, compare and contrast26:42 Brooke's favorite example of a great opening32:35 Signoff questions Quote“Something I always do is I talk to jurors like they are a friend that I'm having a martini with and I'm sitting across the table from. And I'm just talking to that friend about something that's a very serious, very important issue — and I'm keeping it simple, I'm keeping it concise — so it's a serious tone, but it's casual.” Brooke Latta

Without a doubt, knowing your client's case up one side and down the other and understanding and applying the law are critical to your chances of prevailing at trial. But if your demeanor and presentation style lack polish, you might be getting in your own way. Special Counsel to the New York City MTA Inspector General and NITA Program Director Shareema Abel joins May the Record Reflect to talk about courtroom composure, interpersonal conduct, oral advocacy, self-expression, and so much more.Topics3:05 What is courtroom demeanor?6:12 Demeanor in challenging situations8:57 When you know the judge or opposing counsel12:03 Vocal expression and body language16:49 Personal style22:55 Conduct outside the courtroom26:12 Online proceedings28:39 Picking yourself up on an off day32:44 Cross-generational learning at the office37:45 Neurodivergence40:16 Feedback on your courtroom demeanor44:58 Signoff questionsQuote“Silence is one of the things that, over the years, I really had to get comfortable with in a courtroom because I remember wanting to fill every second of space and I thought silence was deadly. But as you grow in your career, you realize that you can use silence as a tool, and so oftentimes, especially when you forget a point, it's ok to have a pregnant pause or use silence, and then return to a podium, to your notes, to remember what you're saying. Or using silence to make a point after you ask a rhetorical question and using silence when you're going from topic to topic, because my theory is you should never be talking and moving at the same time.” Shareema AbelResources Shareema Abel (LinkedIn) NITA Women in Trial (program) Deposition Skills: NYC (program) Building Trial Skills: NYC (program) NITA Women in Trial playlist (Spotify)

NITA Education Director Rhani Lott Choi returns to May the Record Reflect, this time as guest host, to interview trial competition coaches Justin Bernstein and Spencer Pahlke. You may know Justin and Spencer from Unscripted Direct, the trial advocacy podcast for the law school community. Tune in to this blast from your mock trial past to hear about how advocacy skills transfer from law school to law practice to life; the forgotten lessons of mock trial that you should resurrect; and how learning, practicing, and teaching are part of a career-long cycle for the skilled advocate. Timestamps & MoreTopics4:44   Unscripted Direct podcast5:57   Trial advocacy community9:58   Tough conversations about DEI13:11 Building a legal podcast14:48 Intersection of mock trial and trial practice16:41 Three important lessons from mock trial19:03 New practice pointers gleaned from podcasting22:04 Life lessons from mock trial26:01 Former students as colleagues28:10 Things unlearned from mock trial32:12 Why trial skills are important for all lawyers33:30 Misconceptions about mock trial's value36:47 Keeping skills sharp39:46 Skills transfer42:58 Signoff questionQuote“The biggest challenge the jurors have is they weren't there when these things happened, so helping them feel like they are there, they're watching things, even if it's just through the narration of a lawyer, is incredibly powerful and it sort of sears into their memory.” Justin Bernstein ResourcesJustin Bernstein (bio)Spencer Pahlke (bio)Unscripted Direct (podcast)Episode 5 (Adam Shlahet)Episode 48 (Ben Rubinowitz)Episode 51 (Rhani Lott Choi)AvaTax

You may see depositions as your golden opportunity to preserve testimony, elicit admissions, and test theories—but for your witness, depositions are a veritable stewpot of jangled nerves and apprehension. In this episode, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten shares what you can do to ensure your witness walks into a deposition feeling at ease with the process and ready to handle even the toughest questions. Judge Whitten reflects on role-playing, using video as a prep tool, broaching difficult topics, responding to objections, and testifying live versus livestream—and that's just for starters. Topics2:35   Confident witnesses   3:53   Is witness prep privileged?5:30   Procedural comfort13:54 Objections during testimony16:06 Substantive prep22:57 Tough questions and role-playing24:36 Using video in prep26:38 Theory and theme testing29:12 Common pitfalls32:04 Testimony via Zoom versus face-to-face38:15 Reluctant witnesses42:36 Expert witness prep46:03 Signoff questionQuote“When you have a problem with the witness, it's because you didn't prepare enough.” Hon. Chris Whitten ResourcesHon. Chris Whitten (bio)Building Trial Skills: San Diego (course)The Ins and Outs of Jury Selection (webcast)En Banc: Judges' Perspectives on Remote Hearings (webcast)“Can I Get a Witness?” (video)

How many of us cue up the “sad trombone” every time we think of doing direct examination? Direct is renowned for being a boring slog through facts and faces as we make on our way to the fireworks of cross and closing. Yet, if you're not using direct to tell a clear, persuasive story, you're going to lose your case. According to Judge Amy Hanley and Dennericka Brooks, when you approach direct with the same zest as you do cross, you'll get the best out of your witnesses, avoid rambling or baffling testimony, and tell the tale jurors are keen to hear. Topics3:42   Why don't people love doing direct?   6:44   Common mistakes10:49 Telling the story12:18 Organizing your direct14:09 Headnotes16:29 Exhibits, visuals, and demonstratives22:36 Witness prep27:55 Reluctant or difficult witnesses35:00 Bad facts40:57 Demeanor46:00 Redirect49:55 Signoff questionQuote“I will say, first and foremost, that you have to be prepared that no matter how well you prepare a witness, they will get on the stand and say something they weren't supposed to say, something that will throw you off. It's just going to happen.” Dennericka Brooks ResourcesHon. Amy Hanley (bio)Dennericka Brooks (bio)NITA Women in Trial (course)The Tense Trio (podcast)Direct Examination: Being the Guide for Your Jury (webcast)Harnessing Your Power on Cross-Examination (webcast)

