Visual Presentations for Settlement and Trial

Litigation is a battle of meanings. Facts exist, but their legal significance is constructed in the minds of judges, jurors, mediators, and opposing counsel. This program examines how visual presentations serve as strategic tools throughout litigation - from early case development through trial - to help factfinders understand complex cases, remember critical evidence, and reach favorable conclusions.

Drawing on cognitive science research and twenty years of experience across more than 1,600 visual matters, this program provides a systematic framework for planning, designing, and deploying litigation visuals. Attendees will learn why visuals work (the cognitive architecture behind comprehension and memory), how to align visual strategy with case theory, and practical techniques for managing complexity in technical cases involving medical devices, industrial accidents, patents, and other specialized subjects. This program will benefit litigators handling cases where technical facts, sequences of events, or complex systems must be communicated clearly to non-expert audiences.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify the cognitive mechanisms that make visual presentations effective, including limited working memory, picture superiority effect, and the role of mental models in jury decision-making

2. Design visual strategy that supports case theory by mapping legal elements to specific juror tasks, using framing and definitional control to shape how evidence is interpreted

3. Apply complexity reduction techniques, segmenting, progressive disclosure, and recall management, to teach technical standards, mechanisms, and causation to lay audiences

4. Evaluate when and how to use different visual structures (timelines, causation chains, spatial reconstructions, comparison boards, quantification graphics) based on the specific persuasion task at each stage of litigation

5. Prepare visual presentations that withstand evidentiary challenges by building proper foundations, maintaining credibility through transparency and restraint, and anticipating cross-examination attacks