The Role of Strategy in Creating High-Converting Website Designs for Law Firms
Jamie Granger
Attorneys Have No Choice: They Need to Be the Joe Rogan of Their Practices
Wayne Pollock
Keyword Gap Analysis for Law Firms: How to Outrank Your Competitors
Spencer Shaak
Don’t Activate a Bad Frame Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
Merit-Based Performance Management
Thomas Carnahan, Ph.D
Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations
David Cruz
The Legal Tech AI Bubble Is Real and Some Law Firms Will Get Burned Ryan McKeen
California Case Summaries
Monty A. McIntyre
Attorney of the Month
Patrick Griffin Griffin Law Office, APC Serving Orange County
Courtroom Maverick: From Montana Roots to Global Spotlight
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Is your law firm struggling to stand out in today’s crowded legal marketplace? Pivoting to more video content could be just the game-changer you’ve been looking for.
As of February 2025, video apps dominated global mobile data usage, accounting for 76% of monthly consumption. Social media algorithms also increasingly prioritize video. As far as I’m concerned, no law firm can afford to ignore video; it’s absolutely critical to meet client expectations and build trust in a format they prefer.
Embrace video now, and you’ll position your firm and its attorneys as leaders in the legal space. Hesitate, and you risk falling behind competitors who have already done so.
Why Law Firms Can’t Afford to Ignore Video
The shift toward video consumption isn’t gradual—it’s rapid and decisive. Modern consumers, including your potential clients, expect dynamic, easily digestible content that provides immediate value. Static text and images simply can’t compete with the engagement power of well-crafted video content.
Showcase Expertise
Law firms that recognize this shift are already seeing remarkable results. Video allows legal professionals to demonstrate expertise, build trust, and humanize their services in ways that traditional marketing simply cannot match. When potential clients can see and hear directly from attorneys, they develop confidence in the firm’s capabilities before ever making contact.
Educate Potential Clients
Video allows attorneys to explain complex legal concepts in accessible language, positioning themselves as knowledgeable experts in their specific practice areas. Through educational content, lawyers can address common client questions, demystify legal processes, and provide valuable insights that demonstrate their expertise.
This approach serves dual purposes: educating potential clients while establishing the firm’s credibility. When viewers better understand legal processes, they’re more likely to appreciate an attorney’s knowledge and feel confident in their ability to handle their case.
Why Video Drives Results for Law Firms
by Vondrae McCoy
Building Authentic Trust Connections
Trust remains the cornerstone of successful attorney-client relationships. Video content humanizes law firms by allowing potential clients to see attorneys’ personalities, communication styles, and professional demeanor. This visual connection helps break down barriers that often exist between the public and legal professionals.
Research shows viewers retain 95% of information from videos compared to just 10% from text. This retention advantage means potential clients remember law firms they’ve seen in video content, creating stronger brand recognition when they need legal services.
How Video Content Performs on Social Media
Video is an ideal medium for social media. But while YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok are excellent platforms for showcasing video content, not all will be a good fit for your firm. Understanding how video content performs on each platform can help you make better-informed decisions when allocating your marketing resources.
LinkedIn: LinkedIn has emerged as a powerhouse platform for legal professionals, with video watch time rising 36% yearover-year in 2024. Video posts on LinkedIn also receive 20 times more shares than other content types, making them invaluable for expanding reach within professional networks.
Short-form videos are growing at twice the rate of other formats on LinkedIn, while live videos generate 4.6 times more comments per viewer than pre-recorded content. Videos with captions retain viewers 32% longer, and vertical videos receive 58% more engagement on mobile devices—critical statistics for law firms targeting busy professionals who consume content on smartphones.
Facebook: Facebook’s algorithm consistently favors video content, particularly native videos uploaded directly to the platform, rather than shared links from external sources. Live videos tend to generate more comments and shares, creating opportunities for law firms to engage directly with potential clients through real-time Q&A sessions.
Facebook Reels, the platform’s short-form video feature, receives priority placement in users’ feeds, offering law firms another avenue to reach audiences with concise, engaging content about legal topics.
Instagram: Instagram is a predominantly video-focused platform, with Reels achieving higher reach and engagement than static posts or Stories. The platform’s algorithm particularly favors short, vertical videos that capture attention within the first few seconds and include captions with clear calls to action.
For law firms, Instagram Reels provides opportunities to create educational content, share behind-the-scenes glimpses of firm culture, and connect with younger demographics who increasingly use social media for professional research.
TikTok: TikTok boasts over 1.8 billion monthly active users, with 62% aged 25-44—a prime demographic for legal services. The platform maintains the highest engagement rate of any social media platform at 5.7%, compared to 0.83% on Instagram and 0.13% on Facebook.
Significantly, 40% of Gen Z and Millennials now use TikTok as a search engine for services, including legal help. Law firms creating educational content on TikTok can appear in both platform-specific and Google search results, expanding their digital footprint considerably.
YouTube: YouTube remains the second-largest search engine globally, making it essential for law firms focused on educational content. Short-form videos under 60 seconds receive 2.5 times more engagement than longer content, while the platform’s mobile-first consumption patterns favor vertical video formats.
Legal educational content performs particularly well on YouTube, with viewers actively searching for explanations of legal processes, rights information, and guidance on various legal issues.
A Strategic Approach to Video Marketing for Law Firms
Video content is a powerful way to connect with clients and build trust, but to maximize its impact, your firm needs to start with a clear strategy.
Establishing Clear Content Goals
Successful video marketing begins with defining specific objectives. Law firms should determine whether they’re prioritizing brand awareness, lead generation, client education, or thought leadership.
Brand awareness campaigns might focus on firm culture videos and attorney introductions, while lead generation efforts emphasize educational content addressing common legal problems. Thought leadership content positions attorneys as industry experts through commentary on legal trends and case developments.
Creating High-Quality, Accessible Content
Professional video production doesn’t require Hollywood budgets. In my experience, a simple video shot on a smartphone often drives more engagement than a highly-polished piece,
simply because it feels more authentic and approachable. However, attention to basic quality elements is essential.
Keep videos concise and focused, typically lasting 2-3 minutes for educational content. The first few seconds are critical for capturing attention, so every video should open with a compelling hook that immediately communicates value to viewers.
Captions are mandatory for accessibility and engagement. Many users watch videos without sound, particularly in professional settings, making readable captions essential for message delivery.
Search Engine Optimization for Legal Videos
Video SEO requires strategic keyword incorporation in titles, descriptions, and tags. Law firms should research relevant legal terms their target clients use when searching for services, then naturally integrate these keywords into video metadata.
Embedding videos on firm websites improves both user engagement and search rankings. Pages with video content keep visitors engaged longer, signaling to search engines that the content provides value.
Creating video transcripts serves dual SEO purposes: improving accessibility while providing text content that search engines can index and rank.
Content Repurposing Strategies
Law firms can maximize the value of their video content through strategic repurposing. A single educational video can generate blog post content, social media posts, email newsletter segments, and website FAQ updates.
Live Q&A sessions can be edited into multiple shorter videos addressing individual questions. Webinar presentations can become a series of educational clips, each focusing on specific legal topics.