The profession of trial lawyering has a steep, intense learning curve requiring years of practice (and “practice”) before you begin to feel like you've got a grip on it. What if you could shave years off that timeline. NITA's Education Director Rhani Lott Choi rejoins the podcast to talk about how trial lawyers can compress time through wormholes, slipstreams, and mentorship. Topics5:00   Time compression through wormholes 22:30 And slipstreams29:34 And mentorship34:22 A word about Parkinson's Law42:28 Signoff QuestionQuote“I've worked at places where you have formal mentorship, which can be great, but often that does not continue past the employment relationship. And especially these days people change jobs all the time. The mentorship, for me, at NITA has been so valuable because it transcends that. It's not based on a job or a connection ... NITA just encompasses everything, through career changes, through types of practice . . . .” Rhani Lott Choi ResourcesRhani Lott Choi (bio)Slipstream Time Hacking: How to Cheat Time, Live More and Enhance Happiness (book)Tomato Clock (Chrome extension)Direct Examinnation: Being the Guide for Your Jury (webcast)

Being a trial lawyer is a challenging job even apart from the actual, technical work of lawyering in the courtroom. Legal advocacy often places emotional burdens upon trial attorneys that can be a lot to manage. Henry Su joins the podcast to dissect the various stressors associated with trial work and offers his insights into managing stress through mindfulness.Topics3:27   Occupational hazards of being a trial lawyer 10:09 Toll of adversarial work14:11 Basic obligations to the client16:13 Managing when conflicted19:33 Role of fear26:07 Mindfulness training30:45 Learning from critiques32:49 Developing distress hardiness37:15 “Goblin mode”39:27 Managing electronic intrusions42:13 Resources on wellnessQuote“You want to create distance. What you also want to do is to avoid is dissonance. Dissonance is when you allow the work that you're doing to kind of infect you, such that you have internal conflict. You're torn up about it. You're torn up about why you're doing this, and that this is not ‘you' and that these aren't the values that you hold dear. You want to avoid dissonance, you want to maintain distance.” Henry Su ResourcesHenry Su (bio)Stress Hardiness and Lawyers (article)Integrating Mindfulness Theory into Trial Advocacy (article)Institute for Well-Being in Law (website)The Anxious Lawyer (book)Motion Skills: Online (April, August)Deposition Skills: Online (November)

Theatre wunderkinds and storytelling specialists Kevin Newbury and Kate Douglas join the podcast to tell stories about telling stories. Kevin and Kate discuss how universal themes, conflicts, and archetypes can be used as formulas for brainstorming; suggest some practices you should borrow from writing for the stage; and reveal which pandemic-era guilty pleasure can actually make you a more engaging storyteller.Topics4:27    Translating events into a story  6:11    Why good storytelling is essential to your trial8:25    Unleashing your creative beast10:49  Summing up with loglines and taglines 12:57  Classic conflicts for framing your client's case 14:36  Evoking an atmosphere to begin telling a story16:50  Universal story themes 20:26  Nourishing your creativity23:07  Importance of your elevator pitch24:14  Dramaturgy in trial 27:59  How a trial is like a tv show30:10  Defending the unsavory client33:15  New Orleans Trial program40:17  Signoff question Quote“When we come [to NITA programs], it's always so much fun to sit around the table with these incredible lawyers and judges and hear all of their stories. I love to ask all of them, ‘What's the wildest, strangest case that you've had this year?' and [with] every single one of them it's like, ‘Well, that's a good idea for a tv show,' ‘Well, that should be a movie,' and I find that a lot of lawyers and judges are good storytellers when they're recounting the adventures of something they just went through.” Kevin NewburyResourcesKevin Newbury (bio)Kate Douglas (bio)Deposition Skills & Trial Skills: New Orleans (NITA course) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (book)The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories (book)Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker (article)The Secrets of Persuasive Legal Storytelling, with David Mann (podcast)Give ‘em the Ol' Razzle Dazzle, with Dominic Gianna (podcast)

If you're looking for some resolutions for improving as a trial lawyer, let veteran prosecutor Steve Wood be your guide. In this episode (originally aired in 2021), Steve shares the top ten trial tips that always brought him luck. Any one of these would make for an ideal goal to shoot for in 2023. Steve also talks about public service and his lengthy career in law. 2:58   Tip #15:35   Why law?7:33   Tip #210:46 Recollections of his first trial13:23 Tip #318:23 Favorite part of trial25:19 Tip #427:30 Nerves and anxiety about trial28:49 Tip #533:04 Unwinding after trial34:31 Tip #638:49 Most agonizing career decision41:04 Public service careers45:50 Tip #748:50 A high-profile case I wish I'd tried50:11 Tip #852:43 Tip #954:18 Retirement54:48 Tip #1056:41 Signature signoff questionQuote“Somebody I taught with [at NITA] once said something I thought was brilliant, and it's this: ‘Time is the measure of importance in the courtroom, whether you want it to be or not.' And what that means is, we indicate importance by how much time we spend on something.”Recommended ResourcesSteven P. Wood (bio)NITA On-Demand (free resource)America's Constitution: A Biography (book)So Many Ways to Lose (book)Geddy Lee's Big Beautiful Book of Bass (book)

