Will include:
a) the Gen X stereotype;
b) the demographic reality;
c) the fastest-growing Gen X/Y "magnet" cities;
d) the formative life experiences of Generation X;
e) the realities and preconception makeup of Gen X’ers including percentages of Gen X internet users, concerns over "economic freedom", a new definition of "family", and an insistence on life/work balance; and,
f) Lessons for the Courtroom: The Seven "Must Do’s" for Connecting with Gen X. The program focuses on preparation to meet the perceptual challenges of today’s jurors; and strategies for the use of themes and psychological organizing principles to help witnesses structure their testimony for effective communication to these new generations. Updated research designs and methodologies outlined to identify themes that resonate with jurors and "drive" verdict dispositions; the use of visual and demonstrative exhibits to shape jurors’ recall of evidence, utilizing modern computer-driven electronic presentation systems (other than PowerPoint); and,
g) psychometric approaches for forecasting jury damage awards as a scientific approach to settlement and mediation rather than an assumptive approach.
In the first 30 minutes of the program, ethical considerations are addressed including findings from thousands of cases that demonstrate how attorneys can utilize cost effective means of research to obtain liability and damage assessments that are far more accurate than traditional methods. Recent experiences note that there is a large difference/variance in what traditional jury verdict trend data reflects versus major discrepancies noted recently in verdict outcomes. The ethical considerations discussed include the potential disservice to clients by pulling numbers from jury verdict history, verdict trend data, "experience", "hunches" and the like, when recent scientific trial research shows that data to be unreliable. We will summarize the details of this research and show how millions of dollars in settlement "recommendations" by counsel in cases that are not adequately researched and are not based on solid scientific, jury-level research, can cause clients to settle for far more money than most cases are worth at the jury level.