Takeaway
Video marketing has moved beyond optional for law firms—it’s become essential for remaining competitive in an increasingly saturated legal marketplace. By embracing video now, your firm will be well-positioned to establish thought leadership, nurture stronger client relationships, and capture market share from competitors still relying on more traditional marketing methods. n
Vondrae McCoy is the Good2bSocial Digital Marketing Division‘s Director of Data Analytics, heading the Data Analytics team. He is responsible for the development and management of Good2bSocial’s reporting environment and services. He heads the RAD (Real-Time Analytics) service, which provides law firms with custom reports along with insights and analysis. He is also a Director of Client Strategy, managing the day-today digital marketing efforts of several accounts. Vondrae has over 10 years of experience in the field of digital marketing experience working with companies of all sizes. Learn more at www.good2bsocial.com.
Attorneys Have No Choice: They Need to Be the Joe Rogan of Their Practices
by Wayne Pollock
In today’s noisy and fast-changing content landscape, attorneys and law firms should strive to become THE DESTINATION for thought leadership in the eyes of their clients and referral sources—not merely A SOURCE of it.
The way people find information today is undergoing a rapid transformation. From evolving SEO and social media algorithms to the influence of AI in both search and content creation, the landscape is constantly shifting.
Yet, amidst this flux, many established and newer media outlets and content creators aren’t just surviving— they’re flourishing.
Why is that? Because they’ve become destinations.
Think of the audiences who actively seek out, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Beast’s YouTube channel, or Joe Rogan’s or Alex Cooper’s podcasts. They know what to expect from the content these organizations and individuals produce, they want more of it, and they go directly to the source for it. They aren’t searching online for content; they’re navigating to a trusted source of information (and entertainment).
This is how you and your law firm cut through the noise and stand out with your thought leadership content in the coming years.
You follow this lead and strive to be the Joe Rogan or Alex Cooper of your practice area, while your law firm strives to be The New York Times of its practice areas.
In other words, you and your firm strive to be THE DESTINATIONS for thought leadership, not just yet another source among many.
THE DESTINATION—not just a source—for knowledge, wisdom, and insights that your clients can use regarding the work you and your firm do.
Seven Strategies for Becoming THE DESTINATION for Thought Leadership
So, how exactly do you and your firm become THE DESTINATIONS for thought leadership in the eyes of your target audiences?
Here are seven high-level considerations to guide you as you and your firm build a content program aimed at achieving this goal:
1. Commit to the Idea and Merits of Thought Leadership
You and your colleagues will have to embrace the concept that the best way to make a lasting, favorable impression on your target audiences that you are authorities regarding the work you do is to consistently create content that is relevant, valuable, and compelling to them.
You and your colleagues should be convinced that thought leadership content creation is a driving force behind how you and they retain and attract clients.
2. Commit to the Idea of Owning a Niche and/or an Industry
Resist the urge to create thought leadership content about broad topics related to your practice. Instead, strategically identify and commit to creating content that positions you as owning specific niches or industries.
Look for niches where there might be some competition, but there’s no one attorney or firm that’s truly planted their flag as the leading voice consistently producing thought leadership regarding everything clients need to know regarding that niche.
When you do so, you and your colleagues will also need to embrace regularly sharing insights not just about legal issues, but also about economic, sociopolitical, and geopolitical trends impacting that niche. If you want to be THE DESTINATION for people who want to stay up to date on the most impactful news regarding a niche or industry, you’ll need to cover more than just court decisions, legislation, or administrative agency actions.
3. Commit to Consistent Content Creation
Consistency is key to becoming THE DESTINATION for thought leadership in the eyes of your target audiences.
You and your colleagues need to be consistently creating content— not just monthly or bi-weekly, but at least weekly. Ideally, you should aim for multiple content pieces per week, delivered in various forms.
4. Take an Omnichannel Approach
On a related note, if you want to become THE DESTINATION for thought leadership for your target audience, you can’t rely on just articles or blog posts.
We all consume content differently and we all have our preferred ways for consuming content. To be a true destination, you need to meet your target audiences where they are regarding content consumption.
Consider creating thought leadership content in the form of podcasts, videos, social media posts, and email newsletters. And, think about ways you can mix, match, and repurpose that content. For example, email newsletters that cover the same topics as recent articles but in summary form, or blog posts derived from recent podcast episodes. This ensures that your valuable insights reach individuals who prefer various content formats.
5. Consider the Full Spectrum of Content
People not only want to consume content in different formats, but even people who prefer the written word often like a variety of offerings.
Not every piece of content should be a 2,000-word article. Nor should it be an 800-word blog post. Sometimes, a concise 300-word update on a relevant news item is all that’s needed.
On the other end of the spectrum, consider dedicating resources to proprietary research and other “tent pole,” flagship content pieces that no one else can create because they haven’t invested the necessary time and resources into their thought leadership programs, or they don’t have the same knowledge about the underlying subject matter that you and your firm have.
6. Staff Your Content Operation Appropriately
If you want to become THE DESTINATION for thought leadership in the eyes of your target audience, your content creation can’t just fall on the shoulders of your attorneys. It takes a team to create a steady enough stream of relevant, valuable, and compelling content that would allow you and your firm to be seen as THE DESTINATION for thought leadership. Consider hiring a content manager who can oversee a firm’s or practice group’s content creation from a bird’s eye view. You’ll also want to consider hiring at least one dedicated writer. You should also consider hiring at least one editor who can handle video editing and audio (i.e., podcast) editing. Someday—or even today—your content operations might need multiple writers and multiple editors.
If you want to become THE DESTINATION for thought leadership for your target audiences, you can’t expect one or two attorneys to drive content creation for an entire practice group.
Just like one or two attorneys don’t handle all the legal work for a practice group, one or two attorneys shouldn’t be expected to handle all the content creation for one.
7. Seek Feedback From Your Target Audiences
You’re going to want ongoing feedback from your clients, referral sources, and other people consuming your content. Strive for a regular dialogue with these people.
Understand what they like and what they don’t like. Which content topics do they want you and your colleagues to cover more often? Which topics couldn’t they care less about?
Are all the formats you’re producing adequate? Are there new formats your key consumers might want you to produce your content in?
Feedback helps you create the kind of content that will actually draw in readers, viewers, and listeners—which will help build your audience and your practice.
Thrive in the New Era of Content
Despite the dynamic and sometimes chaotic nature of content creation and content discovery today, the stalwarts aren’t merely just doing fine, they’re flourishing.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Beast, and Joe Rogan, among many other media outlets and creators, are thriving because they have become destinations for their respective audiences.
Take a lesson from them.
To survive and thrive in today’s legal marketplace, you and your law firm should strive to become THE DESTINATION for thought leadership for your target audiences.
By providing relevant, valuable, and compelling knowledge, wisdom, and insights that boost your and your firm’s authority, you and your firm can become the first places clients and other target audience members go for information about their industry and the areas of law you and your firm practice—and the first choice when they need assistance with legal or business issues arising in their industry and/or within the areas of law you and your firm practice. n
Wayne Pollock is the founder of the Law Firm Editorial Service. The Law Firm Editorial Service sets free the knowledge and wisdom trapped inside Big Law and boutique law firm partners by collaborating with them to strategize and ethically ghostwrite book-of-business-building marketing and business development content. Learn more at: www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com.
Your Trusted California Personal Injury & Accident Firm
PRACTICE AREAS:
Car, Truck & Motorcycle Accidents
Uber & Lyft Crashes
Pedestrian, Bicycle & Scooter Accidents
Dog Bites
Wrongful Death
Premises Liability
WHY MOET LAW?
$80+ Million Recovered
24/7 Availability
No Fee Unless You Win
One-On-One Attorney Support
Referral Fees Paid
In today’s digital-first world, your law firm’s website is more than just a virtual brochure—it’s your most powerful marketing asset. Yet, I’ve encountered countless law firm websites that failed to convert visitors into leads, not because of poor aesthetics, but because of a missing ingredient: strategy.
