The Litigation Consulting Report

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.

Jury Consulting for Pharma Product Liability Trials

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 13:45:00 GMT

Pharmaceutical product liability trials are some of the most difficult cases a jury will ever be asked to decide. They are built on science, filtered through fear, and decided by people who usually know very little about either. That is what makes jury consulting for pharmaceutical product liability trials so important.

Most trial teams prepare these cases as if the verdict will turn on technical accuracy. Sometimes it does. More often, it turns on whether jurors understand the science, trust the witnesses, and believe the story makes sense.

That distinction shapes everything.

In pharmaceutical cases, jurors are rarely deciding between “right” and “wrong” science. They are deciding which side made the science understandable, which witnesses felt credible, and which narrative gave them the clearest path to a verdict. That is why pharmaceutical litigation trial consulting matters. It is not just about polishing arguments. It is about understanding how jurors think before they decide.

At Persuadius, we work with trial teams to test the themes, witnesses, and visual strategies that shape outcomes in complex pharmaceutical matters. The goal is not simply to present a stronger case. It is to understand how jurors will actually receive it.

Why Pharma Product Liability Cases Are So Difficult for Jurors

Pharmaceutical trials ask jurors to do something unusual. They must absorb highly technical evidence, weigh expert disagreement, evaluate corporate conduct, and make decisions about risk, responsibility, and causation—often all at once.

That is a difficult task for any jury.

A typical pharmaceutical product liability case may require jurors to understand:

clinical trial design
adverse event data
regulatory timelines
physician decision-making
warnings and labeling
epidemiology and causation
internal corporate conduct
competing scientific experts

Lawyers often assume jurors will process this information analytically. Most do not.

Jurors process complex evidence the way all people do: through intuition first, then logic second. They ask themselves whether the company seems trustworthy. Whether the plaintiff feels credible. Whether the risk seems foreseeable. Whether the science sounds honest or evasive.

That is why many pharmaceutical cases are not won by the side with the best science. They are won by the side that makes the science easier to believe.

Why Product Liability Jury Research Matters Early

One of the most common mistakes in pharmaceutical litigation is waiting too long to test how jurors actually respond to the case.

By the time most trial teams hear genuine juror reactions, they are already in trial.

That is too late.

Product liability jury research allows trial teams to test how jurors react to the central components of the case before those reactions harden into trial risk. It helps answer the questions that matter most:

Which liability themes feel intuitive?
Which scientific explanations create confusion?
Which corporate documents trigger anger?
Which witnesses build trust?
Which damages themes feel legitimate?
Which arguments sound defensive, even when true?

These are not academic questions. They are often the difference between a theory that looks persuasive in a conference room and one that survives deliberation.

Good product liability jury research also reveals something trial teams often miss: jurors do not react to scientific complexity by thinking harder. They often react by simplifying. They reduce complex evidence into intuitive judgments about motive, trust, and responsibility.

That simplification is predictable. It can also be tested.

What Mock Trials and Focus Groups Actually Reveal

Many lawyers think mock trials and focus groups are useful because they tell you who is winning.

That is not their greatest value.

The best mock trials and focus groups reveal why jurors are leaning one way, what facts they are using to justify that position, and which themes they carry into deliberation.

That is far more useful.

A well-designed mock in a pharmaceutical case does not just test verdict preference. It shows:

where jurors assign blame
which expert they trust and why
what evidence they ignore
which phrases they repeat in deliberation
what they misunderstand
what makes them angry
what gives them permission to compromise

Those insights often reshape the case more than any expert report.

Mock trials and focus groups are especially valuable in pharmaceutical matters because jurors rarely deliberate the way lawyers expect. They do not move cleanly through legal elements. They build narratives. They search for coherence. They look for a moral center.

That is what should be tested.

Why Jury Selection and Voir Dire Strategy Matter More in Pharma

In many cases, jury selection is important.

In pharmaceutical cases, jury selection and voir dire strategy can be decisive.

These jurors do not walk into court as blank slates. They bring opinions about:

pharmaceutical companies
corporate profit
chronic illness
personal responsibility
medical risk
scientific expertise
government regulation
lawsuits in general

Some jurors assume pharmaceutical companies put profits over safety. Others assume plaintiffs are blaming companies for risks they willingly accepted. Many hold both views at once.

