Litigation strategy

Last updated

Litigation strategy is the process by which counsel for one party to a lawsuit intends to integrate their actions with anticipated events and reactions to achieve the overarching goal of the litigation. The strategic goal may be the verdict, or the damages or sentence awarded in the case. Alternatively, in the case of impact litigation (also known as strategic litigation) the goal may be more far-reaching, such as setting legal precedent, affecting consumer-safety standards, or reshaping the public's perception of a societal issue. [1] Broader goals and more challenging cases require a strategist with a greater understanding of, and facility with, the tools of litigation strategy.

Contents

Attorneys who apply advanced strategic concepts (such as Maneuver and the Boyd Loop), which are not taught in most law schools, may gain a decisive advantage over attorneys who are unfamiliar with the skill set and who, because of their unfamiliarity, can be unwittingly maneuvered into disadvantageous actions. The resulting imbalance has led to academic criticism of the use of advanced strategic techniques. For instance, Hugh Selby of Australian National University's College of Law has been particularly critical of its use by prosecutors, who already wield the massive power of the state against often poorly resourced defendants. [2] The counterargument is that strategy can correct already-existing imbalances in the system, allowing a sole or two-attorney law firm with an indigent client to level the playing field against a large law firm with a wealthy corporate client, and allowing attorneys with little trial experience to effectively try cases against vastly more experienced opposing counsel. [3]

Description

Strategy is the process of designing and achieving a desired final outcome. [4] Basic litigation strategies organize a case so that it has a cohesive focus. Advanced strategies will anticipate and even shape events, decisively guiding the situation to the desired outcome. Litigation strategies are either primarily direct or primarily indirect, though they usually include elements of both. [5] In litigation, direct strategies argue: 1) what the law does or does not say; 2) what the facts are or are not; or, 3) who has the more believable witnesses. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, shift the point of conflict, alter perceptions of what is central, or undermine the opposing counsels’ case without direct confrontation, often through deception, surprise or misdirection of the opponent—though never of the jury. [6]

Trial advocacy offers a number of tools and methods for constructing sound strategies.

On a practical level, litigation strategy commonly includes an assessment of resources of all parties to the dispute, which can inform attritional considerations and likely attitude to risk, tactical court applications such as injunction applications or other tactical procedures aimed at gaining an advantage over the opponent or even a decisive blow and end to the dispute. Timing is also generally an essential part of any litigation strategy.

Tools of litigation strategy

Case diagrams

With this organizational tool, attorneys list the elements of the case they are required to prove (or intend to disprove) then list all the evidence they intend to leverage in support of each element. The purpose is to ensure they address all the issues of the case and to make certain that meeting one element does not require undercutting the evidence in support of another. [7]

Theme and theory

These messaging tools bring force and greater direction to the evidence. [8] The theme is a sound bite that encapsulates logic or emotional force of the attorney's case. The theory of the case is a logical description of events that the attorney wants the judge or jury to adopt as their own perception of the underlying situation. The theory is often expressed in a story that should be compellingly probable. [9]

Theme and theory become strategic tools when they serve as the core for the organization of the case. These tools are effective when every aspect of the trial, including the actions and reactions of the adversary, are organized and incorporated in support of them. In practice, a lawyer writes the closing argument first and then works backward to plan the argument.

Maneuver strategy

Maneuver is a strategic philosophy that leverages the indirect approach through its focus on individual decision making and perception. It is ideally suited to litigation, wherein the jury's perception decides the outcome. The core of maneuver is the decision cycle as described in Boyd’s OODA Loop.

This model notes that in decision-making, individuals (witness, opposing counsel, jurors) go through a process of observation (receiving information), orientation (deciding what the information means to them and what they might do about it), decision (picking a course of action from among the possibilities), and then acting (taking the course of action). [10] Like most models, the OODA Loop is not a technical description, but it is rather a tool for illustrating important points for strategists.

While litigation presents opportunities for information denial through the rules of privilege and work product, even more opportunities to shape the conduct of opposing counsel and hostile witnesses arise in the orientation phase. [11] Psychology offers deep insights into how individuals perceive and misperceive information. Moreover, an individual’s perception of a situation affects how he frames his decisions. By altering perceptions, litigators can shape the decision the party will make. [12] Coupling this understanding of psychology with utility theory / economic game theory, attorneys can set the stage for adversarial parties to take actions that serve the attorneys’ plan. [13] At the same time, the attorneys must protect their own decision-making while retaining a degree of control over the evolving situation. [14] The methods for protecting one's own decision-making include making accurate predictions (using tools from psychology and utility theory), validating planned actions, having a clear focus of effort and information flow, and building sound, powerful, and flexible plans, as can be done using a “line of effort.” [15]

Lines of effort

A line of effort can organize the attorneys' planned actions in the way a case diagram organizes their evidence. Because of the uncertainty inherent in trial practice, the litigators’ strategic plan must be powerful, yet flexible, to remain effective. The line of effort produces the needed power and flexibility by structuring the plan around the purpose and an achievable end state that realizes the purpose, the aims (the elements necessary, or chosen to achieve the end state), and the levers or effects (the actions the counsel can take that are likely to bring about the targeted aims). [16]

The visual nature a line of effort allows the attorneys using it to see the entirety of the trial, ensuring their plan comprehensively addresses the situation, and identifying points of high uncertainty where having prepared branch plans would be prudent. It further allows the attorney to exploit unexpected opportunities with an understanding of what elements of his/her plan will be enhanced and which will require further adaptation, making the opportunistic action not only clear-sighted, but focused and efficient.