A high-converting website doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the product of thoughtful planning, intentional design, and a deep understanding of your clients’ journey. So how can strategic thinking transform your firm’s website from a digital placeholder into a client-generating machine?
1. Understanding Your Ideal Client
The foundation of any strategic design process is clarity around who your ideal client is. Are you targeting high-net-worth individuals seeking estate planning? Startups needing intellectual property support? Injury victims looking for justice?
By defining your target audience, your website’s tone, content, and layout can speak directly to their concerns. Strategic design begins by understanding your potential clients’ pain points, goals, and decision-making process—and aligning your messaging to meet them where they are.
2. Mapping the Client Journey
Every visitor arrives at your site with a problem. Your job is to guide them through a path that leads to a solution—and ultimately, to contact you.
This journey typically follows a structure:
• Awareness: The client identifies a legal issue.
• Consideration: They explore potential solutions.
• Decision: They choose the right lawyer or firm. Strategic websites map this path and structure the design around it. Clear navigation, trust-building content (like testimonials and case results), and obvious calls to action help move users smoothly from curiosity to conversion.
The Role of Strategy in Creating High-Converting Website Designs for Law Firms
by Jamie Granger
3. Prioritizing User Experience (UX)
No matter how visually striking your site is, if users can’t easily find information or contact you, they’ll leave.
Strategic UX focuses on:
• Fast loading times
• Mobile responsiveness
• Logical page hierarchy
• Accessible forms and contact methods
For law firms, where trust and professionalism are critical, a frictionless experience signals reliability and competence.
4. Content With Purpose
Every word on your site should serve a goal—whether it’s to inform, persuade, or prompt action. Strategic content includes:
• SEO-driven practice area pages that not only attract traffic but also address pressing legal questions and showcase your firm’s experience and successful representations.
• Clear, benefit-focused headlines that immediately show visitors how your firm can solve their problem or improve their situation.
• FAQs that address common client questions in plain, conversational language—helping potential clients become informed while aligning with natural search queries.
• Blog content that answers high-intent client questions, builds authority, and links directly to related practice area pages.
Rather than flooding the site with legal jargon, strategic content speaks clearly and confidently, helping potential clients feel informed and empowered.
5. Law Firm Website Design That Supports Conversion
Design isn’t just about looking good—it’s about guiding behavior. A strategically designed law firm website achieves that with:
• Prominent calls to action (“Schedule a Consultation,” “Speak to an Attorney”)
• Visual hierarchy that leads the eye
• Strategic placement of trust elements (badges, reviews, affiliations)
The layout should drive engagement and build confidence no matter how users navigate your site.
6. Data-Driven Improvements
Strategy doesn’t stop at launch. A high-converting law firm website is constantly evolving based on:
• Heatmaps and click tracking
• A/B testing headlines or call-to-action buttons
• Analytics on user behavior and bounce rates
Law firms that approach their website as a living, datainformed asset consistently outperform those with static, setit-and-forget-it designs.
Final Thoughts
The most successful law firm websites are built on strategy, not guesswork. They combine design, content, and user experience into a unified system that converts visitors into inquiries—and inquiries into clients.
In a competitive legal landscape, simply having a website isn’t enough. To truly stand out and grow your practice, you need a strategic approach to design that puts client needs, clarity, and conversion at the center. n
Jamie Granger serves as the Creative Director of our Good2bSocial Digital Marketing Division, where he oversees the creation of websites, landing pages, infographics, marketing ads, and various other digital assets. Learn more at www.good2bsocial.com.
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee ADR Services, Inc.
To schedule, contact Haward Cho: (213) 683-1600 and (619) 233-1323 or haward@adrservices.com
Short summaries (one-paragraph), organized by legal topic, of every new published CA civil case, helping CA attorneys save time, win more, and make more money. Monthly, quarterly, annual, and annual practice area publications are available. Subscribe at www.cacasesummaries.com
Walk the halls of any legal tech conference today and you’ll trip over dozens of AI startups promising to revolutionize law practice. Each booth features the same pitch: “We’re ChatGPT, but for lawyers!” The valuations are astronomical. The demos are slick. The value proposition? That’s where things get murky.
The legal tech world has become a gold rush, and most prospectors are selling fool’s gold. Every week brings announcements of new AI tools that are nothing more than thin wrappers around OpenAI, Claude, or Google’s models. These companies take a general-purpose language model, add a legalsounding name, maybe some prompt engineering, and suddenly they’re worth millions. Or in Harvey AI’s case, $5 billion.
Let that sink in. Harvey AI, which essentially provides access to large language models with some legal flavoring, commands a valuation that exceeds the GDP of some small nations. For what? Features that a $20 monthly Claude subscription or Google Workspace already provides?
The proliferation is staggering. Legal AI tools are multiplying like rabbits. Contract review AI. Research AI. Brief writing AI. Deposition prep AI. Due diligence AI. Each claiming to be purpose-built for legal work, each demanding premium pricing, each essentially doing what you could accomplish with direct access to the underlying models.
This isn’t innovation. It’s arbitrage. These companies position themselves between law firms and the actual AI providers, adding minimal value while extracting maximum fees. They’re middlemen in expensive suits, and law firms are falling for it.
The problem runs deeper than overvaluation. Law firms signing multi-year contracts with these vendors are possibly making a critical strategic error. They’re betting on intermediaries in a rapidly evolving market where the underlying technology improves monthly. Today’s cutting-edge legal AI wrapper becomes tomorrow’s obsolete interface. Meanwhile, firms are locked into contracts, paying premium prices for increasingly outdated access to technology they could use directly.
Why This House of Cards Will Collapse
The legal AI bubble mirrors every tech bubble before it. Massive valuations built on thin value propositions. Investors pouring
The Legal Tech AI Bubble Is Real and Some Law Firms Will Get Burned
by Ryan McKeen
money into companies whose entire business model depends on other companies’ technology. Law firms, traditionally conservative with technology adoption, suddenly throwing caution to the wind because everyone else is doing it.
The fundamental question every firm should ask: What unique value does this legal AI vendor provide that I cannot get from direct access to Claude, GPT-4, or Gemini? Strip away the marketing speak and legal jargon. Look at the actual functionality. In most cases, you’re paying a massive premium for prompt engineering you could do yourself.
Consider document review. Multiple legal AI companies offer document review solutions powered by large language models. Their secret sauce? Prompts that tell the AI to focus on legal concepts. Any competent lawyer with an afternoon to spare could create similar prompts. Yet firms pay thousands per month for this “specialized” access.
Research platforms fare no better. They ingest legal databases and wrap them with AI interfaces. The AI doesn’t understand law any better than the base model. It’s just been prompted to format responses like legal memoranda. Again, something any associate could configure with basic prompt engineering skills.
The Better Path Forward
Smart firms should reject the vendor gold rush and build internal AI competency instead. This doesn’t mean avoiding AI. It means being strategic about implementation and skeptical about vendors selling repackaged access to technology you can use directly.
Start with direct subscriptions to major AI platforms. Google Workspace with Gemini costs a fraction of specialized legal AI tools. Claude Pro provides powerful language processing for less than most lawyers bill in an hour. Google’s Notebook LM is a favorite of mine. These platforms improve constantly, and you benefit immediately from upgrades without renegotiating vendor contracts.
More critically, invest in people, not platforms. Hire or develop internal futurists and explorers. These team members should understand both legal practice and AI capabilities. Their job isn’t to build AI from scratch but to identify opportunities, test solutions, and separate genuine innovation from expensive vaporware.
