The Litigation Consulting Report

Why Attorneys Should Not Run Their Own Trial Technology

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:15:00 GMT

There is a particular moment in trial that I have seen far too many times.

A lawyer is standing in front of the jury. The lawyer is prepared. The question is good. The witness has just given exactly the answer everyone hoped for.

Now the lawyer wants Exhibit 237 on the screen.

And suddenly the trial stops.

The lawyer turns toward the laptop.

Clicks something.

Nothing happens.

Clicks again.

The wrong document appears.

Someone at counsel table whispers something.

The lawyer looks back at the screen.

The jury looks at the lawyer.

And a moment that should have been about the evidence has become a moment about the technology.

This is almost entirely preventable.

Just as I recently argued in Why Lawyers Should Stop Designing Their Own PowerPoint Slides, lawyers should generally not be spending their time designing their own courtroom graphics.

I would take that principle one step further:

Trial lawyers should not be running their own trial technology either.

Not because lawyers cannot learn the technology.

Of course they can.

The question is why they would want to divide their attention between two completely different jobs at precisely the moment when their powers of persuasion matter most.

The Trial Lawyer Has One Job: Persuade

Trial is cognitively demanding.

During an examination, a good trial lawyer is simultaneously monitoring the witness, listening for nuances in the answer, watching the judge, anticipating objections, thinking several questions ahead, assessing the jury's reaction, remembering the evidentiary record, and deciding whether the original examination plan should change.

That is quite enough.

Now add:

Where is the exhibit?

Which window is active?

Did the video load?

Why is the document appearing on the attorney monitor but not the jury monitor?

Which button produces the callout?

Did I accidentally advance the PowerPoint?

Can I get back to the previous slide?

Where is the impeachment clip?

Why isn't the audio playing?

The problem is not simply that technology can malfunction.

The larger problem is that operating technology consumes attention that should be directed toward advocacy.

A professional trial technician—sometimes called a hot-seater—removes that cognitive burden.

The lawyer thinks about the witness.

The trial tech thinks about the screen.

That division of labor is enormously valuable.

Relinquish the Clicker. Really.

I made essentially the same argument years ago in Trial Lawyers, Relinquish the Clicker.

The clicker looks harmless.

It isn't.

I have watched excellent lawyers accidentally jump ahead in their presentations, struggle to return to the correct slide, lose their place, become frustrated, and eventually abandon portions of presentations they had spent weeks preparing.

And the technology problem rarely stays a technology problem.

The lawyer gets flustered.

That changes body language.

The pace changes.

Eye contact disappears.

The lawyer begins looking toward the screen or laptop rather than toward the judge or jury.

Momentum disappears.

The audience notices.

That is why giving up the clicker actually produces more control, not less.

A lawyer who has rehearsed properly with a trial technician can simply speak.

The exhibit appears.

The photograph enlarges.

The key sentence highlights.

The deposition clip plays.

The timeline advances.

The lawyer does not visibly command any of it.

To the jury, the visual presentation simply seems to follow the lawyer's thoughts.

When it is done well, it can look effortless.

Of course, it isn't effortless at all.

It is rehearsed.

Great Trial Technology Should Be Almost Invisible

Some lawyers worry that using a sophisticated trial technician makes a presentation look overly produced.

In my experience, the opposite is usually true.

Badly operated technology calls attention to itself.

Great trial technology disappears.

The jury should not be thinking:

"Wow, they have an impressive computer system."

They should be thinking:

"I understand what happened."

The best trial technician operates almost like an invisible member of the advocacy team.

As we explained in What a Great "Hot Seat Operator" Can Add to a Trial Team, an experienced technician contributes much more than computer skills.

The best trial technicians spend enormous amounts of time in courtrooms. They see what works. They see what fails. They see what irritates judges. They understand courtroom rhythm. They learn how different lawyers communicate. And they become extraordinarily good at anticipating what is likely to happen next.

When the relationship between lawyer and trial technician is working properly, the technician may be pulling up the next exhibit before the lawyer has finished asking for it.

That is not technology support.

That is teamwork.

TrialDirector Was Once State-of-the-Art. Trial Technology Has Moved On.