In a fluid situation, any levers or aims rendered obsolete by changes in the situation are swapped out, retaining the bulk of the previously analyzed and validated plan intact, and providing a clear focus for the branch plan or substituted actions. [17]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrister</span> Lawyer specialised in court representation in certain jurisdictions

A barrister is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly specialize in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include arguing cases in courts and tribunals, drafting legal pleadings, researching the law and giving legal opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cross-examination</span> The interrogation of a witness called by ones opponent

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect. A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses.

The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the lawyer/side/party that called such witness in a trial. Direct examination is usually performed to elicit evidence in support of facts which will satisfy a required element of a party's claim or defense.

A hostile witness, also known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness. This concept is used in the legal proceedings in the United States, and analogues of it exist in other legal systems in Western countries.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Boyd (military strategist)</span> American fighter pilot and strategist (1927–1997)

John Richard Boyd was a United States Air Force fighter pilot and Pentagon consultant during the second half of the 20th century. His theories have been highly influential in military, business, and litigation strategies and planning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">OODA loop</span> Observe–orient–decide–act cycle

The OODA loop is a decision-making model developed by United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. He applied the concept to the combat operations process, often at the operational level during military campaigns. It is often applied to understand commercial operations and learning processes. The approach explains how agility can overcome raw power in dealing with human opponents.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maneuver warfare</span> Military strategy focused on movement

Maneuver warfare, or manoeuvre warfare, is a military strategy which emphasizes movement, initiative and surprise to achieve a position of advantage. Maneuver seeks to inflict losses indirectly by envelopment, encirclement and disruption, while minimizing the need to engage in frontal combat. In contrast to attrition warfare where strength tends to be applied against strength, maneuver warfare attempts to apply strength against weakness in order to accomplish the mission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Closing argument</span> Concluding statement of each partys counsel in a trial

A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at trial. It is not customary to raise objections during closing arguments, except for egregious behavior. However, such objections, when made, can prove critical later in order to preserve appellate issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opening statement</span> Beginning statement in a court case

An opening statement is generally the first occasion that the trier of fact has to hear from a lawyer in a trial, aside possibly from questioning during voir dire. The opening statement is generally constructed to serve as a "road map" for the fact-finder. This is especially essential, in many jury trials, since jurors know nothing at all about the case before the trial,. Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial. Attorneys generally conclude opening statements with a reminder that at the conclusion of evidence, the attorney will return to ask the fact-finder to find in his or her client's favor.

In United States law, multidistrict litigation (MDL) refers to a special federal legal procedure designed to speed the process for handling complex cases with numerous plaintiffs making similar claims, such as air disaster litigation or complex product liability suits.

Trial advocacy is the branch of knowledge concerned with making attorneys and other advocates more effective in trial proceedings. Trial advocacy is an essential trade skill for litigators and is taught in law schools and continuing legal education programs. It may also be taught in primary, secondary, and undergraduate schools, usually as a mock trial elective.

Richard C. Waites, J.D., Ph.D.,, a noted board certified trial attorney and social psychologist, is an internationally recognized expert in jury and courtroom decision maker research, a field he helped to develop and that he continues to advance.

Rosenman & Colin LLP was a New York City-based law firm that practiced from 1912 to 2002, at which point the firm merged with Chicago-based Katten Muchin Zavis to form Katten Muchin Rosenman. The firm previously practiced under the name Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dan K. Webb</span> American lawyer (born 1945)

Daniel K. Webb is an American lawyer and public official. He is the co-executive chairman of the international law firm of Winston & Strawn. He is a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and previously served as the Special Counsel in the Iran-Contra affair. As the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, he was the top federal law enforcement official in the city of Chicago on behalf of the United States Department of Justice. As U.S. Attorney, Webb led Operation Greylord and successfully prosecuted 76 corrupt judges, police officers, court clerks, and lawyers.

Eric Gibbs is an American attorney at Gibbs Law Group LLP in the United States. He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of California. As a part of the American Association for Justice, he co-chairs the Consumer Privacy and Data Breach Litigation Group and the Lumber Liquidators Litigation Group, and serves as the secretary for the Qui Tam Litigation Group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ervin A. Gonzalez</span> American lawyer (1960–2017)

Ervin A. Gonzalez was an American civil trial attorney whose practice focused on wrongful death, personal injury, medical negligence, product liability and class action torts. He was a partner with the law firm Colson Hicks Eidson in the firm's Coral Gables office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strategic litigation</span> Litigation intended to change society

Strategic litigation, also known as impact litigation, is the practice of bringing lawsuits intended to affect societal change. Impact litigation cases may be class action lawsuits or individual claims with broader significance, and may rely on statutory law arguments or on constitutional claims. Such litigation has been widely and successfully used to influence public policy, especially by left-leaning groups, and often attracts significant media attention. One prominent instance of this practice is Brown v. Board of Education.

References

  1. ↑ Dreier, A.S., Strategy, Planning & Litigating to Win, pp. 54–5
  2. ↑ Selby-Dreier Debate on Advocacy Teaching
  3. ↑ See e.g. Id.
  4. ↑ Google: Define Strategy
  5. ↑ In The Art of War, for example, Sun Tzu observes: "In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers." Giles trans p. 41
  6. ↑ Dreier, p.20
  7. ↑ See, e.g. Indiana Univ. Law School web site , at sec. (C)(3), accessed March 14, 2013
  8. ↑ Lubet, Steven, Modern Trial Advocacy pp. 8–10
  9. ↑ Mauet, Thomas A., Trial Notebook p. 13
  10. ↑ Dreier, pp. 20–4
  11. ↑ id. at 81–3
  12. ↑ Id. at pp. 79–85
  13. ↑ Id. at pp. 74–85
  14. ↑ Id. at pp. 46–73
  15. ↑ Id. at pp. 86–7
  16. ↑ Id. at pp. 51–5
  17. ↑ Id. at p. 55–70

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.