Create an AI evaluation framework. Before signing with any
legal AI vendor, your internal team should prototype similar functionality using direct AI access. If they can replicate 80% of the vendor’s offering in a week, you’re looking at overpriced middleware, not essential technology.
Establish small pilot programs. Test AI applications on real work with controlled scope. Learn what works, what doesn’t, and what your firm actually needs. This hands-on experience becomes invaluable when vendors pitch their solutions. You’ll spot the fluff immediately.
Build prompt libraries and workflows internally. The “secret sauce” of most legal AI tools amounts to well-crafted prompts and integrated workflows. Your team can create these without paying vendor premiums. More importantly, you’ll own and control these assets, adapting them as needs change.
The Reckoning Approaches
The legal AI bubble will burst. Not because AI lacks value in legal practice, but because the current vendor ecosystem is unsustainable. When firms realize they’re paying Harvey AI prices for Google Gemini functionality, the correction will be swift and brutal.
Firms committed to long-term vendor contracts will find themselves trapped, paying premium prices for increasingly commoditized services. Those who invested in internal capabilities will adapt seamlessly, switching between AI providers as technology evolves.
The winners in legal AI won’t be the firms with the biggest vendor contracts. They’ll be the ones who understood early that AI is a tool, not a solution. Who recognized that sustainable advantage comes from how you use technology, not which middleman you pay to access it.
Stop signing contracts with AI vendors promising to transform your practice. Start building the internal capacity to transform it yourself. The bubble is real, the burst is coming, and your firm’s future depends on being on the right side when it happens.
The legal profession stands at an inflection point. We can chase shiny vendors and astronomical valuations, or we can do what lawyers do best: think critically, evaluate evidence, and make reasoned decisions. The choice seems obvious. The question is whether firms will make it before their competitors do. n
Ryan McKeen is a co-founder of Best Era, LLC. Ryan has an extensive background as a lawyer and law firm owner drives his commitment to helping the legal community thrive. Ryan is dedicated to enriching the legal field by sharing insights from his experience. He co-authored the best-selling books “Tiger Tactics: Powerful Strategies for Winning Law Firms” and “CEO Edition,” and regularly speaks at national legal conferences on topics including innovative marketing, artificial intelligence, law’s future, and effective management. Learn more at www.bestera.io.
Courtroom Maverick
From Montana Roots to Global Spotlight
Patrick Griffin’s Unbeaten Trial Streak, Groundbreaking Jury Selection, and High-Stakes Federal Defense Have Redefined His Practice
by Dan Baldwin
When Patrick Griffin last appeared on the cover of Attorney Journals in 2018, he was known for blending a small-town Montana work ethic with razor-sharp trial skills. Even then, he had earned a reputation as a fierce, principled criminal defense lawyer—willing to fight cases that others would walk away from. Seven years later, Griffin has not only held onto those roots, he’s built an unmatched winning streak in the courtroom, pioneered a novel jury selection method that’s kept him undefeated since its adoption, and led the defense in the largest international criminal investigation ever undertaken.
“Growing up in rural Montana taught me the importance of integrity and reputation,” Griffin says. “When you’re from a small town, you can’t cut corners; people know who you are. That still guides how I handle every case.”
An Office Built for Precision
The most visible change since Griffin’s last feature is his move into a brand-new office in Little Italy, custom-designed to match the way he works. Every detail was built for efficiency, privacy, and client comfort.
“This is not a big-volume shop,” Griffin says. “We deliberately take on fewer cases so that when someone retains me, I’m the only attorney they deal with. Criminal defense isn’t something you can effectively delegate. My clients deserve—and get—my full attention.”
Joining him in the new space is Keegan Fairfield, a recent addition to the firm. Fairfield relocated from Maine, where he
ran a large-volume criminal defense practice. Now he manages case administration and paralegal duties, freeing Griffin to focus entirely on strategy, trial preparation, and courtroom advocacy.
A New Way to Pick a Jury and an Unbroken Streak
Since his last profile, Griffin has refined a unique jury selection process that he describes as a “complete rethinking” of voir dire. The results speak for themselves: he has not lost a trial since implementing it (eight and counting). His peers have noticed, and Griffin was invited to lecture on the method at a major statewide trial practice seminar.
In most courtrooms, jury selection is a juggling act— asking questions, listening for nuance, and trying to read the room while making split-second judgments. Griffin has streamlined that process with a system that collects and organizes data in real time.
As jurors answer scaled questions during voir dire, the responses are scored and analyzed on the spot, giving a clear, data-backed picture of potential bias. That structure frees Griffin to move through the courtroom with purpose— focusing on eye contact, body language, and weaving trial themes into the conversation—while the numbers quietly guide strategy.
The result is a measurable increase in successful cause challenges and panels that are more defense friendly. It’s a blend of analytics and advocacy that’s changing how jury selection is done.
Patrick Griffin, Founder
“When you’re from a small town, you can’t cut corners; people know who you are. That still guides how I handle every case.”
The Anom Case, A Global Spotlight
The pinnacle of Patrick Griffin’s recent work came when he was recognized as lead defense counsel in the only U.S. case arising from Operation Trojan Shield—the largest coordinated international criminal investigation ever undertaken. The operation involved law enforcement agencies across 18 countries and led to more than 1,000 arrests executed in a single global sweep.
At the heart of the investigation was Anom, a covert encrypted communications platform built and operated by the FBI. The Bureau used a confidential informant to distribute the phones to criminal networks around the world. Unbeknownst to users, every message—more than 27 million in total—was duplicated and sent directly to the FBI, without the use of lawful warrants.
While the arrests spanned dozens of jurisdictions, the U.S. government filed only one case—a RICO indictment in San Diego—which became the legal centerpiece of the entire operation. Griffin was widely recognized by the court and the defense bar as lead counsel.
Griffin led the constitutional challenge to the surveillance program, ultimately forcing the U.S. government to reveal the identity of a previously classified foreign partner that helped facilitate the global interception. “They claimed national security, law enforcement privilege, state secrets—everything,” Griffin says. “But the court still ordered disclosure. That ruling remains unique anywhere in the world.”
The case drew sustained international media attention, with coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, and VICE, among others. It is now being adapted into a Netflix feature film, produced by Jason Bateman, with development focused on the undercover operation and the legal battles that followed.
“Handling a case of this magnitude required both strategic litigation and technical precision,” Griffin says. “The pretrial rulings we secured had a real impact on the structure and scope of the prosecution.”
Case Wins That Define a Career— Felony Domestic Violence Full Acquittal
In one of his most emotionally charged cases, Griffin’s client faced multiple felonies—domestic violence, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment, and child endangerment. The charges were strikes and carried the real possibility of years in state prison.
From the outset, Griffin dismantled the prosecution’s case. The complaining witness had given several different versions of events, including one on the stand. Griffin cross-examined her on every inconsistency, introduced text messages that undermined her credibility, and exposed investigative failures by law enforcement. He successfully kept damaging hearsay from the client’s four-year-old child out of trial, and when the prosecution inadvertently opened the door, he got his client’s full statement admitted without him having to testify.
The jury returned not guilty verdicts on every count. “Every juror stayed afterward to talk,” Griffin says. “One hugged my client as he cried in his arms. Moments like that make all of the long hours worth it.”