There is an important update to some of our older writing about trial technology.

In 2012, we published 5 Tips for Using TrialDirector and Trial Technicians Effectively.

At the time, we described inData's TrialDirector as state-of-the-art trial presentation software.

And at the time, it was.

But 2012 might as well be another technological era.

Today, Persuadius trial technicians overwhelmingly prefer OnCue for modern courtroom presentation. In a more recent article, OnCue vs. TrialDirector: How One Trial-Presentation Platform Took Over, I discussed why our technicians have moved so decisively toward OnCue.

TrialDirector is still commercially available, so it would be inaccurate to say the software literally no longer exists. But within our own trial technology practice, OnCue has become the preferred modern platform. Reveal continues to market TrialDirector, while OnCue continues actively releasing and supporting its current courtroom presentation software.

But here is the important point:

The software itself is not the competitive advantage.

The person operating it is.

Giving OnCue to someone who occasionally presents exhibits is not the same thing as putting an experienced trial technician in the hot seat.

It is like handing someone a professional camera and calling them a cinematographer.

Tools matter.

Mastery matters much more.

Trial Is a Terrible Place to Learn Technology

One of the mistakes we identified years ago in The 14 Most Preventable Trial Preparation Mistakes was asking associates or paralegals without sufficient trial-presentation experience to serve as trial technicians.

We described a case in which a trial team had insufficiently experienced personnel running the presentation and the courtroom sat waiting for roughly ten minutes during opening statements while the technology problem was addressed.

Ten minutes may not sound like much.

Try standing silently in front of twelve jurors for ten minutes while your opening statement has stopped.

It feels like an eternity.

And it creates an impression.

Prepared versus unprepared.

Organized versus disorganized.

Confident versus rattled.

Professional versus amateur.

Jurors may not understand what caused the technical failure.

They don't need to.

They experience the failure.

Trial presentation is performance, and timing is part of persuasion.

A Trial Technician Does Things a Lawyer Shouldn't Be Thinking About

Modern courtroom technology involves much more than advancing a PowerPoint.

A trial technician may be responsible for displaying and enlarging exhibits, highlighting portions of documents, creating document callouts on the fly, coordinating multiple monitors, playing synchronized deposition testimony, moving instantly among exhibits, handling audio and video, preparing impeachment material, coordinating with courtroom personnel, troubleshooting connections, maintaining redundant systems, tracking changes to demonstratives, and adapting when the judge suddenly rules that something can—or cannot—be shown.

OnCue can make many of these tasks remarkably fast in the hands of someone who knows it well. The software is specifically designed around presenting case evidence, deposition clips, documents, annotations, and other trial materials.

But the operative phrase is "in the hands of someone who knows it well."

The trial technician may perform these operations hundreds or thousands of times.

The lawyer may conduct a trial every few years.

Who should be pressing the buttons?

The answer seems obvious.

The Economics of DIY Trial Technology Don't Make Much Sense Either

There is also a financial argument.

In last month's PowerPoint article, I pointed out the strange economics of having expensive lawyers perform graphic-design work.

The same logic applies here.

Imagine an associate billing hundreds of dollars per hour spending dozens of hours building trial databases, troubleshooting video formats, preparing deposition clips, configuring courtroom equipment, learning software shortcuts, and rehearsing technical workflows.

Perhaps the associate can do all of those things.

But is that the highest-value use of the associate's time?

Probably not.

Those hours could instead be spent preparing witnesses, studying testimony, improving examination outlines, anticipating evidentiary problems, developing themes, preparing impeachment, or refining the story of the case.

That is legal work.

Trial technology is a specialized discipline.

Using specialists is not an indulgence when the stakes are high.

Frequently, it is simply efficient allocation of resources.

Good Trial Technicians Also Handle the Unexpected

This may be their greatest value.

Trials do not follow scripts.

A witness unexpectedly denies something.

Opposing counsel opens a door.

The judge changes a ruling.

A lawyer suddenly wants an exhibit that nobody expected to use until Thursday.

A deposition clip becomes relevant that nobody planned to play.

The lawyer says:

"Pull up the March 14 email."

