Search Results for: not an actor

I chose to leave the Civil Justice Support Group on March 7, 2012. I am sure many members of the group did not notice considering the fact that I had only joined it in February, but to those who did I offer this explanation and discussion. From the beginning of my very short participation in the group, certain members took offense at a discussion that I posted entitled UPCOMING CLE: AAJ’S THE JURY BIAS MODEL 2™: THE START OF THE REVOLUTION – APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES FROM DISCOVERY TO CLOSING. Of particular concern to those members was the title of the CLE program. I posted several comments explaining what I knew to be the facts about the title, however, those comments appear to have been ignored by at least one prominent member of the group. Due to the open hostility I encountered, I chose to leave the group and continue future discussions on this and other topics on my own website and in the various other LinkedIn groups of which I am a member. However, before leaving the short-lived, yet controversial discussions had in the Civil Justice Support Group, I feel compelled to set forth the facts that triggered the ridiculous and, quite frankly, overly defensive reaction to the title of the program. All of this seems quite silly to be honest, but every time I attempted to move on from the subject in the group discussion, another disparaging remark would be slipped in the comments forcing me to respond or risk affirming the statements by silence. Most anyone reading this post is a lawyer and can probably relate to exactly what I am talking about. Those little gems slipped into letters from opposing counsel that you simply must address because you know if left unchallenged, your silence will be used against you somewhere along the way.

For the record, the CLE program is an AAJ Education Program.  Even though I currently serve as the Chair of AAJ’s Railroad Section, I have absolutely no role in AAJ’s Education Programs. I did not title the program and had nothing to do with any aspect of offering the CLE. I was merely asked to join the faculty of the program and to spread the word which, as a member of AAJ, I felt was only right for me to do. All of these facts appear to have been ignored by my detractors within the Civil Justice Support Group. In addition to their willful ignorance of the facts, I happen to know firsthand that the particular member of the Civil Justice Support Group that took great offense was well aware of all of these facts before posting public comments to the group disparaging me and my own LAWYEROLOGY! group. This seems to call the motives behind the offended member’s comments into question, but I will leave that discussion to be addressed later in this article and in future articles in this forum where the bullying tactics of this member carry no weight.

Another fact that seems to have been ignored is that, after this member voiced his concern over the use of the phrase “The Start of the Revolution”, I immediately notified AAJ and AAJ graciously decided to rename the program AAJ’S THE JURY BIAS MODEL 2™: APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES FROM DISCOVERY TO CLOSING. In addition, ten days ago on February 27th, 2012, the post on my blog about the program was updated to reflect this change. AAJ made the change to the title of the program and I made the change to the post, despite the fact that the phrase “The Start of the Revolution” is not even part of the title of the offended member’s book.  The book is entitled “Reptile – The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution.” If you do not already know the name of the author, it is Mr. David Ball.

Apparently, Mr. Ball believes that any use of the word revolution in reference to litigation is somehow an infringement. Even though I, along with AAJ, found it hard to believe that Mr. Ball holds a trademark or copyright on the word “revolution,” as a courtesy it was removed from the title of the program by AAJ. Even though this initially stopped the open hostility, it apparently was not enough to appease Mr. Ball and comments by some of his followers and him continued. I have no doubt that Mr. Ball saw that it would be much easier to attack me personally rather than the administration of the American Association for Justice, so I have a pretty good feeling why I became the target. Frankly I am embarrassed that I was drawn into conducting the argument over the title of the program on Mr. Ball’s playing field, a tactic that I would normally strongly discourage.

Even though I am always game for a war of words and wits, it was surprising to me that a man as successful and well-established as Mr. Ball was so threatened by me that he felt the need to carry on this dispute and attempt to discredit my own LinkedIn group and my website lawyerology.com without so much as reading a word on either one of them. Mr. Ball’s out of left field attempt to do so by associating my group with some mysterious former group in the 80s or 90s that clearly is not related in any way to lawyerology.com strikes me as quite desperate and transparent. Perhaps there is an explanation for it in the very theories that lay at the root of this controversy and that I will discuss further below.