Something that concerns trial lawyers more than ever is seating a juror with intractable explicit biases or who believes in conspiracy theories. King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Raam Wong experienced this situation when he prosecuted a high-profile, near-fatal shooting of an antifascist protester during a demonstration in Seattle in 2017. Raam joins the podcast to talk about voir dire and deselection tactics, experts and evidence, and checking your own biases at the courtroom door.  Topics5:25     Political violence and Hokoana case9:57     Factors that contributed to mistrial14:38  Juror “tells” during voir dire16:50  Conspiracy theories about a witness20:17  Digging into social media20:30  Questions for deselecting jurors24:36  Willful disregard of evidence, civil versus criminal cases27:30  Addressing juror attitudes32:50  Remedying attention span issues37:50  Believing in or rejecting expert opinion40:50  Concerns about physical safety at trial 45:01  Signoff questionQuote“As trial lawyers, we really have to grapple with [. . .] stereotypes every day in court—the assumptions we have about people and the assumptions that the jury might hold. And at times it can be really effective, as advocates, if our good facts kind of match up, or reinforce, the jury's preexisting beliefs. But at the same time, as a prosecutor, I'm trying to do justice, and doing justice, in my mind, means ensuring that our courtrooms are open to everyone, and that means not making assumptions about people based on demographics or other characteristics.” Raam Wong ResourcesRaam Wong (bio)State v. Hodgman (case file)Alt-Right Event in Seattle Devolves into Chaos and Violence, Outside, Truth-Twisting Inside (SPLC Hatewatch)Righteous or reckless? Trial under way for couple accused in UW shooting during Milo Yiannopoulos speech (Seattle Times)

This month's episode features advice and observations from some of NITA's top judges, who serve as faculty, presenters, and board members. They share their reflections on what they've seen from their unique vantage point on the bench and dispense helpful tips for the next time you're in court. Topics2:13     What counsel should know before setting foot in my courtroom10:30  Most common mistake I see lawyers make in my courtroom17:55  Impressive or memorable things a lawyer has done during trial 22:50  Nuttiest things I've seen during jury selectionResources50 Tips for 50 Years, Part 1 and 50 Tips for 50 Years, Part 2Judge Mark Drummond (podcast) (webcast) (webcast)Justice Lee Edmon (bio)Judge Marian Gaston (bio) (webcast)Judge Nancy Gertner (bio) (podcast) (webcast) Judge Amy Hanley (bio) (podcast) (podcast) (webcast) (webcast) (webcast)Judge Ruth Rocker McMillan (bio) (podcast)Judge Sam Sheldon (bio) (webcast)Judge Mindy Solomon (bio) (webcast)Judge Christopher Whitten (bio) (webcast) (webcast)

Imposter syndrome is a common phenomenon among lawyers, often starting in law school, where self-doubt about your spot among so many wunderkinds can shake your sense of achievement and belonging. Gwinnett County Magistrate Court Judge Ruth Rocker McMullin joins the podcast to discuss what imposter syndrome looks like when it shows up in lawyers' lives, how she got out of her own way as her legal career pivoted into new directions, what happens at the intersection of imposter syndrome and implicit bias, and how cultivating emotional intelligence just might save you from yourself. Topics3:50     Imposter syndrome  5:52    Places, spaces of imposter syndrome in law8:56     Are lawyers more susceptible? 10:37  What imposter syndrome looks like15:39  Implicit bias and imposter syndrome20:32  “Glue work” 26:20  Managing implicit bias upwards, sideways27:16  Calling out implicit bias, letting it slide29:18  Upside of imposter syndrome  31:21  Managing your own brain33:00  Exploring emotional intelligence 34:38  Developing emotional intelligence38:58  Signoff questionQuote“I had to have that conversation with myself when I switched my career from being a public defender to going into private practice, to taking a part-time judicial position. You know: ‘I don't know if I'm qualified to do this.” I had to tell myself, ‘You handled death penalty cases. Of course you can do this.'” Judge Ruth Rocker McMillan ResourcesJudge Ruth Rocker McMillan (bio)The Imposter Phenomenon (article)Being Glue (article)

The spontaneity of cross-examination and impeachment often intimidates lawyers early in their trial career. NITA Education Director Rhani Lott Choi and Denver trial lawyer Kate Sandlin have been there, done that — and in this episode, they disclose their favorite tips that honed their skills and settled their nerves. Rhani and Kate talk about how to feel at ease in the moment, advance-prep for the “spontaneity” of cross and impeachment, bring wily witnesses to heel, use demonstratives to pin down an answer, and help your witness be ready to take the stand.Topics3:05     Cross-examination: what is it good for?  5:55    How to plan for cross8:23     Thoughts on your judge12:28  Learning about your judge14:47  Single-fact, leading questions21:09  Demonstration of crossing a bad witness27:16  Crossing an alleged crime victim32:03  Using demonstrative exhibits  34:22  Witness preparation39:14  Impeachment: what is it good for? 41:50  Dangers of impeachment45:34  Demonstration of impeachment51:16  One best cross tip53:50  Signoff question Quote“Every mistake I've made on cross-examination, if I ever go back and look at it, the problems start with my question, and I probably wouldn't have made that mistake if I'd asked a better question.” Rhani Lott Choi ResourcesRhani Lott Choi (bio)Kate Sandlin (bio)Building Trial Skills: San Diego (course)Show AND Tell: Using Exhibits Effectively in In-Person and Remote Advocacy (free webcast)