A strong trial technician does not say:

"Give me five minutes."

The technician finds it.

Displays it.

Highlights it.

And the examination continues.

That responsiveness can dramatically change the rhythm of a cross-examination.

The evidence appears while the point is alive.

The jury sees the contradiction immediately.

The lawyer retains momentum.

There is an enormous difference between eventually showing something and showing it at exactly the moment it matters.

Technology Problems Become Credibility Problems

Lawyers sometimes describe trial technology failures as inconveniences.

I think that understates the problem.

Courtroom presentation communicates preparation.

If one side repeatedly struggles to display exhibits, searches for files, apologizes for technical problems, turns toward the laptop, or asks the jury to wait, people begin forming impressions.

Maybe consciously.

Maybe unconsciously.

By contrast, when evidence appears instantly and naturally, the trial team looks organized and in command of the case.

That does not mean a slick presentation wins a weak case.

It doesn't.

But poor execution can absolutely interfere with the presentation of a strong one.

Technology should amplify credibility, not consume it.

The Best Trial Lawyer Should Look Like Nothing Else Exists

Watch an exceptional trial lawyer supported by an exceptional trial technician.

The lawyer is looking at the witness.

Or the jury.

Or the judge.

Not the laptop.

Not the projector.

Not the clicker.

An exhibit suddenly appears.

The lawyer continues speaking.

A critical paragraph enlarges.

The lawyer continues speaking.

A photograph replaces it.

The lawyer continues speaking.

A deposition clip plays.

Then the screen goes dark because the visual has served its purpose and the jury's attention should return to the lawyer.

That coordination is extremely difficult to reproduce while simultaneously conducting the examination and operating the computer yourself.

And why would you try?

The lawyer should be doing the thing the lawyer uniquely knows how to do:

persuade.

Everything else should support that objective.

Lawyers Should Practice Law. Trial Technicians Should Run Trial Technology.

My argument here is essentially the same one I made about lawyers designing their own PowerPoint presentations.

Knowing the technology is good.

Understanding what is possible is essential.

Being able to communicate intelligently with your trial technician is valuable.

But understanding a tool and personally operating that tool during the most important moments of a multimillion-dollar trial are entirely different things.

If your client has millions—or billions—of dollars at stake, ask yourself a simple question:

Do you really want your first-chair lawyer thinking about which button to press?

I don't.

I want that lawyer thinking about the next question.

The next objection.

The witness.

The jury.

The story.

And ultimately, winning the case.

Let somebody else run the technology.

Need Trial Technology Support for an Upcoming Trial?

Persuadius provides experienced trial technicians and hot-seat operators for trials, hearings, and arbitrations nationwide. We can also integrate trial technology with litigation graphics, jury consulting, and opening-statement support so that your courtroom presentation operates as one coordinated persuasion strategy.

Book a free 15-minute case consultation to discuss your upcoming trial and the right courtroom technology team for it.

For matters requiring discretion, you can also contact Persuadius directly for a confidential conflict check.

Why Lawyers Should Stop Designing Their Own PowerPoint Slides

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:15:00 GMT

The billable hour is expensive. So why are so many litigators spending it doing graphic design?

Every trial lawyer I know has done it.

The witness outlines are finished. The opening statement is coming together. Trial is three weeks away. Someone says, "I'll just build the PowerPoint myself."

It feels efficient.

It almost never is.

After nearly three decades of watching courtroom presentations succeed and fail, I've become convinced that one of the most expensive mistakes lawyers make isn't a bad objection, a weak cross-examination, or even forgetting an exhibit.

It's believing that because PowerPoint is easy to use, effective courtroom persuasion is easy to create.

Those are two entirely different skills.

Great trial lawyers are not necessarily great presentation designers

Nobody expects a talented litigator to also be an architect.

Or an accountant.

Or a cinematographer.

Yet somehow we've convinced ourselves that because Microsoft PowerPoint is installed on every laptop, every attorney should also become a visual communicator.

That's a strange assumption.

The best trial graphics combine psychology, storytelling, graphic design, cognitive science, and an understanding of how jurors process information. Those disciplines aren't taught in law school, and they aren't mastered by clicking through PowerPoint templates.

