Making Business Cases Relatable: Lessons from High School

“Consumer” trial lawyers handle situations that an average juror may have personally experienced or at least can relate to – for example accidents resulting in injuries, negligent medical treatment, sexual assault or harassment or employment discrimination. The human element is immediately apparent, and the stakes feel personal.
“Business” trial lawyers, by contrast, often handle situations that a judge or average juror may never have personally experienced and could have trouble understanding – investment fraud, director or officer liability, breach of fiduciary duties, contract or licensing, infringement of intellectual property or non-medical professional negligence. These cases can feel abstract, removed from everyday experience, and frankly, less sympathetic.
The challenge business trial lawyers face is presenting cases in a manner that resonates deeply with their audience, whether in a bench trial, arbitration, or before a jury. The underlying facts may not only fall outside common experience but can be genuinely difficult to explain. Moreover, in jury trials, jurors may feel less sympathy for someone claiming millions in investment losses than for someone seeking damages for personal injuries or lost wages. The “David versus Goliath” narrative may seem inverted when large sums are at stake.
However, trial lawyers can transform these complex business disputes into compelling morality tales by employing principles we all learned by high school graduation. This approach makes the abstract concrete and the unfamiliar familiar.
Identifying Potential Jury Bias
The process begins before opening statements. While arbitrators and judges are assigned, jury trials offer the crucial opportunity to identify and address potential bias. Smart questioning can reveal jurors’ preconceptions about business litigation.
Plaintiff’s counsel should probe whether jurors can award substantial damages when no physical injury occurred. Ask about attitudes toward “runaway jury verdicts” – many remember the McDonald’s coffee case, often misunderstanding its facts. Can they fairly evaluate a case where the damage is purely economic?
Defense counsel should explore anti-corporate sentiment. Do potential jurors believe businesses inherently cheat customers? Recent events like the public reaction to Luigi Mangione’s actions against UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson revealed deep-seated anger toward corporate leadership. Understanding these biases allows lawyers to either exclude hostile jurors or address concerns head-on.
The Five-Paragraph Essay at Trial
Remember high school English? The five-paragraph expository essay provided a foolproof structure: state your thesis and three supporting points, develop each point in separate paragraphs, then conclude by reinforcing your thesis. This translates perfectly to trial advocacy: tell them what you’re going to prove, present your evidence, then remind them what you’ve proven.
This structure works because it mirrors how people naturally process and retain information. Jurors, like students, need roadmaps to navigate complex material.
Universal Moral Principles: Making Business Personal
The key insight is that every business dispute, no matter how complex, ultimately involves violation of a simple moral principle everyone learned by high school.
“Keep your word.” This is the essence of a contract case. Whether dealing with a promise from a friend or multi-million-dollar licensing agreements or partnership breakups, the fundamental question remains: did someone break a promise they made?
“Don’t lie.” This is the essence of a fraud case. Securities fraud, insurance fraud, or misrepresentation in business dealings all boil down to someone telling lies to gain an advantage. The complexity of financial instruments or corporate structures doesn’t change this basic moral failure.
“Treat others as you would be treated.” The Golden Rule governs fiduciary relationships, trust disputes, and professional negligence cases. When someone accepts responsibility to act in another’s best interests – whether as a trustee, corporate officer, or professional advisor – they’ve agreed to put their client’s interests first.
“Don’t copy.” Intellectual property law protects creative work and innovation. Whether involving patent infringement, trademark violations, or trade secret theft, the principle remains simple: don’t take what isn’t yours without permission.
Weaving Themes Through the Trial
These themes should be emphasized throughout the case. In opening statements, introduce your moral framework early. During witness examination, consistently return to these principles. When presenting complex evidence – financial statements, technical specifications, corporate documents – always connect back to the fundamental moral violation.
This approach serves another crucial function: it prepares jurors for their brief legal education, jury instructions read at the end of evidence. When the judge finally reads the legal standards, they should sound familiar, not foreign. The law becomes an expression of the moral principles the trial lawyer has been discussing throughout trial.
Complexity Made Simple
Business trials need not be an exercise in bewildering jurors with arcane financial concepts or corporate structures. By grounding complex disputes in universal moral principles, trial lawyers can make any business case accessible and compelling. The goal isn’t to oversimplify, but to provide a relatable moral framework that helps jurors navigate complexity while keeping sight of fundamental fairness.
The lessons we all learned in high school, it turns out, provide everything we need to render justice even in the world of high stakes business disputes.