That is what makes jury selection and voir dire strategy so important in these cases. The goal is not simply to identify bias. It is to identify which biases matter, which are movable, and which will dominate deliberation.

Strong jury selection and voir dire strategy helps trial teams identify:

anti-corporate bias that may drive liability
distrust of experts that may undermine science
deference to regulators that may benefit the defense
skepticism toward damages claims
emotional responses to health and safety themes
jurors whose life experiences may shape risk perception

The most dangerous juror is not always the one with the strongest opinion. It is often the one whose beliefs align most naturally with the other side’s narrative.

Trial Strategy Consulting Is Really About Narrative Discipline

In pharmaceutical trials, trial strategy consulting is often framed as case refinement.

In practice, it is usually about narrative discipline.

These cases generate enormous amounts of information. The temptation is to present all of it. That is almost always a mistake.

Jurors do not reward completeness. They reward clarity.

The most effective trial strategy consulting in pharmaceutical matters helps trial teams decide:

what the case is really about
which science matters most
which witnesses carry trust
which themes should lead
what evidence belongs in the background
what the jury must remember after deliberations begin

That kind of discipline is difficult in technically dense cases. It is also where many verdicts are won.

Jurors do not need every fact. They need the right facts, in the right order, attached to the right story.

Why Trial Graphics Matter More in Pharma Than Almost Anywhere Else

In pharmaceutical litigation, the side that explains the science most clearly usually has the advantage.

This is where trial graphics stop being presentation tools and become persuasion tools.

Good trial graphics in pharmaceutical cases do more than illustrate evidence. They reduce complexity, impose structure, and help jurors retain meaning.

That may include:

mechanism-of-action visuals
regulatory timelines
warning evolution graphics
adverse event charts
clinical study simplification
corporate knowledge timelines
causation frameworks

The value is not just visual clarity. It is cognitive relief.

Jurors are more likely to trust information they can organize. In pharmaceutical cases, graphics often provide that structure.

The point is not to simplify science until it becomes shallow. The point is to simplify it until it becomes usable.

What Good Jury Consulting Really Does

The best jury consulting for pharmaceutical product liability trials does not just make a case more polished. It makes it more testable, more understandable, and more aligned with how jurors actually decide difficult cases.

That is the real value of pharmaceutical litigation trial consulting.

It helps trial teams see the case as jurors will see it. It sharpens product liability jury research. It improves mock trials and focus groups. It strengthens jury selection and voir dire strategy. It gives trial strategy consulting a clearer foundation.

Most importantly, it helps trial teams stop guessing what jurors will do with complicated evidence and start testing what they actually will.

That is how better trial decisions get made.

If you are preparing for a pharmaceutical matter, that kind of clarity is not just useful. It is often the difference between a case that feels strong in preparation and one that proves strong in deliberation.

Work With Persuadius on Your Next Pharma Trial

If you are preparing for a pharmaceutical product liability matter, the right jury consulting strategy can strengthen every major trial decision—from theme development to voir dire to verdict.

Persuadius helps trial teams build clearer narratives, test critical arguments, and make smarter decisions before trial begins.

Book a free 15-minute case consultation: https://calendly.com/kenlopez/15-minute-case-consultation

Or send a confidential email to confidential@persuadius.com

How to Break Juror Confirmation Bias (Using a Surprisingly Simple Trick)

ken@persuadius.com (Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.) — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:45:00 GMT

Part 3: Insights from the Persuasion Occasion Podcast with Perkins Coie

Most trial lawyers understand confirmation bias in theory.

Fewer know how to actually break it in real time—inside a courtroom, with a jury that has already made up its mind.

That’s exactly where this next insight comes in.

In my conversation with David Biderman and Jasmine Wetherell on the Persuasion Occasion podcast from Perkins Coie, we got into a technique that sounds counterintuitive at first… and then becomes hard to ignore.

The Problem: Most Jurors Decide Early—and Stay There

If you’ve tried cases, you’ve felt this.

Jurors don’t wait until closing argument to decide.

They decide early—often during opening statement—and then spend the rest of the trial doing something very human:

They filter.

They listen for what confirms their initial impression…
and quietly dismiss what doesn’t.

That’s confirmation bias, and it’s one of the most powerful forces in the courtroom.

Once it locks in, persuasion becomes exponentially harder.