The irony is that many lawyers spend years mastering the Federal Rules of Evidence while spending almost no time learning how people actually absorb visual information.

Your audience isn't reading your slides—they're deciding your case

Most attorneys create slides as though they are preparing notes for themselves.

Jurors don't see them that way.

Jurors experience every slide as part of a story.

A cluttered slide tells them the case is complicated.

Tiny text tells them the lawyer isn't confident enough to simplify.

Bullet points tell them they're about to be lectured instead of persuaded.

Every visual choice communicates something—whether you intended it or not.

Research in cognitive psychology has repeatedly shown that people remember information better when visuals reinforce a spoken narrative rather than compete with it. When audiences are forced to simultaneously read paragraphs while listening to a speaker, comprehension and retention suffer because attention is split between two competing tasks.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what many courtroom PowerPoints ask jurors to do.

Lawyers optimize for accuracy.

Graphic designers optimize for understanding.

Those aren't always the same thing.

Lawyers understandably want every qualifier, every exception, every citation, every date, and every fact on the screen.

Professional presentation designers ask a different question:

"What does the audience need to understand right now?"

Those are radically different objectives.

A persuasive trial presentation isn't a written brief projected on a wall.

It's visual storytelling.

The hidden cost of DIY PowerPoint

Many firms assume they're saving money by having associates create demonstratives.

Are they?

Let's do the math.

Suppose an associate bills $450 per hour.

If that associate spends 40 hours building slides—and that's conservative for a major trial—the firm has invested $18,000 in graphic design.

Not legal strategy.

Graphic design.

Now ask another question.

Did those forty hours produce graphics equal to what experienced litigation designers produce every day?

Usually not.

Even worse, every hour spent aligning text boxes or searching for icons is an hour not spent preparing witnesses, refining themes, anticipating objections, or strengthening the case itself.

Lawyers should practice law.

Designers should design.

Everyone wins.

Good PowerPoint isn't about making things prettier

One misconception refuses to die.

People assume professionally designed slides simply "look nicer."

That's missing the point.

Good courtroom graphics aren't decoration.

They're persuasion.

A well-designed timeline can clarify years of events in seconds.

An animation can explain a technical patent issue more effectively than fifteen minutes of testimony.

A scale graphic can instantly communicate the size of a manufacturing plant or the microscopic dimensions of a medical device.

A simple sequence diagram can eliminate confusion that would otherwise linger throughout deliberations.

Professional design isn't about aesthetics.

It's about reducing cognitive effort.

Every unnecessary second jurors spend figuring out your slide is one less second they're thinking about your argument.

The best lawyers simplify.

They don't complicate.

One habit I consistently see among outstanding trial lawyers is restraint.

They aren't trying to impress jurors with how much they know.

They're helping jurors understand why the case matters.

That often means using fewer words.

Fewer slides.

Stronger visuals.

Cleaner narratives.

Ironically, simplifying takes far more work than filling a slide with text.

As Blaise Pascal famously observed, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

The same is true for courtroom presentations.

But I know PowerPoint...

I'm not suggesting lawyers shouldn't know PowerPoint.

Every trial attorney should.

Just as every lawyer should know enough about e-discovery, jury consulting, demonstrative evidence, and courtroom technology to collaborate intelligently.

Knowing how PowerPoint works is valuable.

Believing that makes someone a presentation expert is another matter entirely.

It's similar to owning Photoshop.

That doesn't make someone a professional illustrator.

Judges are noticing, too

The trend toward text-heavy, slide-filled presentations hasn't gone unnoticed.

Several federal judges recently criticized excessive PowerPoint use during complex litigation, observing that lawyers often force judges and jurors to read slides instead of listening to the advocate. One judge memorably compared slide overuse to kudzu, calling it "a sin" because it distracts from the presentation rather than strengthening it.

The problem isn't PowerPoint.

The problem is how it's used.

The real question

Whenever a lawyer tells me they're designing their own slides, I ask one question.

"If this were the single most important presentation of your client's life, who would you want designing it?"

Usually, they smile.

Because they already know the answer.