The Disabled Marine Felony DUI Trial
In another high-stakes trial, Griffin defended a 30-year-old disabled Marine combat veteran in what, on the surface, looked like an unwinnable case. He faced felony DUI with injury, hit-and-run, and filing a false police report—charges carrying up to 14 years in prison. The alleged victim was left paralyzed after the collision. Lab results showed a high blood alcohol concentration, marijuana levels “off the charts,” and Xanax in his system.
This was no routine DUI trial—it was a hyper-technical, multi-issue case that demanded precise navigation. The defense had to juggle multiple expert witnesses, conflicting scientific evidence, and complex legal theories, all while countering the emotional weight of the injuries involved. Complicating matters further, the client had fled the scene and later called in a false police report—facts the prosecution seized on to argue “consciousness of guilt.”
Griffin’s new, data-driven jury selection technique became a critical advantage. By scoring jurors’ answers to scaled questions in real time, he removed anyone with strong negative views on marijuana or alcohol, ensuring a panel willing to weigh the science and the story.
In trial, the defense methodically dismantled the state’s case. Griffin seized on every one of the arresting officer’s mistakes through detailed and precise cross-examination. The prosecution’s toxicology expert conceded she could not determine impairment from drug levels alone. Multiple defense experts testified about the effects of PTSD and prescribed medical marijuana on the client’s baseline, explaining how the lab results were consistent with treatment, not intoxication.
A pivotal moment came when Griffin shifted the focus from raw numbers to the man behind them—introducing compelling testimony about the client’s decorated military service and combat trauma. That humanization, combined with the technical dismantling of the prosecution’s case, overcame the stacked odds.
The result: ten of the twelve jurors voted not guilty. The judge quickly dismissed the serious DUI charge and placed the client on probation for the hit-and-run. “That case was about telling the full human story,” Griffin says. “And it started with getting the right jurors in the box.”
Two Federal Drug Trafficking Cases, Both Dismissed
Griffin achieved what most defense lawyers only dream about: full dismissals in two separate federal drug importation cases each carrying mandatory minimum sentences.
In both, his clients were accused of knowingly transporting over 20 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in a spare
tire. Griffin built both defenses around the “blind mule” theory, meticulously investigating in the U.S. and Mexico, using top concealment experts, and documenting every detail showing lack of knowledge.
“Blind mule defenses are rarely successful,” he notes. “But when you combine deep investigation with credible experts and a clear client profile, you can make it real for a prosecutor and make dismissal the smart choice.”
Technology with a Human Purpose
While Griffin is quick to point out that his practice will never lose its personal touch, he has embraced technology in a way that makes him more accessible to clients. All communications, texts, messages, and updates are shared in real-time among Griffin and his staff, eliminating the bottlenecks and delays that frustrate clients in high-stakes situations.
For Griffin, artificial intelligence is simply another tool in a larger system designed to serve clients better and move faster, without compromising judgment or discretion. The goal is not to automate advocacy, but to amplify it.
The Griffin Family
“The second you forfeit credibility, whether with a jury or a client, you’re done.”
Mentoring the Next Generation
Griffin also invests in the profession’s future, bringing interns and law clerks into the courtroom, showing them not just legal theory, but “what it’s really like.” He makes a point to give them the advice he wishes he’d received as a law student.
“It’s not enough to know the law, you have to know how to earn trust,” he says. “The second you forfeit credibility, whether with a jury or your client, you’re done.”
Fatherhood and Focus
In the years since last being featured in Attorney Journals, Griffin became a father. He says the experience has deepened his perspective on his work and his life.
“Fatherhood brings a new level of discipline and clarity,” Griffin says. “It’s made me even more focused and deliberate in how I work, how I prepare, and how I show up—in court and in life.”
Looking Ahead
Griffin has no plans to expand into a large firm or dilute his hands-on approach. “The plan is to keep it streamlined and efficient,” he says. “We’ll keep taking fewer cases and delivering better results.”
For a lawyer whose Montana upbringing taught him that your word is everything, it’s a strategy that’s as natural as it is effective. Whether he’s securing acquittals, dismantling federal prosecutions, or standing at the center of a case that drew headlines around the world, Patrick Griffin is proving that integrity, and a relentless work ethic, are still the most powerful tools in the courtroom. n
Contact Patrick Griffin
Griffin Law Office, APC 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 401 San Diego, CA 92101 619-269-2131
www.PatrickGriffinLaw.com
Keegan Fairfield (Office Manager & Paralegal) and Patrick Griffin (Founder)
Recent Case Highlights
• Operation Trojan Shield/Anom Case— Lead Defense Represented lead defendant in only U.S. case from the largest international criminal prosecution in history. Forced government to disclose classified foreign partner, undermining prosecution. Case now the subject of a Netflix film.
• Felony Domestic Violence—Full Acquittal
Client faced multiple felonies, including strike offenses. Griffin exposed nine conflicting witness statements, introduced exculpatory texts, and dismantled police testimony. Jury returned not guilty on all counts.
• Disabled Marine DUI—Felony Dismissed
30-year-old Marine vet facing 14 years after a collision left a victim paralyzed. Griffin’s cross-exams neutralized toxicology evidence; jury voted 10–2 for acquittal on DUI with injury. Felony dismissed, probation on hit-and-run.
• Federal Drug Importation—Two Cases, Both Dismissed
Each case carried a 10-year mandatory minimum. Griffin built rare “blind mule” defenses supported by expert testimony and international investigation. Prosecutors dismissed both before trial.
In negotiation, the first number often carries disproportionate weight. While perhaps not always an absolute guarantee of victory, the concept of “anchoring bias” suggests it’s a powerful and frequently underestimated advantage. Anchoring, in essence, describes our well-documented human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making subsequent decisions. The human brain, in its quest for efficiency, often latches onto that initial number and adjusts insufficiently from it. The brain’s adjustment occurs even when the anchor is arbitrary or irrelevant. This initial figure frequently frames the perceived zone of possible agreement, profoundly influencing the counter-offers and concessions that follow. The legal field, a constant arena of negotiation, is no stranger to the potent effects of anchoring.
In legal negotiations, a delayed response can be more than embarrassing; it can be a costly missed opportunity. Being proactive in establishing an anchor is key to avoiding that frustration, as the initial offer often acts as a potent psychological anchor, shaping how individuals perceive and process information throughout the negotiation.
Consider a common scenario in business litigation: the initial settlement demand or offer. Imagine a plaintiff’s attorney, after thorough case evaluation, believes a fair settlement value is around $500,000. However, understanding anchoring, they might strategically open negotiations with a demand of $950,000. Conversely, a defense attorney, also aiming for a $500,000 resolution, might counter-intuitively open with an offer of $150,000.
While these initial figures may seem far from the eventual target, they serve a crucial psychological purpose. The $950,000 demand, even if perceived as high, immediately frames the negotiation in a higher range. The first offer tends to establish a baseline, and all subsequent offers are evaluated in relation to this initial benchmark. Even if the recipient believes the initial offer is unreasonable or “out of line,” it still exerts a gravitational pull on the negotiation. Subsequent discussions, even if they bring the number down significantly, are often subconsciously tethered to this initial anchor. It becomes psychologically more challenging for the opposing side to dramatically pull the number below a certain threshold once that high anchor is
Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations
by David Cruz
set. Similarly, the lowball offer from the defense aims to drag the perceived acceptable range downwards. The negotiation then becomes a process of adjusting from these starting points. Research consistently shows that these adjustments are often insufficient, pulling the final agreed-upon number closer to the initial anchor than it might have been otherwise. This illustrates how a well-placed initial figure can powerfully shape the entire negotiation landscape, often dictating the perceived zone of possible agreement before substantive arguments are even fully exchanged. The party making the first offer often benefits from demonstrating a compelling analysis of the case’s strengths and weaknesses, and their preparedness to articulate the reasoning behind their offer can lend additional credibility to the anchor.
