The Litigation Psychology Podcast

Bryan Falchuk, President & CEO of Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss several topics related to the insurance industry. Bryan shares some details on his background and describes what PLRB is, what they do, and the help they provide insurers/MGAs, service providers, and outside counsel. Bill and Bryan talk about current trends in the insurance industry, key issues around litigation, and Bryan describes how he used to manage litigation during his time as a Chief Claims Officer for an insurance carrier. Bryan shares his perspective on how the plaintiff's bar has increased their leverage in litigation and how players in the insurance defense industry are contributing to the current unbalanced situation.

Brent Turman, Partner and Trial Attorney with Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP in Dallas, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. on the podcast to talk about the hit series Suits and ethical issues that surface on the show. Brent gives an overview of an ethics CLE he presents referencing episodes of the show. Steve and Brent discuss how issues that occur in different episodes can inform the appropriate approach to litigation including mock trials, witnesses, ethical questions, competing loyalties, depositions, and more. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/X66

JFK assassination expert Jefferson Morley joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the latest updates on the JFK assassination including the recent executive order for a full and complete release of all JFK assassination records. Jefferson discusses what the FBI and CIA responses have been to the executive order, provides background on developments around digitization of some records, and his concerns about the delay of the records release since the executive order was signed. Jefferson and Bill also talk about the status of the lawsuit filed to get the JFK files released, share their thoughts on Jefferson's recent interview with Tucker Carlson, and discuss the recently surfaced audio tape that mentions LBJ's potential role in the JFK assassination. 

Bill Mitchell, Founding Partner of Cruser & Mitchell, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss deal-making and negotiation in litigation and how to be disruptive lawyer. Bill Mitchell describes his philosophy on managing litigation and how he got started taking this unconventional approach to litigation management. Bill talks about three characteristics required to operate as a disruptive lawyer: #1 - legal acumen, #2 - proactivity, #3 -  emotional intelligence. The two Bills discuss several different challenging scenarios, how Bill Mitchell addresses them, and what he recommends other attorneys doing in those situations. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Ur7

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares insights with attorneys for witness prep prior to their witness's deposition testimony. Bill emphasizes that the most important thing for witnesses is to fail during preparation in order to learn and grow so they are prepared for their deposition. This approach can be a challenge for attorneys as you don't want your witness to get mad at you or you may have concerns about hurting their confidence during the prep. It is critical for the witness to understand that their failure during preparation has value and is actually necessary in order for them to be successful during testimony. As you start your mock questioning and you observe them failing, stop and give them feedback to build awareness of their performance. How you give them feedback is very important. You have to use operant conditioning and provide both constructive and positive feedback in order to punish poor performance -  to eliminate it - and reward good behavior - to increase it. The use of these psychological principles will help you fully prepare your witness by allowing them to fail during prep and providing them with the appropriate feedback so they are ready for the real thing.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/hPR

Dr. Bill Kanasky, Jr. talks about the psychological concept of amygdala hijack, which is the fight or flight reaction, and whether to induce amygdala hijack in the plaintiff or plaintiff's expert at deposition. Bill discusses the considerations and situations in which defense counsel should and should not employ this approach and some ideas on how and when to do so: 1) Start the deposition with a surprise such as asking about a sensitive aspect of the case and apply pressure, something that you might have originally planned to do later in the deposition. This can induce a fight or flight reaction.  2) Properly use verbal and non-verbal emotion such as tone of voice, smirks, eye rolls, etc. when not getting the answer you want and then repeating questions. Amygdala hijack (fight or flight) is a neurochemical reaction that lasts inside the witness's system for 3-5 hours and gives you a distinct advantage.  3) Use your best exhibits early and don't wait until later in the deposition.

Medical malpractice trial attorney Tad Eckenrode joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the latest issues they are seeing in med mal cases. Tad and Bill discuss developments they are seeing recently including the increase in the number of 7-figure med mal cases as well as more openness from defense clients on investing in jury research to understand what these cases are really worth to help inform whether they should settle or go to trial. Tad shares the value he sees in collecting insights from mock jurors early in the life of the case, particularly during discovery and especially prior to mediation, to help shape how he approaches the strategic plan for the case and to inform the mediator of what his research shows the case is really worth. Tad and Bill talk about Gen Z jurors, artificial intelligence (AI), and attracting and retaining associates and giving them experience to help them develop and learn. They also describe examples of different witness situations and the challenges with preparing witnesses in these scenarios, including working with the growing population of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Lastly, Tad and Bill talk about the risks of witness pivoting and how to handle witnesses who come into deposition prep with a high level of anger. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/1EM

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins host Steve Wood, Ph.D. to discuss five (5) problematic witness types. Steve and Bill talk about who these witnesses are, how to identify them, and how to work with each type of witness: 1) The overly agreeable witness - a witness who is willing to agree with everything opposing counsel says or implies;  2) The defensive witness - someone who wants to argue or won't agree with even basic facts;  3) The angry witness - a witness whose rage about many/all aspects of the litigation prevent them from working constructively with the legal team and/or who are defensive in their demeanor;  4) The apathetic witness - a witness who appears uncaring;  5) The experienced witness - a potentially arrogant witness who has prior experience with testifying and therefore may believe they know what to do and what to expect which could lead to a compromised performance during testimony.  Each witness type can potentially fall victim to fight, flight, or freeze responses. Fight is an argumentative response when a witness wants to argue and defend their actions. Flight is when the witness feels scared or triggered and responds in a way to pacify the questioner via explanations and sharing too much information. And the freeze response is when the witness simply agrees with the assertions of the questioner and doesn't want to contradict them. Effective witness training requires proper neurocognitive assessment of the witness to determine their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state and an appropriate amount of time to identify potential psychological barriers that will prevent the witness from fully understanding and embracing the training and prep so their testimony can be effective. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/O5F

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares ideas on how to upgrade your voir dire by applying measurement. One of the primary purposes of voir dire is to elicit information and Bill talks about ways to extract information from jurors to get accurate responses. Bill discusses how to handle oral questioning during voir dire, including the use of a 0-10 scale and asking jurors to give one reason for their number. After going over the scientific methodology for this approach to data collection, Bill talks about the art aspect of voir dire: the setup of the question, the answer set/options given to the jurors, and what to do with their answers. As an example, when you get negative information from a juror, you don't want to punish that juror with your reaction because you want to identify other jurors who share that same perspective so you can strike them. Reacting negatively to a juror's response could shut down other jurors who may feel the same way but want to avoid your negative reaction. Lastly, Bill talks about how to do this in Federal court or if you are really short on time. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Psf

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. answer the latest podcast listener mail:  - When doing jury research and there is a confidentiality issue, should I use real names or fake names? - Should I advocate when doing jury research?  - What are the benefits of a focus group over a mock trial? - How should I handle testing evidence that may or may not come in at trial? - What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing focus groups or mock trials virtually vs. in-person? - How much should I prepare my witness with information prior to their deposition?  - Do jurors make up their minds about the case right after opening statements? Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/QEX