The Counterintuitive Solution: Make Them Work

Here’s where things get interesting.

During the interview, I floated a technique I haven’t seen widely used—but I believe has enormous potential:

If you want a juror to really process something…
make it slightly harder to process.

Not confusing. Not sloppy.

Just enough friction to force engagement. I've included that video conversation below:

The “Desirable Difficulty” Effect in the Courtroom

There’s a concept in cognitive psychology often referred to as desirable difficulty—when something requires a bit more effort, people process it more deeply and remember it better.

In the courtroom, that can translate into something surprisingly simple:

A font that’s slightly harder to read
A visual that doesn’t instantly “click”
A slide that makes the juror pause and ask: “Wait—what is this?”

That pause matters.

Because in that moment, the juror is no longer passively confirming what they already believe.

They are actively thinking.

Why This Breaks Confirmation Bias

In the podcast, David captured it perfectly:

You’re forcing the jury to figure out how this connects.

Exactly.

And that “figuring out” is the key.

When a juror has to:

Re-read
Re-examine
Reconcile something unexpected

…they momentarily step outside their confirmation bias.

That’s your opening.

A Strategic Use Case: When You’re the “Bad Guy”

This technique isn’t for every moment.

In fact, used incorrectly, it could be distracting or even irritating.

But there’s one scenario where it becomes especially powerful:

When the jury has already decided you’re the villain.

If you’re defending:

A large corporation
An unpopular position
A fact pattern that feels wrong at first glance

…you are fighting uphill against early bias.

And traditional clarity—while still essential—may not be enough.

In those moments, introducing a controlled moment of friction can:

Interrupt the narrative the juror has settled into
Re-open cognitive processing
Create a second chance to be heard

A Word of Caution (This Isn’t About Being Clever)

Let’s be clear.

This is not an invitation to:

Use ugly slides
Confuse your audience
Abandon the core principles of great trial graphics

In fact, those principles still rule:

One idea per visual
Instantly understandable structure
No unnecessary text

But within that framework, there’s room—sparingly—for something unexpected.

Something that makes the juror pause.

The Bigger Idea: Engagement Beats Passive Agreement

The real takeaway isn’t about fonts or visuals.

It’s about engagement.

A juror who passively agrees with you is good.

A juror who actively thinks through your argument is far more powerful.

Because that juror has now participated in the persuasion you are offering up.

And once someone participates, they’re far more likely to own the conclusion.

Watch the Full Conversation

This insight is just one moment from a broader conversation with Perkins Coie’s litigation team on persuasion, storytelling, and trial strategy.

👉 Watch the full Persuasion Occasion interview here:
https://perkinscoie.com/insights/podcast/ken-lopez-persuadius-explains-what-actually-persuades-jury

Final Thought

Most trial strategy focuses on making things easier for the jury.

And that’s usually right.

But occasionally—strategically—making something just a little harder…

…might be exactly what gets them to finally see your case.

Work With Persuadius

If you’re preparing for trial and need help breaking through 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 Litigation Consulting Report

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:

Jury Consulting for Pharma Product Liability Trials

Why Pharma Product Liability Cases Are So Difficult for Jurors

Why Product Liability Jury Research Matters Early

What Mock Trials and Focus Groups Actually Reveal

Why Jury Selection and Voir Dire Strategy Matter More in Pharma

Trial Strategy Consulting Is Really About Narrative Discipline

Why Trial Graphics Matter More in Pharma Than Almost Anywhere Else

What Good Jury Consulting Really Does

Work With Persuadius on Your Next Pharma Trial

Related Articles and Free Resources on Pharma, Science, and Product Liability Litigation

Related Articles

Recommended Free Downloads

How to Break Juror Confirmation Bias (Using a Surprisingly Simple Trick)

Part 3: Insights from the Persuasion Occasion Podcast with Perkins Coie

The Problem: Most Jurors Decide Early—and Stay There

The Counterintuitive Solution: Make Them Work

The “Desirable Difficulty” Effect in the Courtroom

Why This Breaks Confirmation Bias

A Strategic Use Case: When You’re the “Bad Guy”

A Word of Caution (This Isn’t About Being Clever)

The Bigger Idea: Engagement Beats Passive Agreement

Watch the Full Conversation

Final Thought

Work With Persuadius

Related Persuadius Articles