Why Bullet Points Are Killing Your Persuasion: Lessons from Our Conversation with Perkins Coie

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 11:15:00 GMT

The Perkins Coie Podcast Series: Bullet Points Are Killing Your Persuasion

This article is part 5 of our continuing series (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are here) highlighting our conversation on the Persuasion Occasion podcast with Perkins Coie. In earlier installments, we discussed why fear often persuades more effectively than logic, how simplifying your opening statement strengthens your case, and how to overcome juror confirmation bias. If you missed those articles, be sure to check them out on the Persuadius blog. You can also listen to the complete podcast episode on Spotify for the full conversation.

One of the questions Jasmine Wetherell of Perkins Coie (now Ashurst Perkins Coie) asked during the podcast was one we've been answering for years.

"Why are you so against bullet points?"

The short answer?

Because they kill persuasion.

That may sound like an exaggeration, but after helping lawyers prepare thousands of opening statements over the past three decades—and after writing about this topic for more than fifteen years—we're more convinced than ever that text-heavy PowerPoint slides are one of the biggest obstacles to effective courtroom communication.

The Jury Should Never Have to Choose Between Reading and Listening

Imagine you're standing in front of a jury.

You display a slide with six bullet points.

As soon as the slide appears, every juror makes a decision.

Should I read the slide?

Or should I listen to the lawyer?

Unfortunately, they can't do both very well.

Psychologists call this the split-attention effect. When people are forced to divide their attention between reading text and listening to someone say essentially the same thing, comprehension drops. Memory drops. Persuasion drops.

The irony is hard to ignore.

The slide you created to reinforce your argument often becomes the very thing that distracts from it.

People Read Faster Than You Speak

There's another problem.

Most people read substantially faster than conversational speech.

That means your audience finishes reading your slide long before you've finished talking.

Some jurors start rereading.

Others stop listening.

Some begin studying the next exhibit or thinking about something entirely unrelated.

You've surrendered control over the pacing of your own story.

Great trial presentations don't do that.

A Slide Should Never Say What the Lawyer Is Saying

Over the years, we've distilled our philosophy into one simple rule:

A slide should never say what the lawyer is saying. It should show what the lawyer is saying.

That's the difference between an effective demonstrative and a glorified set of speaker notes.

If you're explaining a timeline, show the timeline.

If you're discussing financial losses, show the chart.

If you're describing dangerous conduct, show the evidence.

If you're telling the jury someone behaved like a predator, don't write five bullet points explaining why.

Show an image that instantly communicates the concept.

The lawyer tells the story.

The visual reinforces it.

Each has a different job.

The Best Presenters Already Know This

Watch outstanding presenters outside the courtroom.

Consider Steve Jobs introducing a new Apple product.

His slides rarely contained paragraphs of text.

Often they contained a single photograph.

A single word.

Or no words at all.

Why?

Because he understood something trial lawyers often overlook.

When the audience is watching the speaker, the slides shouldn't compete for attention.

They should amplify the message.

There's no reason opening statements can't follow the same principle.

What Should You Do Instead?

If you're tempted to fill your next opening statement with bullet points, consider these alternatives instead:

Use a compelling photograph.
Show the actual evidence.
Replace paragraphs with diagrams or timelines.
Use a short headline instead of a complete sentence.
Let your spoken words carry the explanation while the visual reinforces the story.

Your slides are there to make your argument easier to understand—not to become the argument themselves.

We've Been Saying This for Years

This isn't a new idea for us.

In fact, some of our earliest articles on trial graphics challenged the legal profession's addiction to bullet points. The technology has changed dramatically over the years.

The science hasn't.

If anything, modern cognitive psychology has only strengthened the case against reading text-heavy slides to an audience.

The courtroom is a storytelling environment.

Stories are remembered.

Bullet points usually aren't.

Continue Reading

If this topic interests you, we've explored it in much greater depth in these Persuadius articles:

You'll also find dozens of additional articles on trial graphics, opening statements, persuasion, and demonstrative evidence throughout the Persuadius blog.

Listen to the Full Conversation

This article is adapted from our appearance on Persuasion Occasion, the podcast produced by Perkins Coie. If you enjoyed this discussion, listen to the full episode on Spotify, where we explore trial strategy, persuasion, opening statements, jury psychology, and much more.

