Legal Visual Strategy

Based on 13 techniques to visually define key textual evidence with visual images on the same page for specific legal purposes.
See Precedents. The integrated combination constrains subjective interpretation of the words because they are qualified by the visual (real and illustrative). Conversely, the images are seen in the context of the now “spin resistant” textual evidence (and submissions).

Division of Functions

Is a key principle of Legal Visual Strategy. Iconic and Indexical images (supported with text) are vastly better at expressing the intended meaning of legal theories, themes and submissions. The key is to correctly divide the functions between words and the images to communicate the legal theory without invoking bias.

Purposes and Techniques

There are 6 primary purposes to Legal Visual Strategy called the “BASICS”. There are 13 primary techniques to Integrate visual evidence with textual evidence or submissions. An example of an integration technique is Demonstrative Graph Theory (“DGT”). A legal proceeding is a semantic network detailing past and future events primarily through text. In DGT the graph is a symbolic representation of the network and its connectivity. In DGT the critical legal evidentiary points (known as nodes in mathematics) are abstractly shown together with the direct links between those points. A very simple demonstrative graph below shows the consequential impact arising at critical points after wrong medication was dispensed. The direct connectivity between the points, based on the comparison, evidences the all-important element of “causation” in law. The direct links in the graph go to distinguish the typically obtuse defense of “remoteness” in law. The power of DGT in a very complex and highly successsful case is shown in Precedents: Arbitration to Trial and Beyod.

Impact of Demonstrative Advocacy

Significantly augments the 3 primary components* of advocacy first identified by no less than Aristotle:

Credibility (“Ethos“): Speakers who used images and text were found to be “more credible”,“better prepared”, “more professional”, and “clearer”. Ask us for research.

Persuasiveness (“Logos”): 67% of groups were “convinced” by the speaker when images were combined in the presentation as opposed to only 50% being convinced when only text was used. Ask us for research.

Settlement (“Pathos”): 79% of groups reached “consensus” when presented with visual images combined with text as opposed to only 58% reaching consensus when only text was used. Ask us for research.