Nuances in Crafting Your Anchor: Precision and Range
The power of the first offer isn’t just about being first; it’s also about how that number is presented. Studies have shown that precise numerical first offers (e.g., $947,500 instead of $950,000) tend to be more effective anchors than rounder numbers. A precise number can signal that the offeror has carefully considered the value and is less likely to move significantly from their position. However, an overly aggressive first offer can risk derailing the negotiation if it causes the other side to question your credibility or the feasibility of an agreement.
A more sophisticated approach involves “range offers”. Research from Columbia University has highlighted “bolstering ranges” as particularly potent.[i] For example, a seller asking $7,000–$7,500 for a car instead of a flat $7,000. This type of offer aggressively stretches the bounds of a single-figure offer while also conveying flexibility and accommodation. Buyers receiving such offers tend to make greater concessions, partly because the range suggests a more ambitious bottom line for the offeror and can appear more polite than a single aggressive figure. This allows the offeror to claim more value while potentially mitigating reputational damage from a very aggressive single-point offer. Generally, ranges of about 5% to 20% of the base figure appear to work best. A well-crafted first offer, therefore, subtly communicates strategic thinking, understanding of the issues, and negotiation style.
This isn’t just some abstract theory; I’ve experienced this firsthand in my own career, especially while handling large, multi-million-dollar settlements for large insurance companies. In those high-stakes legal negotiations, you quickly learn how critical anchoring is. If you don’t put that first number on the table, you can bet the other side will. And once their number is out there, it’s like that’s the new center of gravity for the whole discussion. Trying to pull the negotiation significantly away from their initial figure? Even with compelling arguments or strong evidence, overcoming that initial number is an uphill battle. Research shows all subsequent judgments are made by adjusting away from that initial anchor. That first anchor really does set the entire playing field.
Fortunately, in those situations, I always made it a point to try and build positive, professional relationships with the opposing counsel. I found that this focus on a good working relationship, combined with a solid understanding of how anchoring works, really helped close deals that felt fair and beneficial to everyone involved. It’s so important to remember that anchoring isn’t about trying to bully or coerce anyone; it’s much more about strategically framing the conversation from the outset. Honestly, when both sides have a sense of these psychological dynamics, you’d be surprised how often you can find collaborative solutions.
So, why does anchoring have such a strong pull on us? It comes
down to a few interesting ways our brains are wired. First, there’s something called the “insufficient adjustment” phenomenon. This basically means that even if we suspect an initial number might be off, we tend not to adjust our estimates far enough away from it. It’s like that first number has a magnetic pull.
Second, that anchor triggers what psychologists call “selective accessibility”. This is a fancy way of saying that once an anchor is set, our brains start actively looking for information that confirms it, while often unintentionally downplaying anything that contradicts it. So, if a high number is thrown out there, we subconsciously search for reasons to justify it.
And lastly, especially when we’re facing uncertain or complex situations (which negotiations often are!), an anchor gives us a sense of cognitive ease. Anchors provide a starting point, a mental shortcut that simplifies the tough job of figuring out what something is worth or what a fair outcome looks like. n
David Cruz is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes. Mr. Cruz began his legal career at a prominent PIP plaintiffs’ firm, where he represented numerous clients in cases against large insurance companies, giving him keen insight into the tactics plaintiffs’ lawyers use. He later gained valuable experience as defense counsel at a large insurance defense firm in Florida, handling general liability, personal injury protection, and first-party property insurance matters. Learn more at www.tysonmendes.com.
[i]To Anchor a Negotiation, Two Points May Be Better Than One, Chazen Global Insights (Feb. 21, 2015).
Is your firm unknowingly surrendering potential clients to its competitors?
Prospects are online everyday researching the legal services they need, but if your pages aren’t appearing for the keywords they query, they’re going to head elsewhere. As a law firm in an increasingly competitive digital space, this isn’t just a problem— it’s a huge missed opportunity that’s costing your firm revenue. It’s also entirely reversible. By taking the time to conduct a keyword gap analysis, you can identify the search terms your competitors rank for, but you don’t. Tap into those keywords, and you can start to outrank your rivals and begin attracting more high-value prospects to your site.
I’ve seen firsthand how the information gleaned from a wellthought-out keyword gap analysis can help law firms cut through the digital noise in a crowded online marketplace. If you’re ready to take your SEO strategy to the next level, let’s dive in!
Understanding Keyword Research
Keywords serve as the bridge between what potential clients search for and the legal services you provide. Effective keyword research goes beyond simply identifying highly searched terms. It requires understanding search intent—the “why” behind every query. When someone searches for “personal injury lawyer,” they have different needs than someone searching for “how to file a personal injury claim.” The first indicates they’re ready to hire legal representation, while the second suggests they’re still in the information-gathering phase.
For law firms, this distinction matters tremendously. Highconversion keywords typically include location-specific terms like “divorce attorney in Chicago” or service-specific phrases such as “wrongful termination lawyer.” These targeted searches often represent prospects who are further along in their decisionmaking process.
Long-tail keywords deserve special attention in legal marketing. While “lawyer” might generate massive search volume, “affordable immigration lawyer for green card applications” targets a specific audience with clear intent. These longer, more specific phrases typically face less competition and attract more qualified prospects. In addition, Google’s AI Mode and LLMs are shifting user behavior toward more conversational searches, which often take the form of long-tail queries and detailed questions.
Keyword Gap Analysis for Law Firms: How to Outrank Your Competitors
by Spencer Shaak
What Makes Keyword Gap Analysis Essential
In my experience, most legal practices face intense competition online, with established firms dominating many valuable search terms. Keyword gap analysis helps level the playing field by revealing overlooked opportunities and emerging trends in legal searches.
Consider this scenario: Your personal injury firm ranks well for “car accident lawyer,” but your competitor consistently appears for “rideshare accident attorney” and “bicycle accident lawyer”—terms you never considered targeting. A keyword gap analysis would identify these opportunities, allowing you to create relevant content and capture leads among potential clients querying those terms.
The benefits extend beyond just finding new high-intent search terms. Keyword gap analysis provides insights into your competitors’ content strategies, reveals seasonal trends in legal searches, and helps you understand which topics resonate with your target audience.
Regular gap analysis also keeps you ahead of industry changes. As new legal issues emerge or regulations change, search patterns evolve. Firms that monitor these shifts through competitor analysis can quickly adapt their content strategies to capture emerging opportunities.
Performing a Keyword Gap Analysis
So, what does it take to conduct a thorough keyword gap analysis?
Identify Your True Competitors
An effective analysis begins with identifying the right competitors to analyze. Focus on law firms that serve similar clients in your focal practice areas. Also review firms operating in your geographic area to assess how they perform locally— for example, through their office location pages and Google Business Profiles. Don’t just consider the biggest firms in your market—sometimes smaller, specialized practices can reveal valuable niche opportunities.
Start by searching for your primary practice area keywords in Google. The firms consistently appearing in the top 10 results should be on your analysis list. Pay attention to both organic results and Google Ads, as firms investing in paid search often have sophisticated keyword strategies worth tracking and evaluating.
Consider both direct and indirect competitors. A direct
competitor might be another family law firm in your city, while an indirect competitor could be a legal information website that ranks for questions your potential clients ask.
