FOCUS GROUPS BOOK

THE KEENAN LAW FIRM 

INCLUDES GUIDE TO VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS 

POLICY & PROCEDURE 

MANUAL 

FOCUS 

GROUP 

SECOND EDITION 

BY 

Amy Miller former Fellow of 

Keenan Law Firm 

Foreword by Don Keenan

About the Author 

Amy F. Miller was the seventh fellow at the Keenan Law Firm. She is a Sea8le na9ve, who was 

ready to take on new challenges and mentorship when she applied in 2018 to the fellowship 

program to be mentored by Don Keenan himself. 

She spent 14 months learning and working in Seaside alongside Mr. Keenan and his tribe of 

fellow lawyers with cases all across the country. Cases stemming from medical malprac9ce, 

premise liability, product defect, and all involving catastrophic injuries or death. 

How this book came about, was that nearly every week during her fellowship, Ms. Miller and 

the firm ran focus groups. They would put in a lot of work to prepare for each day, strategizing 

every case and what informa9on would be needed from the group that week. At the onset of 

each focus group, Mr. Keenan would do a voir dire with the group before presen9ng the cases 

for the day. This is the research and development, where Ms. Miller got to see him test out, 

tweak and improve voir dire ques9ons real 9me as well as every different type of focus group 

you will read about in this book. With this experience came Mr. Keenan’s confidence she could 

take what she learned and provide it to you in this second installment of the KLF focus group 

manual.

Ms. Miller grabbed the below shot of Mr. Keenan running a mock voir dire on referring 

a8orneys at a workshop at his home in Seaside, Florida. Just one of the many ways they were 

prac9cing focus group and voir techniques daily. 

Below is an excerpt from Ms. Miller’s blog summarizing her 9me working for the Keenan Law 

Firm, specifically on focus groups: 

I had done approximately two focus when I started at the Keenan Law Firm. 

And when I say “approximately,” it was definitely two, because when it is so few 

you remember the number! Today, I couldn’t begin to guess the number, having 

completed so many in my Eme in the fellowship and through to the present day. 

The thought of conEnuing to pracEce law without doing focus groups seems 

like uGer malpracEce at this point. I was able to witness Mr. Keenan run 

pracEce voir dire sets, put on full adversarial focus groups, and decipher exactly 

what to test in a case from hearing just simple snippets. What I learned was 

how he thought. How he lasered in on the precise issue in a case, and then how 

to develop a focus group in a way to test how a jury would respond to it. With 

that, we got the power to frame our case to put on steroids the posiEve 

aspects, and how to reframe a case to avoid the piLalls aMer geNng negaEve 

feedback. That is everything. That is a tool for triumph. 

The experience and growth alone from the focus groups I parEcipated in makes 

me proud. I learned the mechanics of the what, where, when and who of 

parEcipants, including liGle things like 8 people is a great number for a regular

focus group, and 12 may be too many; but for an adversarial focus group 12-15 

is just right. From the mechanics, to the preparaEon, to pracEcing voir dire and 

reframing cases, it is a skill I conEnue to hone, pracEce and will do so fully for 

as long as I am a lawyer. 

During my Eme, nearly 20 new alternaEve passion quesEons were rolled out 

and tested, cases focus grouped and tried to verdict, openings wriGen and 

tested, and tested again. And again. UnEl they were just right. Every 

fathomable type of focus group ran just at the right Eme, all skills I can now 

aGempt to emulate. 

If I were to take away everything else on this list, this item would likely remain 

as something completely indispensable. There has been nothing in my career 

quite like watching Don do a voir dire on a group of strangers and the 

indispensable informaEon they give back to him. The thought process, 

preparaEon and strategizing I was able to watch and eventually parEcipate in 

while deciding to take a case and later working it up, is nothing short of 

remarkable. 

Our job as aGorneys is to work as advocates for our clients that have been 

wronged. Their tragedy will eventually at its pinnacle, be judged by a jury of 

their peers. How can you truly do your job without taking that case to their 

peers as many Emes and in as many ways as humanely possible? People are 

just people. And those people are our juries and live among us every day as our 

focus groups. 

Bo#om Line: Not in a million years could I put into these pages all that I 

learned both personally and professionally during my Eme in Seaside. All that I 

gained, I will bring with me forever. Courage, connecEon with myself, and 

connecEon with others. Strength, confidence, and knowledge. Things I will be 

forever grateful for, and run with to just keep improving. 

AVer the fellowship, Ms. Miller returned to Sea8le to open her firm own firm with partner and 

fellow Edge a8orney, Bryan Olsen. Miller Olsen, PLLC runs focus groups weekly and con9nues 

the fight for jus9ce we are all embarking on together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Preface: 

Chapter 1: 

About the Author – Amy F. Miller 

IntroducDon 

STAGE 1 – INTAKE 

Chapter 2: 

Chapter 3: 

NarraDve Focus Group 

Safety Focus Group 

STAGE 2 – CASE DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter 4: 

Chapter 5: 

Chapter 6: 

Safety Rules 

Timelines 

Blackboard 

a. ARtudinal 

b. Word AssociaDon 

c. Smart Phone Focus Group 

STAGE 3 – TRIAL DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter 7: 

Chapter 8: 

Chapter 9: 

Chapter 10: 

Voir Dire 

a. AlternaDve Passion QuesDons 

Witness EvaluaDon 

DemonstraDves 

MoDve 

STAGE 4 – TRIAL PREPARATION 

Chapter 11: 