Here is my segment on the bullet points from the Persuasion Occasion:

Need Help Preparing Your Next Opening Statement?

Persuadius has spent more than 30 years helping trial teams transform complex evidence into clear, persuasive courtroom presentations through jury consulting, litigation graphics, and trial technology support.

Schedule a complimentary 15-minute case consultation to discuss your upcoming trial.

Or email us confidentially to learn how our team can help you tell your client's story more effectively.

I have one strategic suggestion. Rather than calling this "Part 5" (or whatever the number ends up being), I'd subtitle it:

The PowerPoint Slide That Made Everyone Stop and Think

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:29:59 GMT

Part 4 of the Persuasion Occasion podcast series with Perkins Coie (see parts 1, 2, 3, and the full podcast on Spotify)

Trial consultants love stories.

Unfortunately, facts occasionally insist on participating.

One of my favorite persuasion lessons comes from an antitrust matter involving the proposed merger of two of the largest airlines at the time. The case never produced quite the courtroom drama we imagined. The matter settled a couple of weeks before trial, and like many high-stakes cases, the final resolution came before every argument could be fully tested in court.

Yet one demonstrative from that matter taught me more about persuasion than many cases that actually went to verdict.

The exhibit was almost embarrassingly simple.

It wasn't a 3D animation.

It wasn't a sophisticated economic model.

It wasn't a dazzling piece of trial graphics.

It was a slowly scrolling list of airline bankruptcies.

Just a list.

One name after another.

Many of them familiar.

Eastern.

Pan Am.

TWA.

Braniff.

People of a certain age recognize these names immediately. They were once household brands. Today, they're gone.

And as the list continues to scroll, something interesting happens.

You start to see the airline industry differently. Here's my explanation below:

Every Audience Arrives with a Story

One of the recurring themes we've discussed throughout this series is that people don't enter a courtroom as blank slates.

Judges don't.

Jurors don't.

Executives don't.

Everyone arrives carrying a story.

In an antitrust case involving a major merger, the story often sounds something like this:

Big companies are getting bigger.
Competition is shrinking.
Consumers may ultimately pay the price.

Those aren't irrational assumptions. In many situations, they may be entirely reasonable.

But effective persuasion often isn't about proving those assumptions wrong.

It's about helping the audience recognize that the situation may be more complicated than they initially believed.

That's where the bankruptcy exhibit came in.

The exhibit wasn't designed to tell anyone what conclusion to reach.

It wasn't designed to prove that the merger should be approved.

It simply introduced another reality that many people hadn't considered:

The airline business is incredibly difficult.

The Goal Wasn't to Win an Argument

Lawyers sometimes assume that every demonstrative must directly prove a legal point.

I disagree.

The most effective demonstratives often serve a different purpose.

They provide context.

They help the audience see a problem from a perspective they hadn't previously considered.

The scrolling list of airline failures wasn't arguing.

It was reminding.

Reminding viewers that despite the public perception of airlines as giant corporations, the industry itself has historically been brutal.

Failure is common.

Profitability is elusive.

Even famous companies disappear.

Whether or not that fact ultimately changes the legal outcome is almost beside the point.

The exhibit succeeded because it caused people to pause.

And in persuasion, a pause can be incredibly valuable.

The Most Important Moment in Persuasion

Many lawyers think persuasion begins when the audience agrees with them.

In reality, persuasion often begins much earlier.

It begins when the audience stops being certain.

The most important transition is often not:

"You're right."

It's:

"I hadn't thought about it that way."

That small shift opens the door to everything else.

It creates curiosity.

It weakens confirmation bias.

It encourages people to examine evidence they might otherwise dismiss.

And remarkably, that shift is often created not by a brilliant legal argument but by a simple visual.

The Lesson Applies Far Beyond Antitrust

Although this example comes from an antitrust matter, the principle applies everywhere.

In product liability litigation, the overlooked fact may be how difficult it is to design a product that is both safe and practical.

In employment litigation, it may be the challenge of managing thousands of employees across multiple locations.