Legal communications specialist David Mann joins the podcast to encourage listeners become masters of persuasion through storytelling. In this episode, David explains that legal case storytelling is not just for trials, tells how to flip the narrative script and align the fact finder with your client, and reveals a trove of writing techniques that help sharpen your writing and storytelling skills.Content Warning: Mention of sexual assault. A brief, non-graphic discussion of a defendant's sexual assault case occurring from 20:35 to 22:03.Topics2:52     Why boring opening statements are boring  7:08    The Seven Basic Plots and the stories we tell 10:38  Orienting the “characters” in your legal case story 12:04  Unifying the fact finder — counterintuitively 19:03  Defending the unsympathetic client 23:11  Building context through storytelling 27:16  Where facts and technical information fit into persuasion 29:01  Differences between telling the plaintiff's story and the defendant's  31:42  A daily practice to become a better writer33:19  Brainstorming and self-editing38:44  Workshopping your legal case story42:10  Signoff questionQuote“This is the fundamental difference between a legal case story told to, say, a jury versus narrative fiction that we watch in movies or read in books. The fundamental difference is that the narrative fiction that we're used to watching in movies is a finished story. It has a beginning, middle, and end. The credits roll at the end, you walk away – that story is complete. In a legal case story, it isn't complete because the jury is the end of the story. The story hasn't been completed yet. They will complete the story.” David MannResourcesDavid Mann (website)Story Power: Building Persuasive Case Narratives (course)Presentation and Oral Advocacy Skills for Any Lawyer (course)The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories (Wikipedia)The Artist's Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity (book)Engaging the Jury in the First Two Minutes (free webcast)Winning Cases with Better Storytelling (free webcast)Give ‘em the Ol' Razzle Dazzle, with Dominic Gianna (podcast)Metallica (v. Napster) and (v. Guerlain) litigation

Kansas District Court Judge Amy Hanley is joined by UNT Dallas College of Law Professor Cheryl Brown Wattley for a lively discussion of “the tense trio”: objections, cross-examination, and impeachment. Find out what these elements of a trial have in common; why trial lawyers face so much pressure around them; how to overcome the challenges of the tense trio at trial; and what mentorship means to career development.  Topics3:31     What is the “tense trio”?  3:56    What makes these parts of a trial so tense for lawyers   4:41     The pressure of objections 6:57     Tuning your ear for objections 8:59     When not to object10:05  Learning the FRE11:00  The pressure of cross12:34  Cinematic moments 14:40  Preparation versus spur of the moment17:35  Getting out of your own way on cross22:56  Women and cross28:34  Ending with a zinger31:18  The pressure of impeachment34:20  The 3 C's of impeachment36:01  When impeachment backfires39:20  Common impeachment mistakes41:05  Preventing rehabilitation 43:14  Mentorship50:30  NITA Women in Trial Quote“I have discovered that there's also a physical hurdle to cross-examination, in that tone and demeanor. And what I'm talking about there is that adrenaline rush that we get from confrontation, and if you've been in trial and you've done cross-examination, you know what I'm talking about. The blood is pumping, the energy is coursing through you, and I've heard communication specialists talk about this and how we really need to burn off some of that excess energy.” Judge Amy Hanley“I think the other problem area [in impeachment] is oftentimes lawyers want the impeachment to work and they don't read the second sentence. They don't read the thing that the witness said either right after, or alternatively right before. So, you pull out that which seems to be a contradiction, but really, if you read the full paragraph, it's the same explanation. You can't just focus on the five words.” Cheryl Brown WattleyResourcesJudge Amy Hanley (bio)Cheryl Brown Wattley (bio)NITA Women in Trial (program) (video)Federal Rules of Evidence with Objections (book)Harnessing Your Power on Cross-Examination (webcast)

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner and class action lawyer Reuben Guttman discuss the impact of Twombly and Iqbal, two SCOTUS decisions that precipitated critical changes in pleading, class certification, and expert standards that have affected a complaint's capacity for making it past the motion-to-dismiss stage. In this wide-ranging interview, they talk about the challenges these decisions have on both judges and practitioners and how the landmark case of Brown v. Board might fare under post-Twiqbal standards. Topics4:02    Twombly/Iqbal's impact on pleading standards7:17    Why process and procedure matter  10:16  Changes pleading standards12:43  Changes in class certifications14:11  Rise of multidistrict litigation16:20  Changes in expert standards, both criminal and civil21:47  Experts in the civil rights arena25:40  Applying today's pleading and class certification standards to Brown v. Board 29:30  Rules that affect access to justice33:04  The benefit of a losing Supreme Court case36:04  Getting around these obstacles44:11  Judges, lawyers, and the legacy of discrimination cases48:35  Signoff questionQuote“I know from having been a criminal defense lawyer and civil rights lawyer and a judge, and now sort of a litigator as well, that what I may find ‘plausible' may be not what a jury finds ‘plausible.' That plausibility is, in fact, a contextual analysis—in context. And when I sat on the bench there were numbers of times, in fact, that my law clerk would say to me, ‘Judge, you can get rid of this case. You can get rid of this case. The allegations are not plausible.' And I would turn to the law clerk and say, ‘To whom? To you? To me? To some of my male colleagues on the bench?' So essentially, plausibility enabled the judges, who are not the most diverse group in the world, to make their own decisions about whether a case should proceed.” Judge Nancy GertnerResourcesJudge Nancy Gertner (bio)  Reuben Guttman (bio)Representative Opinions of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (book) From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal (article)  Brown v. Board of Education complaint (PDF) Pretrial Advocacy (book) 

As social distancing and K95s finally become visible in the rearview mirror, communications expert Carol Sowers returns to the podcast to coach listeners through the yips of post-lockdown performance anxiety and rusty face-to-face social skills, and to discuss the remote advocacy habits we created that are worth keeping and refining. She also touches on a few subtle ways lawyers inadvertently undermine their authenticity and credibility.  Topics2:57  Staring down the yips9:46  Our best work adaptations and habits  14:20   Court activities that might remain remote17:20  Framing yourself19:45  New rules for eye contact 22:02   Mumbling the play-by-play24:00  Preparing for in-person presentations28:22  Distractions and attention span30:20  Practice, practice, practice31:20  Virtual backgrounds35:56  Signoff questions Quote“I know it's so boring to hear communications specialists talk about practice. It's what we all say, and what we all have said, and what we all will continue to say. But I think it's even more vital now. If you're not practicing, I think you're doing yourself a disservice, and I think that you're doing your case and your client a disservice.” Carol Sowers ResourcesNITA 1:1 Coaching (link)Celebrating Carol Sowers' Nearly 30 Years with KHQA (YouTube) Taste: My Life Through Food, by Stanley Tucci (book)The Dropout (Hulu)

