As experienced legal professionals would agree, a trial isn’t just about the law or the facts; it’s about persuasion. Convincing a jury—a group of ordinary citizens without legal training—can be a challenge no matter how robust your arguments may be. And sometimes, the attempts lawyers make to seem ‘relatable’ to the jury can seem contrived, diminishing their credibility. This was the theme of a recent discussion led by Senior District Judge Michael W. Mosman of the District of Oregon at the Utah State Bar IP Summit. As reported by Law360, his blunt message was clear: Authenticity is key.
Judge Mosman contended that one’s upbringing and socio-economic background can greatly influence their ability to connect with jurors. He argued that a lawyer who has grown up in a small town or a working-class environment would have experiences that resonate with those of many jurors. Conversely, the judge suggested, a lawyer with a Harvard degree and corresponding privileged background might struggle to bridge that socio-cultural gap.
This notion was also echoed by Tina Chappell, American Express vice president of IP litigation, licensing, and policy, during the panel discussion. She shared an anecdote in which she had to advise an outside counsel who arrived in Texas for a trial dressed conspicuously in a Harvard Law sweatshirt. To Chappell, this could alienate the jury and impede rapport-building efforts.
Judge Mosman also highlighted the risks of efforts to feign relatability, recalling a trial lawyer’s misguided attempt to connect with a rural jury by referring to a ‘second home in the woods,’ a phrase met with disdain by jurors more accustomed to the term ‘cabin’. However, it’s not all quite so bleak for those from esteemed backgrounds. The judge advised that instead of trying to blend in, these lawyers should leverage their strengths—simplifying complex cases and guiding the jury effectively can earn trust and favor.
This was illustrated by an anecdote from the Judge Mosman about the most effective attorney he’d seen successfully bridging this gap. The lawyer didn’t attempt to be charismatic, but focused on guiding the jury through the complex aspects of the case. In doing so, he provided a service that the jury found valuable, position himself as an ally and trusted guide.
Ultimately, the key takeaway for practitioners from this discussion was the importance of authenticity and the value of leveraging individual strengths as an attorney. For legal professionals aiming to make meaningful connections with their jurors, these insights could be invaluable.
Note: The referenced panel discussion and remarks were originally reported by Above The Law.