In construction disputes, it may be the countless variables affecting schedules and budgets.

Every case contains facts that the audience has not fully considered.

The best demonstratives don't always answer the ultimate question.

Sometimes they simply illuminate those forgotten facts.

Simplicity Wins

After nearly three decades in litigation consulting, I've learned that some of the most persuasive visuals are also the simplest.

Not because audiences dislike complexity.

But because simple visuals allow audiences to discover a truth for themselves.

The airline bankruptcy exhibit wasn't memorable because it was flashy.

It was memorable because it was undeniable.

One company after another.

One bankruptcy after another.

A visual reminder that the story was more complicated than it first appeared.

And that's often the highest goal of persuasion.

Not to tell people what to think.

To help them see something they hadn't seen before.

Work With Persuadius

If you’re preparing for trial and need help breaking through judge or juror bias—whether through jury research, litigation graphics, or in-court strategy—we can help.

Book a free 15-minute case consultation: https://calendly.com/kenlopez/15-minute-case-consultation
Or email us confidentially: confidential@persuadius.com

The Simplest Storytelling Trick for Persuasion Might Have Come from South Park

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Mon, 11 May 2026 11:45:01 GMT

I’ve been hesitant to share this method for a long time because I was afraid my smart readership wouldn’t take it seriously.

As I’ve gotten older, though, I’ve come to appreciate really simple tests that explain a lot. Some of these simple tests might sound strange, but they’re useful rules I can actually live by.

If my clothes don't fit, the dry cleaner did not shrink them.
The best measure of my losing or gaining weight is changing punch holes on either my belt or my watch.
If I've ever had to pay lawyers to deal with you, we can no longer be connected on social media.
Keys. Wallet. Phone. Watch. And somehow I still forget.
And if you can connect major points in an opening statement with "and then," then it's not done yet.

I’ve written a lot about persuasive storytelling techniques for judges and juries over the years, including:

So it’s that fifth simple rule that I’m writing about today.

The so-called “And-But-Therefore” rule of storytelling was popularized by the writers of South Park.

Yes, South Park. That’s why I haven’t brought it up before.

But it’s so good.

The “And Then” Problem in Trial Storytelling

The creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have talked publicly about a simple storytelling test they use when writing episodes.

They argue that between every major story beat, you should ideally be able to insert either:

“but”
or “therefore”

—not “and then.”

Why?

Because “and then” merely describes a sequence of events.

“But” introduces conflict.

“Therefore” introduces consequence.

That distinction matters enormously in persuasion.

Consider this weak opening statement structure:

The company launched the product, and then customers complained, and then the FDA investigated, and then the CEO resigned.

Nothing is technically wrong with it. But it feels flat because events are simply being stacked next to each other.

Now compare it to this:

The company launched the product, but early safety warnings were ignored.
Therefore, customers were harmed.
But instead of issuing a recall, executives minimized the problem.
Therefore, regulators intervened.

Now we have causation.

Momentum.

Escalation.

The story pulls the listener forward.

Jurors Crave Causation, Not Chronology

One of the biggest storytelling mistakes trial lawyers make is confusing timelines with narratives.

A timeline answers:

“What happened next?”

A persuasive story answers:

“Why did what happened next become inevitable?”

Read that again. It's so important.

Jurors are not simply trying to memorize facts. They are unconsciously searching for meaning, motivation, cause, and consequence.

That is why so many opening statements feel informational rather than persuasive. They often become long chains of “and then.”

The witness said this, and then…
The company sent this email, and then…
The plaintiff responded, and then…

A jury may follow the sequence perfectly and still feel emotionally disconnected from the case.

“But” and “therefore” force advocates to connect the dots.

And forcing yourself to connect the dots is often where persuasion actually begins.

The Hidden Power of “But”

“But” may be the single most important word in persuasive storytelling.

Why?

Because conflict creates attention.

Human beings are prediction machines. The moment a listener senses conflict, contradiction, danger, hypocrisy, or tension, attention increases automatically.

That’s why effective trial themes often contain built-in tension:

“Safety was their top priority — but only when people were watching.”
“The contract looked clear — but the fine print changed everything.”
“The technology was revolutionary — but nobody tested it under real-world conditions.”