In Episode 29 of May the Record Reflect, we gather all sorts of admissions—about depositions—from NITA NextGen alumni faculty member Jason Young. After taking and defending thousands of depositions throughout his career, he's no-nonsense and has figured out how to make the challenges easier on himself, his clients, and his witnesses. Jason also talks about the crucial work–life decisions all lawyers face as they begin their careers. Topics2:58     The hard part of taking depositions 5:07     Federal rules related to depositions8:24     Witnesses, both expert and lay  10:47  Role of social media 14:21   When to video-record a deposition 16:47  The hard part of dealing with witnesses18:51  Timelines for expert witnesses, plaintiff versus defendant21:19  Subpoenas25:10  Obnoxious opposing counsel30:02  Preparing your witness34:53  Protecting your witness37:01  Remote depositions38:30  Work–life balance and advice for new lawyers44:50  Signoff questions Quote“What a lot of inexperienced deposition lawyers have a problem with is they are terrified of the unknown in depositions and afraid to follow up on things, know how to shut things down, and that really scares a lot of people. And I guess the thinking with depositions a lot of times is, you want to know more. If there's information that's going to come out that's going to hurt me, I want to know it in a deposition. If there's additional facts I need or something I didn't know, I'd rather find out in a depo than in trial.” Jason Young ResourcesJason Young (bio)Blog interview (The Legal Advocate)Federal Rules of Evidence with Objections (book)NITA Deposition courses (registration)

In Episode 28 of May the Record Reflect, New Orleans trial legend Dominic Gianna introduces the concept of “audience-centric advocacy” and how to reach jurors and judges through effective storytelling, psychological insights, and physical performance. This self-professed “Broadway theater kid” talks about stepping into your own personal style, becoming comfortable in your own skin, why you need log lines and tag lines, and how he became the legal consultant on My Cousin Vinny.'Topics3:26     What jurors want 4:44     Audience-centric advocacy6:37     When jurors are most open to persuasion  8:41     Two stages of trial: framing and scrutinizing13:44   Central premise 19:11  Importance of jury psychologists21:45  Jurors' attribution of fault and judgment of parties' motivation23:45  Back story26:15  Storytelling28:15  Log lines and tag lines34:08  Non-verbal communication37:01  Developing your trial style38:43  Raising your comfort level with performance42:55  Don't do this45:31  Advocacy during covid54:11  Signature sign-off questions Quote“The framing process takes place right away in the beginning, and that is, in most trials, in the opening statement. That's why we tell our NITA students, ‘Never ever, ever save a good, persuasive piece of evidence for the trial.' Never do that, because when the framing part of a trial is over, which is usually the end of the opening statement, 85 percent or so of people who are leaning this way as opposed to another way, never, ever, ever change their mind.” Dominic Gianna ResourcesDominic Gianna (bio)Deposition to Trial Skills: New Orleans (program)David Mann (bio)Dr. Dan Jacks (bio)Kevin Newbury (bio)Opening Statements: Winning in the Beginning by Winning the Beginning (book)Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (book)Joan of Arc trial (transcript)

In Episode 27 of May the Record Reflect, former federal prosecutor Luke Cass slides into the hot seat to answer questions about closing arguments. He shares what he learned in working civil and criminal cases for the DOJ in Puerto Rico and D.C., with a particular emphasis on reversals on closing: what they are, why they happen, and what happens next. Topics3:39     Closing argument is the time for … 4:04     Advantages and challenges for counsel in closing argument6:44     When to develop your closing  7:18     Visual aids8:19     Jury instructions10:34  Differences in closings for plaintiffs versus defendants 11:50  Rebuttal13:21  Experience with reversals on closing14:28  How reversals happen15:10  Consequences of reversal16:36  Types of misconduct20:32  Why misconduct during closing happens21:50  Predicting reversals23:39  What reversals feel like for counsel and clients25:48  Signature sign-off questionsQuote“To make a closing great, you need to invest a lot of time mastering the facts, the law, your delivery, and the nonverbal communication you want to make with the jury. That nonverbal communication is often as significant as the content of the argument itself.” Luke Cass ResourcesLuke Cass (bio)“Closed Courtrooms: Sixth Amendment and Public Trial Right Implications” (article)The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (free subscription)

26. Direct Hit, with Mike Beckwith In Episode 26 of May the Record Reflect, we're joined by trial veteran Mike Beckwith to talk about one of the foundations of trial practice: the direct examination. As a Chief Assistant United States Attorney with the Department of Justice, Mike has litigated hundreds of cases before trial courts in multiple federal districts and the Ninth Circuit. Tune in to find out why he thinks direct examination is crucial to your case, the best way to deal with bad facts and unlikeable witnesses, and how to comport yourself on your feet and in the moment. Topics5:35     Where your case is won6:55     Why direct is harder than it seems10:44  How to keep direct interesting 13:40  Humanizing a despicable witness18:50   Objections from opposing counsel21:08  Visual aids 24:23  Body language27:17  If you've stunk up your direct30:17  Introducing bad facts34:43  Redirect36:09  Signature sign-off questionsQuote“With a good witness, you feel like Clarence Darrow. With a bad witness, you feel like a first-year law student. But there are good and bad out there, and so you've got to listen, because the good witness will give you something you want to follow up on that you didn't have in your notes, and the bad witness you really need to be careful with because  there's a reason why they're doing what they're doing and a lot of times you can shift to something that's going to explain that or you can shift them off a topic that's irrelevant or is just going to go down a rabbit hole that is going to confuse the jury.”  Mike Beckwith