Identify Potential Competitor Keywords
Once you’ve selected competitors, use your chosen analysis tool—Semrush Keyword Gap, Content Gap by Ahrefs, SimilarWeb, etc.—to extract their keyword data. Focus on terms that align with your practice areas and geographic market. A personal injury firm in Texas that only serves clients within the state shouldn’t prioritize keywords specific to New York workers’ compensation law.
Look for patterns in your competitors’ keyword strategies. Are they targeting specific types of cases within your practice area that you haven’t considered? Do they rank for informational keywords that could drive top-of-funnel traffic to your firm?
Pay special attention to local SEO opportunities. Competitors might rank for neighborhood-specific terms, nearby city names, or location-based legal questions that you could also target. And don’t overlook long-tail variations of your core keywords. Your competitor might rank for “how to choose a divorce lawyer” while you only target “divorce lawyer.” These informational keywords can attract prospects early in their research process.
Choose Competitor Keywords to Target
Not every keyword your competitors rank for deserves your attention. Prioritize opportunities based on relevance, search volume, competition level, and your firm’s capacity to create quality content.
Relevance should be your first filter. A keyword might generate significant traffic for a competitor, but if it doesn’t align with your services or target clients, it won’t benefit your firm. Focus on keywords that match your practice areas and can realistically convert into qualified leads.
Evaluate the competitive landscape for each keyword. Tools like Ahrefs and Semrush provide keyword difficulty scores that estimate how challenging it would be to rank for specific terms. As a general rule, newer websites should target keywords with lower difficulty scores, while established firms with strong domain authority can pursue more competitive terms.
Consider search intent carefully. Keywords indicating immediate need for legal services (like “hire DUI lawyer”) typically offer higher conversion potential than informational searches (like “what happens at a DUI hearing”). Balance your strategy between capturing immediate demand and building long-term organic growth through educational content.
Creating Content Around High-Intent Keywords
Discovering keyword opportunities is only the beginning. Success requires creating compelling, authoritative content that addresses the search intent behind each target keyword. For legal content, quality and expertise matter more than quantity. Google’s algorithms increasingly favor content that demonstrates expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness—
particularly important for YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) topics like legal services.
When creating content for legal keywords, consider the specific needs of searchers. Someone searching for “child custody modification lawyer” likely needs immediate legal assistance, making a well-optimized service page more appropriate than a general blog post. Conversely, “child custody laws in [state]” suggests an informational need better served by comprehensive educational content.
Structure your content to address common questions and concerns related to each keyword. Use clear headings, bullet points, and concise paragraphs to make information easily digestible. Include relevant case studies, testimonials, or examples when appropriate, while maintaining client confidentiality.
Don’t forget technical SEO elements. Optimize title tags, meta descriptions, and header tags to include your target keywords naturally. Ensure your content loads quickly and provides an excellent user experience across all devices.
Measuring Success and Continuous Improvement
Keyword gap analysis isn’t a one-time activity. Legal markets evolve, competitors adjust their strategies, and new opportunities emerge regularly. Establish a routine for monitoring your progress and identifying new gaps.
Track key metrics including organic traffic growth, keyword ranking improvements, and most importantly, lead generation from organic search. Use tools like Google Analytics and Google Search Console to monitor how your targeted keywords perform over time.
Set realistic expectations for results. SEO typically requires several months to show significant impact, particularly in competitive legal markets. Focus on gradual improvements, rather than expecting immediate dramatic changes.
Keep monitoring your competitors’ activities. They may be conducting their own gap analysis and identifying opportunities you’ve overlooked. Keeping an eye on the competition helps you stay ahead of trends and maintain your search visibility.
Takeaway
The digital landscape is always evolving. But by prioritizing a data-driven keyword strategy that prioritizes search intent, your firm can achieve the online visibility critical to achieving its business development goals. n
Spencer Shaak is the Director of SEO and AI Search for our Good2bSocial Digital Marketing Division. A seasoned SEO expert with over a decade of experience in digital marketing, specializing in search engine optimization, content strategy, and technical SEO. He leads initiatives to optimize content for inclusion in AI-generated search results, leveraging promptdriven strategies, structured data, and natural language alignment to enhance visibility across platforms like Google, ChatGPT, and Perplexity. Learn more at www.good2bsocial.com.
There is a well-known principle in communication circles, first expressed by cognitive scientist George Lakoff:
“When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.” It means that even when we try to deny a specific attack against us, when we use the same terms, we end up giving space and power to that attack. The idea, expressed in Lakoff’s book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, is built on the demonstrated tendency for our unconscious mind to grasp onto an offered association even when that association is being rejected.
The classic example is former President Richard Nixon’s statement that, “I am not a crook.” He can deny it, but now we’re still thinking of him in the same category as “crook.” In a more recent example, conservative activist Mike Lindell was being deposed in a defamation lawsuit, and completely lost his cool after the attorney cast aspersions on his “My Pillow” product, shouting, “They’re not lumpy pillows!”
That case had nothing to do with pillow quality, but in litigation, there is often an actual need to deny whatever bad thing the other side is projecting against you. Your credibility might depend on rejecting the negative frame the other side is trying to place around you. You want to convey that you’re not “greedy,” “careless,” or “dishonest,” but you also want to do so without sounding defensive and without further activating the same associations you’re trying to negate. In this post, I’ll share some practical ways to do that.
Don’t Activate Bad Frames, Reframe Instead
The advice from Lakoff is to avoid using the other side’s negative terms: “Avoid repeating the charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation. When journalists protest that they are ‘Not the Enemy,’ they should remember how well ‘I am not a crook’ worked for Nixon.” The better course is replacing the other side’s bad frame with your better frame. Journalists should emphasize that they’re on the side of truth. Nixon could have emphasized that he followed the law (if that were the truth).
In creating your messages for discovery and trial, the same principle applies. State it in the positive: Don’t say “it isn’t about greed,” but do say “it is about justice and being made whole.” Don’t say “We weren’t careless,” but do say, “We took every reasonable precaution.” Don’t say, “He wasn’t dishonest,” but do say, “He told the truth.”
There are two specific settings where it is important to avoid the negative frame.
Don’t Activate a Bad Frame
by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
In Jury Selection
Jury selection is different than the other messaging stages of trial because you are trying to find and excuse those jurors who would be less fair to your clients. You can’t afford to fully avoid the negative frames because you are trying to determine who holds onto those frames. Still, it is important to conduct a targeted examination in order to expose the less favorable jurors without giving undue emphasis to these negative frames. A voir dire approach I’ve demonstrated, the Pivot, for example is based on using strategically-phrased hand-raising questions (Who believes…) to identify a minority of jurors with less favorable attitudes and experiences, while reserving your openended follow up questions (Why? Tell me more about that…) for those in a majority on the more favorable side of the frame that is helpful to your side.
In Testimony
During examination in deposition or trial, witnesses can face a strong impulse to deny a negative conclusion or association they’re being handed by counsel for the other side. And sometimes, of course, that impulse to negate is important. To avoid looking evasive, it is necessary to answer directly, but to avoid activating the other side’s framing, it is important to use your own words.
For example, counsel for the other party might ask a doctor defendant, “So, you skipped that particular diagnostic test, correct?” Instead of a defensive, “No, I did not ‘skip’ it…” it is better to respond, “No, I followed the protocol, which includes other steps rather than this test. “
More broadly, attention to language and to framing at all pretrial and trial stages, including openings and closings, is important. The task is not just the logical one of deciding what frames to promote and reject, but also the psychological steps in taking care with what is being evoked and reinforced. n
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm has provided research and strategic advice on several hundred cases across the country for the past 21 years, applying a doctorate in communication emphasizing the areas of legal persuasion and rhetoric. As a tenured Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Dr. Broda-Bahm has taught courses including legal communication, argumentation, persuasion, and research methods. He has trained and consulted in 19 countries around the world and is Past President of the American Society of Trial Consultants.
