Source of article 2's Company - Magnus Insights.
This is the final post in the series on the identity crisis of trial or jury consultants. In this post, I want to comment on the term “Jury Consultant.” Over the 25+ years of being in this field, in response to my self introduction, I have heard 2 other things. The first is, “…In my type of law, I am usually only involved in bench trials” (those decided only by a judge, not a jury). The other is, “My cases are all handled by arbitrations.” Guess what, judges and arbitrators are people too! They make decisions in ways similar to jurors. They are professionals, as judges, and in various fields, as arbitrators, but they ultimately make decisions based on the attorneys’ presentations, in addition to the law, just as a jury would do. We’re pretty clever as trial or jury Consultants – at least the good ones are, and we know how to adapt our research methodologies to whatever type of fact finder (judge, arbitrator, or jury) will be involved in a case. So, when lawyers demonstrate a myopic view of trial consultants, it becomes my/our job to educate them and improve their vision. Mock bench trials, mock arbitrations, and mock jury exercises all have commonalities. Sure, there are differences, but with proper and careful consideration of the parameters of the case, a qualified trial consultant can provide tremendous support and direction to a lawyer and trial team, regardless of the forum for the ultimate decision. As I said before, call us what you want, just call us. Or, at least send an email.