In Episode 25 of May the Record Reflect, we take a listen to the best tips we heard from each episode in 2021. To hear the full episodes from which each tip was derived, please visit our podcasts on nita.org  here. Topics1:47     Dick Harpootlian 3:49     Alison Reagan5:57     Dean Marc Miller9:14     Helen Geib11:28  BJ Moore14:35  Alicia Aquino16:22  Shannon Bales 17:35  Hon. Nancy Vaidik20:15  Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla21:59  Judith Gaton23:29  Steve Wood27:16  J.C. Lore29:10  Reuben Guttman30:36  Jo Carol (LaFleur) Nesset Sale32:59  Angela Porter34:10  Dan Kotin36:13  Hon. Ann Claire Williams (Ret.)37:00   Clay Taylor

In Episode 24 of May the Record Reflect, we're joined by legendary American trial lawyer Dick Harpootlian. He takes a moment out from representing Alex Murdaugh to describe the roundabout way he entered law and became one of the nation's top trial lawyers, discuss what it was like to work death penalty cases and prosecute an infamous mass murderer, and reveal advocacy tips that have always brought him luck.Topics3:28 The accidental lawyer7:14 Winning . . . and losing8:48 Introducing Pee Wee Gaskins16:02 The life philosophy of a mass murderer20:28 Dick's tips on jury selection25:18 Owning the courtroom and “the confidence to lose”26:56 Bushido in the courtroom28:36 High-profile cases and managing the media32:39 Traditional media versus social media33:42 The secret to deposing experts35:33 Nerves and emotions36:38 Pleasure reading and favorite shows38:11 Murdaugh case on Netflix?40:05 Volunteering for cases for trial experienceQuote“Check your fly before you get up, gentlemen.” Dick HarpootlianRecommended ResourcesDick Harpootlian (bio)The ‘Murdaugh Murders': What to Know About the South Carolina Mystery Murdaugh attorney addresses “hysterical theories” in interview with Good Morning AmericaPee Wee GaskinsLincoln's Last Trial, by Dan Abrams (book)The History of the Bushido Code: Principles of Samurai CultureFargoGoliath

In Episode 23 of the podcast, we're joined by Jo Carol Nesset-Sale, who as a young woman brought forth a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that found its way to the United States Supreme Court. Her case, Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, was part of the societal sea change that resulted in women being able to remain in the workforce as their families grew. Jo Carol's experience lit a fire in her to become a lawyer herself and transform the lives of her clients she serves. Topics2:09     The story behind the SCOTUS case9:47     How pregnant women faced discrimination11:49    Maternity leave, benefits in the 1970s13:05    The lawsuit begins15:07    Why Jo Carol fought back 19:15    Equal rights movements22:28    Legal team's strategy for SCOTUS24:25    What the Court ruled on 26:25    Impact of ruling30:45    Becoming a lawyer34:18    Jo Carol's other 15 minutes of fame36:05    Pathways in law41:00    Guidance for law students, new lawyers43:21    Bias in the courtroom44:15    Career advice46:11    Signature sign-off questionQuote“I certainly saw that, at a moment in time, if you can have the intersection of an aggrieved person who's been unfairly treated and a lawyer who's willing to take the case and charge no fee, that wonderful things can happen, that change can be made.” Jo Carol (LaFleur) Nesset-Sale Recommended ResourcesJo Carol Nesset-Sale Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurFrom Sideline to Frontline: The Making of a Civil Rights PlaintiffShe Was a Teacher. She Got Pregnant. Her Case Ended Up at the Supreme Court 

In Episode 22 of May the Record Reflect, Reuben Guttman and J.C. Lore discuss their new book, Pretrial Advocacy, and why modern litigation practices necessitate early, close attention from practitioners. They discuss the interplay of early discovery with the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure, how law schools are responding to “front-loaded” litigation that often results in fewer jury trials, why public interest law matters, and what's exciting about pretrial.   Topics3:37    The meaning of front-loaded cases6:16    Effects of Iqbal, Twombly, and Daubert on law practice and teaching advocacy10:15  Pretrial advocacy at law school12:14  Is pretrial exciting? 16:56  Settlement versus trial18:21  Why trials are still important23:09  Getting to know the rules29:07  Social media evidence36:20  What's lost with settlement38:22  Public interest practice41:03  Signature signoff question Quotes“The fun thing I always thought about pretrial advocacy is you get to learn about areas you never knew of. I once met a famous trial lawyer many, many years ago and he's since passed – Alfred Julien – and he told me that one of the fabulous things about being a trial lawyer is that you get to be a jack of all trades, in some regards, and an expert in none. I always thought it was exciting because it's a process you get to immerse yourself in and really learn a lot.” (Reuben Guttman)“Certain types of trials aren't happening anymore because of the huge cost of litigation. But there are courthouses and courtrooms all over this country that are doing trials every single day, on both the civil and the criminal side. You go to landlord–tenant court, you go to family court, you go to municipal court, you go to immigration court—all of these courts are having trials all of the time.” (J.C. Lore)  Recommended ResourcesPretrial Advocacy (book)Reuben Guttman (bio)J.C. Lore (bio)Iqbal v. AshcroftBell Atlantic Corp. v. TwombyConley v. GibsonDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  Read NITA's statement on the important of in-person advocacy in courts, here.

