Your search for ‘IMS Legal Strategies’ returned 41 results

Expert witness selection in complex litigation requires more than impressive credentials. IMS Legal Strategies' Senior Director Erica Evans reveals how effective expert strategy balances specialized knowledge with the ability to translate complexity into clear, credible testimony that resonates with judges and juries.

Jury research across multiple bad faith insurance cases reveals a critical disconnect between how jurors naturally understand "bad faith" and the legal definitions they must apply. Mock juror data shows that 43% view bad faith as selfishness prioritizing the insurer over the insured, while 37% see it as actively working against the insured's interests—perspectives that may not align with jurisdiction-specific legal standards requiring only proof of failure to settle appropriately.

Mock trials offer trial teams critical insights into juror attitudes and case strategy, but choosing between online and in-person formats requires careful consideration of research goals, case complexity, and available resources. Each format presents distinct advantages: online mock trials provide cost-efficiency and broader participant access, while in-person sessions deliver courtroom realism and deeper behavioral observations.

Mock trial research delivers its greatest value when presentations mirror the quality and preparation jurors expect in real courtrooms. Strong advocacy, clear organization, and compelling delivery create an environment where jurors engage authentically with case merits rather than presentation flaws, generating insights that accurately predict trial outcomes and inform strategic decisions.

Trial lawyers often assume jurors understand common legal terminology, but research reveals a significant comprehension gap. A mock trial study examining the phrase "red herring" found that only three of seventeen jurors could accurately define this seemingly familiar term, raising critical questions about courtroom communication effectiveness.

In complex trademark and false advertising litigation, understanding consumer perception is critical to building a strong case. But how do legal teams determine which survey approach will best support their strategy when multiple legal theories are in play? Litigation survey consulting offers early-stage insights that help attorneys evaluate case theories, test assumptions, and make data-informed decisions before committing to full evidentiary research.

Energy arbitration disputes involve complex technical evidence, engineering concepts, and operational decisions that require strategic visual communication to help arbitrators understand and remember key arguments. The challenge lies not in the tribunal's ability to comprehend sophisticated evidence, but in how effectively counsel organizes and presents that information through clear visual frameworks and demonstratives.

Nuclear verdicts pose significant risks for defense counsel, particularly in catastrophic injury cases. Strategic mistakes during trial preparation often lead to exceptionally high jury awards that exceed reasonable expectations. Early case planning and mock trial research can help identify vulnerabilities and reduce exposure to adverse outcomes.

With an etymology rooted in Old French and Latin, the translation of “voir dire” is “to speak the truth.” The voir dire process, which may feel more like targeted questioning than truth-speaking, is often the first opportunity to shape how jurors view both counsel and the case

Trial preparation often hinges on understanding how jurors will perceive your case before it reaches the courtroom. Mock trials serve as strategic research tools that allow legal teams to test case themes, evaluate witness credibility, and refine arguments based on feedback from individuals who mirror the actual jury pool. This approach helps attorneys reduce uncertainty and tailor their strategies to maximize favorable outcomes.

Proximate cause stands as a cornerstone concept in legal proceedings, determining whether a defendant's actions are sufficiently direct to justify liability. This principle requires attorneys to navigate complex...

Amanda Panagakis and Lindsay Bouchard, two accomplished jury consultants who joined IMS through the First Court acquisition, share their professional journeys and insights into the trial consulting industry.

Strong courtroom advocacy begins long before opening statements, with early case strategy sessions that define priorities, test assumptions, and align trial teams around a unified message. This integrated approach combines jury research, expert testimony, trial graphics, and legal arguments into a cohesive framework that strengthens cases from discovery through verdict.

Juror decision-making in civil cases is often influenced by emotional responses, particularly sympathy for plaintiffs, which can distort deliberations and lead to verdicts driven more by emotion than evidence. This analysis examines how sympathy affects damage awards and trial outcomes, while exploring strategies for defense counsel to acknowledge harm without allowing emotion to override legal standards. The piece addresses the unique challenges corporate defendants face in managing juror perceptions while

When jurors' gut instincts clash with statistical data, trial teams face one of the courtroom's trickiest challenges. IMS experts explore practical strategies for bridging the gap between mathematical significance and human intuition, offering a roadmap for making complex numbers resonate with everyday jurors through clear storytelling and simple visual tools.

The Squirt survey format, named after a 1980 trademark dispute, presents consumers with marks or products from both parties to measure whether they believe products share the same source, affiliation, or sponsorship. This methodology replicates real marketplace conditions where consumers encounter allegedly similar products simultaneously or sequentially, making it particularly valuable in trademark infringement cases where marketplace proximity exists.

Litigation teams often rely on verbal arguments, but strategic visual thinking can transform complex facts into compelling narratives that jurors understand and remember.

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.