Employee performance is central to many human resource decisions. When determining compensation changes, incentives, promotions, demotions, reductions-in-force, and while also explaining pay differences, organizations lean on employee performance as the deciding factor. Given its importance, employee performance needs to be carefully documented, managed, and utilized in decision-making. However, recent research suggests many organizations are falling short on performance management.
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP) have performed decades of research related to the effectiveness and validity of performance management processes. A summary of the last five years of selected research is below:
1. Most employees feel that their managers need more training in people management skills, communication, team development, time management, performance management, and leadership skills; and that employee performance is greatly impacted by managers being in leadership roles that they are unqualified for as a leader.
2. Too many organizations are relying on traditional systems of subjective ratings that are done just once or twice per year even though there is extensive evidence that a focus on development and performance discussions throughout the year are much more effective in developing the workforce.
3. SIOP surveys over the past three years have shown that employees see little value in performance management processes that are infrequently done; employees are not inspired by processes that are seen as biased or performed as a checkmark.
4. Growing evidence shows that organizations need to adopt more frequent, real-time feedback and coaching
Merit-Based Performance Management
by Thomas Carnahan, Ph.D
with level-setting/calibration and incentives for seeking and completing current- and next-level development.
5. Current people analytics research done by SHRM shows that traditional performance management processes often get it wrong – and that ratings are more based on relationships in the organization than actual performance; this same research suggests manager bias in performance leads to more high-performing employees leaving the organization.
What can organizations do to improve their performance management process? Some recommendations are below:
1. Split the what and the how.
a. Have one process based on organizational objectives that measures employee success in completing job duties and tasks (the What)
b. Have a second process based on the processes and manners used by that employee to be successful (professionalism, attention to detail, time management, etc.) at completing the objectives (the How).
2. Incorporate talent management into performance management—For employees who have stated they want to seek promotion, also provide ratings on next-level skills and readiness to assist with succession planning.
3. Performance management should be documented year-round and be between more than just the employee and their manager. Comments and feedback should be gathered from anyone at the organization, as well as clients and customers, to create a clearer picture of employee performance.
4. Performance management should include levelsetting/calibration meetings where a neutral facilitator helps managers recognize any potential biases they have (such as recency, halo, similar-tome, leniency, severity, etc.) and adjust their ratings
and documentation to ensure consistency in the application of the rating scale
5. Performance management processes should be based on the results of job analysis, so employees are being rated only on aspects that are valid for their position instead of subjective feelings or feedback. This is a fundamental part of any merit-based performance management system. To effectively evaluate and improve performance based on the merits of what the employee brings to the work, the organization must first understand what the performance domain looks like in terms of essential duties and competencies needed for success.
Ultimately, implementing an effective performance management process is more complex than many organizations recognize. And getting it right is critical to ensure the process is an effective management tool.
With the current focus on making merit-based decisions, performance management should be tied to specific job requirements. To advance a skills-based hiring process, the process should also be focused on learning and development, rather than simply completing a requirement. For a performance management process to be successful, it requires organizational commitment from all levels to spend the time necessary to yield actionable information for employees. n
Thomas Carnahan, Ph.D is a Senior Manager in charge of Compensation Services at Berkshire and has more than 15 years of experience in research methodology, data analysis, and HR process development. Currently, Thomas works with clients who are both in current litigation or want to avoid litigation by evaluating and understanding their current state with HR best practices and compensation analysis. Learn more at www.berkshireassociates.com.
California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases
by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
These recent case summaries were provided by Monty A. McIntyre, a mediator, arbitrator and referee at ADR Services, Inc., and come from his online publication California Case Summaries™️ (https://cacasesummaries.com), which helps California civil lawyers and law firms win more cases by always knowing the new case law in their practice areas. At ADR Services, Monty handles cases in the areas of business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts. To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case managers, Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323, or Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600.
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Employment
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1874891: The Court of Appeal denied the employer defendant’s petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff’s PAGA action alleging no individual claims, but only claims on behalf of other employees. The issue was whether Labor Code section 2699 authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a lawsuit that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. After plaintiff dismissed his individual claims, because they had been ordered to arbitration, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that plaintiff could not bring PAGA claims for violations suffered only by other employees. The Court of Appel denied the writ petition, concluding that a plaintiff may bring a PAGA action seeking the recovery of civil penalties (1) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by the employee, (2) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees, or (3) both. (C.A. 5th, July 7, 2025.)
Landlord-Tenant
Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025
WL 1764252: The Court of Appeal transferred this case from the appellate division of the superior court to decide whether a tenant can appeal a judgment for
possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding if the landlord has outstanding damages claims that have not been adjudicated. It concluded that a possession-only judgment is not appealable in this situation because it does not resolve all rights of the parties. However, given the uncertainty of the law on appealability at the time defendant filed his appeal, the Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate to avoid any further delay. It concluded that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit served by plaintiff landlord, pursuant to section 1161(2) was invalid for failure to make clear by when and how defendant tenant had to pay the rent, and that defendant would lose possession of the premises if he did not timely cure the default. Plaintiff’s complaint incorporating the three-day notice therefore failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in favor of plaintiff and to enter a new judgment in favor of defendant. (C.A. 2nd, June 26, 2025.)
Real Property
Amundson et al. v. Catello (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1563241: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order identifying the owners of real property as cross-defendant Ruth Catello (Catello) and the estate of decedent Leslie J. Knoles (decedent) and ordering a partition by sale. Decedent had four surviving siblings. Catello and decedent originally acquired title to the real property as joint tenants. About one month before her death, decedent recorded a quitclaim deed that, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common with no
right of survivorship. Catello and the siblings filed dueling petitions in the probate court. Those proceedings were not yet concluded when the Court of Appeal issued its decision. This appeal arose after Catello filed an action against two of the siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and for quiet title to the real property, the siblings later filed a crossclaim seeking to partition the real property by sale, and the trial court entered its interlocutory judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the interlocutory judgment because the siblings did not have standing to bring the partition action. Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) provides that a partition action may be commenced and maintained by an owner of an estate of inheritance in real property. The probate proceedings, however, had not yet determined whether the real property was a part of decedent’s estate. Because the party seeking partition must have clear title, the uncertainty of the outcome of the probate proceedings precluded the siblings from establishing the ownership interest required to bring a partition claim under section 872.210. (C.A. 4th, Decision after rehearing, June 3, 2025.)
Torts
Mitchell v. Hutchinson (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1904317: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants Gail B. Hutchinson and the Gail B. Hutchinson Trust’s (defendants) motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ action for personal injury and property damage arising from rocks or boulders rolling down a hill and onto the road. Plaintiff sued several defendants who owned adjacent real property. The trial court properly granted summary judgment. Defendants met their initial burden pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (p)(2) of showing that plaintiffs could not prove the element of causation as to both of their causes of action. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to (1) whether the rocks came from defendants’ property or, alternatively, (2) whether defendants and the other owners of the adjacent hillside acted negligently in maintaining their slopes such that the burden of proof on the issue of causation would shift to defendants at trial under Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80. Because plaintiffs did neither, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. (C.A. 4th, filed June 11, 2025, published July 10, 2025.) n