Conflict is memorable.

Conflict is emotional.

Conflict creates narrative gravity.

“Therefore” Is the Word of Accountability

If “but” creates tension, “therefore” creates responsibility.

“Therefore” forces causation.

It pushes the advocate to explain why one decision logically led to another consequence.

That’s critical in litigation because legal persuasion is often fundamentally about causation.

The best opening statements do not merely present facts. They create a chain of inevitability.

The defendant ignored warning signs. Therefore, disaster became predictable.

The witness concealed information. Therefore, trust collapsed.

The company prioritized speed over safety. Therefore, people got hurt.

The partners were known liars. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before he would be betrayed.

That structure feels persuasive because it mirrors how human beings naturally process blame, responsibility, and consequence.

A Surprisingly Useful Editing Test for Opening Statements

Here’s the practical takeaway.

Take your opening statement outline and look only at the transitions between major ideas.

If most of them can honestly be summarized as:

“and then…”

you probably have more work to do.

But if the transitions naturally become:

“but…”
“therefore…”

you may finally have a genuine story instead of a chronology.

And yes, it’s slightly ridiculous that one of the best storytelling lessons for trial lawyers may have come from South Park.

But persuasive ideas should be judged by whether they work — not by where they came from.

Final Thought

Many trial lawyers think storytelling in litigation means making the case more entertaining.

It usually doesn’t.

More often, effective courtroom storytelling means making causation clearer.

“But” creates tension.

“Therefore” creates consequence.

And together, they transform disconnected facts into persuasive narrative.

That’s not comedy writing.

That’s persuasion.

The Litigation Consulting Report

Why Attorneys Should Not Run Their Own Trial Technology

The Trial Lawyer Has One Job: Persuade

Relinquish the Clicker. Really.

Great Trial Technology Should Be Almost Invisible

TrialDirector Was Once State-of-the-Art. Trial Technology Has Moved On.

Trial Is a Terrible Place to Learn Technology

A Trial Technician Does Things a Lawyer Shouldn't Be Thinking About

The Economics of DIY Trial Technology Don't Make Much Sense Either

Good Trial Technicians Also Handle the Unexpected

Technology Problems Become Credibility Problems

The Best Trial Lawyer Should Look Like Nothing Else Exists

Lawyers Should Practice Law. Trial Technicians Should Run Trial Technology.

Related Persuadius Articles

Need Trial Technology Support for an Upcoming Trial?

Why Lawyers Should Stop Designing Their Own PowerPoint Slides

Great trial lawyers are not necessarily great presentation designers

Your audience isn't reading your slides—they're deciding your case

Lawyers optimize for accuracy.

The hidden cost of DIY PowerPoint

Good PowerPoint isn't about making things prettier

The best lawyers simplify.

But I know PowerPoint...

Judges are noticing, too

The real question

Related Persuadius Articles

Need Help With Your Next Trial Presentation?

Why Bullet Points Are Killing Your Persuasion: Lessons from Our Conversation with Perkins Coie

The Perkins Coie Podcast Series: Bullet Points Are Killing Your Persuasion

The Jury Should Never Have to Choose Between Reading and Listening

People Read Faster Than You Speak

A Slide Should Never Say What the Lawyer Is Saying

The Best Presenters Already Know This

What Should You Do Instead?

We've Been Saying This for Years

Continue Reading

Listen to the Full Conversation

Need Help Preparing Your Next Opening Statement?

The PowerPoint Slide That Made Everyone Stop and Think

Every Audience Arrives with a Story

The Goal Wasn't to Win an Argument

The Most Important Moment in Persuasion

The Lesson Applies Far Beyond Antitrust

Simplicity Wins

Work With Persuadius

The Simplest Storytelling Trick for Persuasion Might Have Come from South Park

The “And Then” Problem in Trial Storytelling

Jurors Crave Causation, Not Chronology

The Hidden Power of “But”

“Therefore” Is the Word of Accountability

A Surprisingly Useful Editing Test for Opening Statements

Final Thought

Related articles offering even more advice about storytelling for courtroom persuasion: