The value of repetition as a simple and practical strategy for persuasion at trial cannot be overstated. However, despite the fact that I repeatedly emphasize this point on repetition to clients at trial, the level of repetition is often insufficient. I have found that it is not uncommon for an attorney to believe that he or she is using repetitive language to make a point, but when reviewing transcripts, the use of this language is fairly limited. Saying something a couple of times over trial simply does not cut it. If a particular message is important, jurors need to hear it over and over again. In fact, the right amount of repetition usually exceeds attorneys’ comfort level, leaving attorneys feeling as if they are repeating arguments too much.
Sometimes, the repetition needs to be forced or creative. For example, sometimes it is important for attorneys to ask questions of witnesses that incorporate key language or facts even though the witness’s answer is not important. In other words, sometimes the question, and the repetition that is built into that direct or cross-examination question, is more important than the particular witness or that witness’s answer. In these moments, the sole purpose of asking the question is to give jurors an opportunity to hear it again. Continue reading →
Good news! Now, you don’t need to re-read your emails looking for the subtle ways you might be undermining your authority – as the saying goes, “There’s an app for that!” Called “Just Not Sorry,” the app highlights the language choices that I wrote about in an earlier blog (e.g., hedges like “I think,” intensifiers like “really,” and other qualifiers like, “just” or “actually”).
Recently, author Christina Cauterucci interviewed Tami Reiss the CEO of Cyrus Innovation, a software development consulting firm that specializes in women-led companies and tech teams, and part of the team that developed the “Just Not Sorry.” She and others referenced in the article reinforce that these language choices are not only unnecessary filler, but can also undermine the sender’s authority. As I wrote about, these language choices are so ingrained in us (particularly women), that without something or someone pointing them out, we are left unaware of the unintended consequences – hence, the app. Continue reading →
A few weeks ago I was listening to a judge give his rulings on a number of pre-trial motions. With each ruling, he began by saying, “I’m inclined to find …” The first time, I didn’t really think anything of it, but a few hours and dozens of motions later, it was clear that this judge could not make a simple and strong declarative statement. While I typically do not look for opportunities to “take on” a judge, this particular example of a powerless speaking style deserves some attention namely because of the position and also because the judge was a man.
For years, I’ve studied, lectured, and written on gender communication. The “powerful – powerless” communication continuum is part of that work and is used to describe the difference between stereotypical male vs. female communication styles. The “female” end of the continuum is often associated with “powerless” speech – speech that includes hedges and qualifiers: “perhaps,” “maybe,” “I think,” “kind of,” or “I guess”; speech that includes intensifiers: “so,” “really,” and “very”; speech that includes hesitations: “um” and “uh”; and speech that includes disclaimers: “I’m not sure, but…” or “I’m not an expert, but…” Reading these, it should be obvious that the use of these types of phrases or words weaken the statements being made. Continue reading →