Cephalon can’t rely on the strength of its patent for a narcolepsy drug in a reverse-payment antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission because the judge found in a related case that the patent is invalid.
Many attorneys now use PowerPoint in trial to preview, highlight, and sum up the evidence for their arguments and organize their presentations. Effective PowerPoints garner the attention of court personnel and jury members and enhance their overall presentation. However, ineffective PowerPoints can be confusing, difficult to read, or distract the audience from the presentation’s overall objective. Attorney and legal technology consultant Paul Unger argues that only with the proper skills and learning can a lawyer create an informative and engaging PowerPoint presentation that will be a useful tool in the courtroom.
In this episode of The Digital Edge, Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway interview Unger about the best practices in using PowerPoint in the courtroom. Unger emphasizes simplicity, professionalism, and making PowerPoint a tool that reinforces the content rather than providing it. According to research Unger has done, audiences who are distracted by bullet points and excess text are unlikely to remember much of the slide’s content or even the presenting lawyer’s main point. He recommends that the PowerPoint slides provide only headlines and pictures that are held together by the attorney’s narrative.
Unger’s experience in PowerPoint and legal technology comes from being an attorney and founding principal of Affinity Consulting Group, a nationwide consulting company providing legal technology consulting, continuing legal education, and training. He specializes in trial presentation and litigation technology, document and case management, and paperless office strategies. To learn more, pick up a copy of his book, PowerPoint in One Hour for Lawyers, at the ABA bookstore.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
These 19 firms are at the cutting edge of plaintiffs’ work — and are giving defense players a run for their money.
My summary of Knox v. SEIU at SCOTUSblog.com: Knox knocks unions on mid-year assessment for non-members.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby invokes passionate debates and fiery discourse. At the spearhead of exchange are questions about reproductive, First Amendment, and healthcare rights. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings light to these issues along with Emily Martin from the National Women’s Law Center and Elizabeth Slattery from the Heritage Foundation. Together they discuss the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act vs. invoking a Constitutional argument centered around the First Amendment. Tune in to learn more about the 4 debated methods of contraception, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, and religious rights of corporations.
Emily Martin is the Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women’s health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and served as a law clerk for Senior Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia. She has served as Vice President and President of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a non-profit organization in New York City.
Elizabeth Slattery is a senior legal policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. She researches a variety of issues such as the rule of law, the First Amendment, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions. Ms. Slattery also studies and writes about cases before the Supreme Court, judicial nominations, and the proper role of the courts. She manages the Meese Center’s appellate advocacy programs, including moot court sessions to prepare litigators for oral argument before the Supreme Court. Ms. Slattery’s analysis and commentary have appeared in The Washington Times and The Washington Examiner, as well as outlets including National Review Online, The Daily Signal, The Daily Caller and U.S. News and World Report.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
[JURIST] UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] on Tuesday announced [press release] plans to enact new laws that will protect girls from the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) [WHO backgrounder], procedures that intentionally alter or injure the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. The practice is often motivated by cultural, religious or social factors. Cameron made the announcement at Girl Summit 2014 [event website], an event hosted by the British government and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) [official website],…