This is even more ridiculous when one considers that I do not even have a “system” that does or would compete with Mr. Ball’s Reptile. You see, I actually practice law for a living. I have no other source of income.  I am not a purveyor of systems for litigating cases, nor do I make any of my income from authoring books or giving seminars on the subject.  My site, Lawyerology.com is simply a website dedicated to the art and science of being a lawyer, not a system or manual for how to win trials. The art and science of being a lawyer is not limited to trial lawyers, nor is the subject matter of lawyerology.com so limited. Lawyerology.com generates no income.  If others reading the substance of my articles feel that I do have a system, then credit should be given where credit is due. In my case, that credit should be given to The Jury Bias Model, David Wenner and Greg Cusimano for a large contribution to my thoughts and ideas about how to go about the business of being a trial lawyer. If the techniques I use can be directly related to any particular school of thought, if in fact The Jury Bias Model can be so described, it would certainly be Wenner and Cusimano’s approach as opposed to Mr. Ball’s.

This leads me to another topic and what I have come to believe is the root of the entire dispute , the reptilian brain. Surely the followers of Reptile, and even the author himself, do not believe that Mr. Ball actually discovered the reptilian brain. For those that may hold this mistaken belief, you may want to do a little research on the topic. Long before Reptile was published, the reptilian brain was the subject of study for a wide variety of scientists interested in the inner workings of the human brain. Discussion of the reptilian brain’s influence on human behavior can hardly be described as revolutionary in the year 2012.

Here are the facts. In the 1960s, neuroscientist Paul MacLean first posited the hypothesis that he called Triune Brain Theory that involved extensive study of the reptilian brain. The triune brain and the reptilian brain have been well known to scientists, businessmen, attorneys and even authors since that time. A simple Google search of “reptilian brain” yields over two million results and Mr. Ball’s treatment of the subject is not at the top of the list. Long before Reptile, astrophysicist Carl Sagan exposed a wide audience outside the scientific community to the theory of the reptilian brain some forty years ago in his book “The Dragons of Eden.” In addition, there are numerous other references in popular culture to the reptilian brain, one of which appears prominently in Frank Miller’s graphic novel “Elektra Assassin.” I found this reference of particular interest several years ago when doing my own amateur research on the topic due to my love of science fiction and fantasy literature. In the graphic novel, Frank Miller’s character Elektra has the ability to function only using her “reptilian brain” so that she is able to act instinctively and ruthlessly in the presence of danger.

More recently, the reptilian brain theory has been widely applied in the marketing field. Marketing guru Clotaire Rapaille discussed the theory publicly in an interview with Frontline in 2004 for a segment entitled The Persuaders. The list of references to the reptilian brain and decision making prior to the publishing of Reptile goes on and on. In short, the reptilian brain theory of decision making was around long before Mr. Ball began telling lawyers about it in Reptile.

How do I know all of this? Because I have an academic interest in the science behind persuasion and decision making. While I will read Reptile when my complimentary copy arrives, I do not need a legal “manual” on the subject in order to study and practice these principles. Besides, any lawyer that has ever tried a case knows there is no “manual” manual for winning in litigation. In my opinion, it is far more useful to study the sources of the information directly which is why the majority of the reading I do is outside the legal field in the areas of sociology, psychology, communications, marketing and advertising. This may sound silly to those who prefer the Cliffs Notes versions, but I believe this is the way to truly understand the principles behind the theories propounded in these areas of study. I suppose my detractors would say “you are really selling yourself short by reading all these original sources of information. What you really need to do is simply read psychology for dummies.” Sarcasm aside, I will read the Reptile when my copy arrives and judge for myself whether Mr. Ball has expanded upon or substantively contributed to theories that have now been around for nearly half a century. Please check back for a full review of Reptile after I have had a chance to carefully read the book.

The most ironic part about this entire episode is that Mr. Ball’s impulsive reaction to use of a word he feels is a key component of his livelihood, is a perfect example of the reptilian brain in action. Even he should appreciate this observation. I am specifically referring to acting decisively and instinctively against a perceived threat whether consciously or subconsciously and without regard to extraneous details such as the facts. If you do some reading on the subject you will see that this is a “reptilian” reaction.  However, even when caused to make decisions or take actions by the reptilian brain, something that the believers in the theory will tell you is a compulsion rather than a conscious choice, human beings are also blessed with the power of reflection.  Even if we cannot stop the reptilian brain from reacting to a threat, we can reflect on the decision after the fact and take responsibility for our actions when they are clearly in error.

So with this letter, I bid farewell to the Civil Justice Support Group and urge any members that are interested in a truly open forum for discussion to also join the LinkedIn LAWYEROLOGY! group where they will be free to discuss all manner of topics and freely use the word revolution to describe them without fear of reprisal.