Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The case against American Tobacco Company Inc., was built on hard work and clever legal argument, but, as is so often true, it also was held together with technology that helped the lawyers both with preparation and presentation. Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar created two databases prior to trial to house discovery, relied on both PowerPoint and Sanction software to present exhibits in court, and maintained a team of paralegals to edit video depositions and index transcripts. Russ Herman even hired a consultant to tailor all the technology to the New Orleans courtroom where a jury returned a $591 million verdict in 2004. In Tuskegee, Ala., the scene was decidedly low-tech in Whittaker v. Southwestern Life Insurance Co., a fraud case that produced a $1.6 billion verdict. The lawyers probably spent more on lunch than on courtroom presentations. “In terms of technology, it was a handful of exhibits and a bunch of yellow legal pads, and that was it,” says Brian Strength, plaintiffs counsel with Cochran, Cherry, Givens & Smith in Tuskegee. When it comes to trial technology, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The New Orleans and Tuskegee trials produced two of the top-five jury verdicts nationwide in 2004, but the technology could not have been more different. At its best, technology can dramatize seemingly dull evidence, like a spreadsheet, or bring human suffering into the courtroom — in the form of, say, an animated re-creation of a fatal car crash. But the use of technology depends on the complexity of a case, the courtroom and even a lawyer’s personality. “There’s nothing worse than someone who has all these tools and doesn’t use them well,” says Kirk May of Rouse Hendricks German May in Kansas City. Worse, snafus can turn off judges and jurors alike. “No judge likes to wait 10 minutes for your laptop to reboot,” Strength says. That’s why practice and repitition are so critical to the successful use of computers in the courtroom. “If you’re going to use these [technological] tools, you’re going to need to spend three or four days in your office actually using them, and then you’ll have to try them out in the courtroom, May says. There are no strict guidelines when it comes to trial technology. Says Strength about his $1.6 billion victory: “It worked out pretty well in this case.” Below, we look at the technology deployed in seven of the cases that produced the top-10 verdicts of 2004, as measured by The National Law Journal. (They are listed by the size of the verdict.) Whittaker v. Southwestern Life Insurance Co. Macon County, Alabama, Circuit Court Verdict: $1.62 billion Update: Confidential settlement. How high-tech was the trial that led to the biggest verdict of 2004? “It could have been tried 20 years ago the same way,” says Strength. Calling it “an old-fashioned fraud case” involving the theft of insurance premiums, Strength estimates that there were no more than 20 exhibits during the three-day trial, mostly insurance policies, which were passed by hand to the jury. This simple presentation was dictated by strategy, the straightforward nature of the case, and the venue-in this case an old state courthouse in Tuskegee that lacked newer technological capabilities. “It went very fast,” he says of the trial, “and we didn’t want to clutter it up with a lot of technology.” Pickett et al. v. Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. U.S. Middle District of Alabama Verdict: $1.28 billion Update: Verdict overturned by judge. Appeal pending. Although the legal issues in this antitrust case stemmed from the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the technology that helped these cattle producers pursue their claim was decidedly 21st century. Plaintiffs attorney Joe Whatley, Jr., of Whatley Drake, in Birmingham, Ala., says that his firm recorded and digitized depositions and scanned and stored exhibits as PDF files. The lawyers used the TrialDirector software suite by inData Corporation to pull the electronic evidence together for trial. For visual evidence, the firm relied on Imaging & Video Resources LLC, a Birmingham trial consulting company that produced courtroom charts, and ran the video presentations, which could be annotated on the fly during the trial. While Whatley often relied on paper exhibits in court, he also extensively used the courtroom’s high-tech video network consisting of flat-panel monitors for each juror, the judge, the witness stand and both counsel tables. Brown v. Dorsey Gwinnett County, Georgia, Superior Court Verdict: $776 million Update: Appellate arguments scheduled for May 4. Even though the other side chose not to defend this case at trial, plaintiffs attorney Steve Leibel still had to marshal an assortment of technology to show the jury how DeKalb County, Georgia, sheriff Sidney Dorsey and his deputies conspired to assassinate sheriff-elect Derwin Brown. (The plaintiffs are unlikely to collect unless DeKalb County, which the trial judge removed as a defendant, is restored on appeal.) Atlanta’s Casey Gibson Leibel did most document scanning in-house. The firm relied on Summation and PowerPoint to organize documents, sync testimony to transcripts, and present evidence to the jury. The firm divided up courtroom labor with Leibel’s colleague George Schingler, making sure all the technology worked. This freed Leibel to concentrate on trial presentation skills. The vendor Trial Graphics produced charts and boards for trial. And the team used a large-screen device called a Nomad to present exhibits and show a video of the crime scene, which occurred outside of the sheriff-elect’s home. “We used old and new together and found that was effective,” Leibel says. “I think the key in all the technology is to be able to communicate to the jury in the clearest way possible.” Scott v. The American Tobacco Company Inc. Orleans Parish, Louisiana, District Court Verdict: $591 million Update: Appeal pending. Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar relied on a combination of high-tech software programs and cost-conscious managerial savvy to handle discovery in this case. In addition to the two databases the firm created with Sanction, it sent out bids for document scanning to local companies and assigned paralegals to prepare trial graphics in-house. At trial, the firm called on Evidence Management of New Orleans to help with courtroom technology. Exhibits and video were projected on a large screen opposite the jury box. Herman emphasizes the importance of software that’s flexible enough to configure to the requirements of each case and the preferences of each lawyer. “We have to have the technology that accommodates the personalities,” he says. Herman’s firm is in constant dialogue with vendors about the functionality of their products. “As new software packages come out,” he says, “we have two or three paralegals who try them out. We tell [the vendors] what we want, they come back to us, and it’s a process.” Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc. v. Michelson U.S. Western District of Tennessee Verdict: $559 million (award is on Michelson’s counterclaim) Update: Posttrial motions pending. Fittingly for a complex patent lawsuit, this case may have been the standard-bearer for technology use among this year’s top verdicts. When Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., sued inventor Dr. Gary Michelson for breaking a contract involving a spinal surgical invention, Michelson countersued, claiming that the company had infringed on his patents, and won. Technology played a big part in the win, according to his lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis and Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro ["AmLaw Tech," March]. The firms chose Summation software to help organize millions of pages during discovery, while turning to Attenex’s Patterns search software to navigate hundreds of gigabytes of data during electronic discovery. The team’s army of outside vendors also included MIM Legal Video and Graphics’ Patents Plus for document management; FTI Consulting Inc., and its TrialMax software for trial presentation; Forensics Consulting Solutions for electronic evidence; and In Sync consulting for computer forensics. By the end, Michelson’s lawyers estimated they spent $6 million on technology — a staggering sum, but barely 1 percent of the $582 million jury award. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Allen-Bradley Corp. Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Court Verdict: $452 million Update: Verdict size reduced by judge. Appeal pending. In this product liability trial stemming from a gas explosion, plaintiffs counsel relied on the TrialDirector suite. The DocumentDirector component allowed attorney Kirk May and his firm, Rouse Hendricks German May of Kansas City, to organize thousands of documents that were scanned in-house and to assemble them in a large internal database. After videotaping all depositions, the firm used DepositionDirector to sync spoken testimony to a scrolling transcript text. A team of paralegals did the editing, allowing the firm to save time and money that would otherwise have gone toward outside editing services. The firm also used a spreadsheet program, Promod, to analyze case-related data. May says that the courtroom wasn’t especially up-to-date but that his arsenal of a laptop, an Elmo, and a large display screen worked just fine. “Each piece of technology is a tool,” May says. “The mark of a good trial lawyer is having all the tools and knowing when to use each for impact and effect.” Poliner v. Texas Health Systems U.S. Northern District of Texas Verdict: $366 million Update: Court-ordered mediation pending. When cardiologist Lawrence Poliner sued a Texas hospital for malicious suspension of privileges, the resulting trial produced little in the way of heart-stopping technology. Other than using Summation to track depositions and documents, his lawyers were familiar enough with the evidence that they worked with hard copies, according to Karin Zaner of Kane, Russell, Coleman & Logan in Dallas. At trial, the technological centerpiece was an Elmo, flanked by a VCR and connected to a screen projector used mostly to display angiograms and documents. Otherwise, the doctor’s lawyers — which also included Dallas’ Aldous & McDougal — relied on a flip chart, blown-up posters and a life-size model of the human heart. “The material was so substantively complex that we wanted to keep the presentation simple,” Zaner says. Zaner says the low-tech approach worked to the plaintiff’s advantage — and her own. “The stress of the trial is enough,” she says. “If I were doing something high-tech, I would be very nervous about malfunctions, and I would have to make sure I knew exactly what I was doing.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.