In Episode 21 of May the Record Reflect, veteran prosecutor Steve Wood joins us to share his ten favorite trial tips. He also talks about what he remembers about his first trial, his life in public service as the Delaware DOJ's leading trial attorney, and the other reflections on living the lawyering life. Topics2:43    Tip #15:20    Why law?7:18    Tip #210:31  Recollections of his first trial13:08  Tip #318:08  Favorite part of trial25:04  Tip #427:15  Nerves and anxiety about trial28:34  Tip #532:49  Unwinding after trial34:16  Tip #638:34  Most agonizing career decision40:49  Public service careers45:36  Tip #748:36  A high-profile case I wish I'd tried49:56  Tip #852:28  Tip #954:03  Retirement54:30  Tip #1056:27  Signature signoff questionQuote“Somebody I taught with [at NITA] once said something I thought was brilliant, and it's this: ‘Time is the measure of importance in the courtroom, whether you want it to be or not.' And what that means is, we indicate importance by how much time we spend on something.” Recommended ResourcesSteven P. Wood (bio)America's Constitution: A Biography (book)So Many Ways to Lose (book)Geddy Lee's Big Beautiful Book of Bass (book) Read NITA's statement on the important of in-person advocacy in courts, here.

In Episode 20 of May the Record Reflect, trial lawyer and wardrobe consultation Judith Gaton joins us to explain why style matters in the courtroom and how to dress for post-pandemic office life at a time when the expected corporate culture—and maybe our bodies—have changed.Topics3:05 Why your clothes matter5:36 But isn't style frivolous?13:18 Work clothes that no longer “fit”16:22 Evaluating your wardrobe after covid18:45 What pieces to invest in, and what to save on21:48 Pandemic's impact on dressing for the law office25:15 Menswear options for a more casual office environment27:29 Stanley Tucci's refined casual style and sprezzatura30:54 Sleek footwear options32:40 Style inspo and options for lawyers and other professionals38:07 Signature signoff questionQuote“We have to sort of make room to be amused by each other as we find our footing and find out what it's going to look like for all of us as we re-enter society, as we sort of spend more time with each other, as we come back to the office. It doesn't have to go back to the way it always was. There's no requirement. This is a beautiful moment for all of us to rethink ‘Did we even like the way it always was? Did we enjoy wearing suits? Did we enjoy being dressed up all the time?' or would we all collectively prefer to be a little more on the smart-casual side of things, or business casual of things, than to be so dressed up all the time. Each office culture's going to have to figure that out for itself. I think every courtroom, almost, is going to decide that for itself.” (Judith Gaton)Recommended ResourcesJudith Gaton (bio)How COVID-19 has changed what we wear and how we feel about clothing (Seattle Times)Schedule an Appointment with Those Clothes You Haven't Worn in a Year (New York Times)Sprezzatura Do's and Don'tsIn Praise of Stanley Tucci's TV Travel Uniform (GQ)Berluti wingtip sneakers Berluti double monkstrap sneakersNext Level Wardrobe (Instagram) Read NITA's statement on the important of in-person advocacy in courts, here. 

In Episode 19 of May the Record Reflect, Judge Nancy Vaidik of the Indiana Court of Appeals and international communications consultant Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla, are in the hot seat to share insights from their new book, Point Well Made, Persuasive Oral Advocacy. They reveal why oral advocacy still matters in a time when most cases settle before going to trial, how to better know your judge to give yourself a leg up, and what are the highs and lows of ruling from the Zoom bench.   Topics3:56    A learning-by-doing book for oral advocacy6:45    Writing process as co-authors writing remotely9:05    Why trial lawyers should care about oral advocacy11:16  Oral versus written advocacy13:17  Oral advocacy in persuasion16:02  What judges are looking forward to in a proceeding21:24  What to know about your judge23:45  Relationships you need to know about27:45  Appearing before a multi-judge panel30:03  Why rebuttal matters31:31  Judge Vaidik's experience with remote advocacy35:32  “Soft” things lost in remote hearings40:06  Communication needs that have changed during the pandemic42:25  Signature signoff question Quotes“Oral advocacy is a lot different from written advocacy and our law schools are focusing on written advocacy and not on oral advocacy, and there are differences. In oral advocacy, as an advocate, you can actually listen to the judge's concerns—or whoever you're talking to, the listener's concerns – and adapt your argument. You can't do that in a written setting. In an oral setting, however, you need to keep attention, the attention of the listener. And in a written advocacy situation, that's not so much the case because when the reader loses focus, they can go back and re-read the material. You can't do that in oral advocacy situation.” (Judge Nancy Vaidik)“Judges are people too, and so they're not immune to the digital age and the lower attention span and the need for people to get to the point and say it clearly, concisely, thematically. All those things are super important, and so old-style argument is not going to be as effective. You have to take into account the digital age and the judges who are going to be listening, especially as younger and younger judges get appointed to the courts. It's so important to adapt the way we approach oral argument in front of one or multiple judges.” (Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla) Recommended ResourcesPoint Well Made: Persuasive Oral Advocacy (book)Hon. Nancy Vaidik (bio)Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla (bio)Foolproof: The Art of Communication for Lawyers and Professionals, Second Edition (book) Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla's “Foolproof” Tips for Professional Communication (podcast)Delivering a (Last-Minute) Point Well Made (webcast) Read NITA's statement on the important of in-person advocacy in courts, 

In Episode 18 of “May the Record Reflect,” we’re talking about something that’s all too often an afterthought when a case goes to trial: the electronic courtroom presentation. When expertly executed by a trial technologist, a trial presentation will provide you and your fact-finders one shortcut after another that ease courtroom procedures and benefit your client. Trial technologists Shannon Bales and Alicia Aquino share their insights, recommendations, and best practices that will have you convinced that a trial tech is an integral part of a winning team. Topics4:37     Electronic trial presentation today6:55     Why a trial tech is crucial to your outcomes8:45     EDRM, the litigation lifecycle11:43  Bring them in early in the litigation13:14  Why trial presentations matter16:23  How “cat lawyer” memes happen18:17  What trial techs know that you don’t20:10  E-discovery and trial23:57  Fact analysis tools26:20  Best practices for virtual proceedings30:37  Timeline for your tech rehearsal33:15  Exhibit “tutorials” for fact-finders34:25  Becoming a trial tech38:11  Trial Presentation Companion tips39:41  UN War Crimes Tribunal experience41:12  Types of software48:03  A mistake firms make49:39  Outfitting your war room57:17  A note for small firms and solo practitioners59:34  Renting versus owning equipment1:01:17  Helping the opposing team1:07:08   Signature signoff questionQuotes“Trial presentation is an efficiency aid for the court. That’s the number-one thing we’re there to do. We’re hired there, of course, to help our team, but the way that we get through the door is that we’re there to make things efficient for the court so that the proceedings will move along at a quick pace and not waste the court’s time.” (Shannon Bales) “Bring [trial techs] in early on. Let us take a look at the evidence, at the exhibits. I can’t tell you how many times that the attorney is presenting their case and then at the end the judge says, ‘You know, this could have easily been done in a timeline. Do you think you can just put together a timeline? That would’ve saved us four days of testimony,’ and I, probably in the background, was saying, ‘Hey, you know, let’s put together a chart, a timeline. Let’s put graphics. Let’s tell the story a little bit better.’ And when you have somebody on your team that’s able to incorporate the graphics and storytelling, it just makes you look that much more organized.” (Alicia Aquino) Recommended ResourcesShannon Bales (LinkedIn)Alicia Aquino (Aquino Trial Services)The Trial Presentation Companion (book)What Juries Really Think: Practical Guidance for Trial Lawyers (article)Online Courtroom Project(website)COVID, the Court, and the Future of the Jury Trial (webcast)

In Episode 17 of “May the Record Reflect,” we’re talking about cybersecurity for law firms: why it’s important, how to prevent hackers from accessing your clients’ electronic data, what to do if it happens, and what ethics canons have to say about it. Patent attorney and e-discovery expert Helen Geib and technologist BJ Moore share their tips to help you manage this important and often overlooked aspect of law firm management.  Topics4:00     Why law firms are a rich target for cyberhackers7:45     How our computers are hacked10:15  Security issues raised by working remotely11:12  VPN security via cell phone12:23  Whether hackers can gain access via phone apps13:20  Cell phone security14:30  What to do if your system has been hacked16:00  Lawyer’s obligations around client data security18:30  Range of consequences of a data breach19:40  Technical know-how and legal malpractice20:20  Court decisions in data breaches27:33  ABA Formal Op. 483 highlights32:12  Ethics rules touching on data security34:27  General liability insurance versus cyber insurance coverage36:26  Basic preventative measures against hacking40:50  Steps to take after a data breach42:45  Top-of-the-line “wish list” practices45:27  Signature signoff questionQuotes“There’s a general recognition that there are two pieces to tech competence for lawyers: one is education and lawyers raising the level of their own understanding of security and using basic security practices. The other is to recognize the limits of our own knowledge and to associate with experts and people who really understand this area so that they can help us in the areas we didn’t go to law school for.” (Helen Geib)“Cybercriminals are considered terrorists, so [if you pay a ransom] you’re technically financing a terrorist organization, which is against federal law. You also don’t want it to be profitable for them because as long as it’s profitable, they’re going to keep doing it. The more people pay, the more they’re going to want to do it.” (BJ Moore) Recommended ResourcesHelen Geib, Hoover Hull TurnerBJ Moore, Right Hand IT SolutionsFBI Internet Crime Compliance Center IC3A Guide to Law Firm Cybersecurity Risks & Ethical ComplianceABA Formal Op. 483Cyberattacks Have Become Commonplace – Know the Ethics of Prevention and ResponseWhat Is Cyber Insurance? Do You Need It? Millard v. Doran, No. 153262/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.)Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC, (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2020)Hiscox Ins. Co., Inc. v. Warden Grier, LLP, 474 F. Supp.3d 1004 (W.D. Mo. 2020) 

In this episode of May the Record Reflect, we continue our 50th anniversary celebration by picking up where we left off in Episode 15. Part II of this “50 Tips for 50 Years” mini-series gives you best practices for dealing with nerves at trial, how to improve your public speaking skills, and delivering a sound winning argument, as shared by NITA program directors, faculty members, authors, and members of the Board of Trustees.1:25 Dealing with nerves at trial—or anywhere15:11 Getting good at public speaking23:45 Delivering a sound closing argument29:53 Signature sign-off questionRecommended ResourcesLagos, the Rule of Law, and Gratitude (Hon. Ann Claire Williams, Hon. Marian Gaston)Namibia Teacher Training and Trial Advocacy – NITA Public Service Course (Hon. Claire Ann Williams)Ghana Advocacy Training Programs – NITA Public Service (Hon. Ann Claire Williams)Building Rapport with a Jury: Lessons in Picking the Jury that’s Right for your Case (Richard Schoenberger)Persuade, Respond, and Prevail: Essentials of Motions Argument (Terre Rushton)Ethically Speaking: Meeting the Challenges of Professionalism in Remote Proceedings (Whitney Untiedt)Serenity Now: Carol Sowers on Being Poised in the Courtroom One on One on One, with Judge Mark Drummond and Carol Sowers15 Tips for Presenting Yourself Online (Carol Sowers)Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla’s “Foolproof” Tips for Professional Communication Foolproof: The Art of Communication for Lawyers and Professionals (Rebecca Diaz-Bonilla)Maximize the Magic of Online Mediations (Sidney Kanazawa)Tips for Online Mediation in the Age of Social Distancing (Sidney Kanazawa)The Articulate Attorney: Public Speaking for Lawyers (Brian Johnson, Marsha Hunter)NITA webcasts (free)NITA podcasts (free)NITA whitepapers (free)Remote Advocacy Resources