Opening Statements 

a. PlainDff 

b. PlainDff v. Defense

Chapter 12: 

Chapter 13: 

Chapter 14: 

What the Jury Gets out of the Verdict 

EvaluaDng Damages 

Determining the Value 

STAGE 5 – THE MOCK TRIAL 

Chapter 15: 

The Adversarial Focus Group 

BONUS 

Chapter 16: 

Virtual Focus Groups in the Era of Covid-19 

APPENDIX 

1. Sample Focus Group Memo 

2. Adversarial Focus Group Case Specific QuesDonnaire 

3. Adversarial Focus Group Blog 

4. Virtual Focus Group Checklist 

5. Sample AdverDsement and QuesDonnaire 

6. Sample Focus Group ConfidenDality Agreement 

7. AFM Focus Group Blog

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

Welcome to the second installment of The Keenan Law Firm’s Policy and Procedure Manual for 

Focus Groups. How this book came about will help guide you through knowing how to best use 

it. The first Keenan Law Firm focus group book – “The Keenan Law Firm Policy & Procedure 

Manual on Focus Groups” focused heavily on the who, what, and when of focus groups. The 

chapters in the first manual set out the procedural aspects of a focus group, including why we 

do them, when to do them, who and how to get parIcipants, where they are physically 

conducted; with the how porIon of the focus group being a much smaller taste. The power and 

depth of what we can be doing in our focus groups is why we are here. Andrew Gould and 

William Entrekin did a phenomenal job in the first policy and procedural manual of giving the 

audience a “how to” on focus groups. 

At its very core, the purpose of this book is to provide you as the reader with all of the tools you 

need to feel confident to be running focus groups early on in your cases, and most importantly, 

oNen. My hope for you is that you can start shiNing your way of thinking from how a lawyer 

thinks, to how your jury pool will be perceiving your case. To give you the tools to idenIfy the 

opinions, life experiences and biases they are bringing into your court room and how to work 

with them.

The purpose of this second Manual is to expand on the general who, what, when and where of 

the first Manual, to provide trial lawyers with the actual tools, outlines and pracIcal Ips to 

bePer understand how jurors want to receive your case. 

One major truth is this: if you want to know how to win your case, the last person you should 

ask is a lawyer. Lawyers do not decide your case. Real people do. Bubba does. The only way to 

find out how that is going to happen, and what the jury needs from us is to simply ask them. 

The end game of doing focus groups, and everything we do in a case for that maPer, is to win. 

What does “winning” mean? It means something different at every step of your case. It means 

idenIfying the cases from the get-go through the case selecIon criteria and first intake focus 

groups whether it is a case you want to invest not only your Ime and money on, but something 

that you want to communicate to a potenIal client that has high hopes for success. At other 

points in the case, if it makes it over the first intake hurdle, is assessing at every step of the way 

the winning facts, the defenses that will kill you, and the things you need to find out in order to 

get the best result for your client. Lastly, it is consistently and properly assessing your case to 

determine if it is one that should be sePled or one that should be tried. And who bePer to ask 

these quesIons of than the actual individuals that will be siZng on your jury and be the 

ulImate road to your and your client’s success? 

General 6ps: 

1. Have an objec6ve. The very first thing to do when siZng down to plan your focus group 

is to determine what you are needing from the parIcipants. You cannot do everything in 

one focus group. You cannot all at once present a narraIve and also test an opening, or 

get a percepIon of a photo of a defendant and also show an MOI. So before you start, 

pick what is ripest and ready in your case to be tested, and focus on that. Write at the 

top of your piece of paper and materials the objecIve, and while formulaIng your 

presentaIon and quesIons conInuously cross check and ensure everything you are 

including and asking propels forward that objecIve. If not, take it out. 

2. Prepare your materials. Materials can mean visuals that include a PowerPoint 

presentaIon, photographs, videos or they can simply mean your wriPen materials of 

what you will be reading to the focus group. Because words maPer so profoundly, do not 

wing it unless you are extremely seasoned in doing so. Not only do you not want to 

waste your own Ime, but you also do not want to waste the Ime of the parIcipants you 

have paid to come listen to you. The more efficient and prepared you are the more 

things you can accomplish in every block of Ime. In addiIon, the more prepared you 

are, the greater the chance you will have Ime to edit and trim down your presentaIons 

to keep them as simple as possible. And simple means easy to understand. 

3. Keep it simple. Stemming from the above, do not aPempt and cram too much into your 

presentaIon. See item 1 on this list. Whatever you include in your presentaIon, ensure

it aligns with your objecIve. For example, if you are giving your opening statement to a 

focus group, your objecIve clearly is to ascertain if you can win your case on your 

opening, with the focus group not even hearing the other side. If you can’t win when 

you are only presenIng one side of a case, you need to work on your opening. In this 

instance, with that objecIve, your de-brief quesIons will focus only on that objecIve. 

Do not try and complicate maPers by going in depth into the Imeline of your case for 

example. IdenIfy an objecIve, and keep everything streamlined and simply flowing 

towards that objecIve. Know you will have many more focus groups to accomplish all 

you will need to do before trial. 

4. Provide an introduc6on. Don’t miss an opportunity to help place the focus group 

parIcipants in the right frame of mind to hear your materials with the best chance to 

remove the possibility for skewed answers, or not moIvate them to fully parIcipate. 

Here is a sample introducIon hit list of the things to share with the group before geZng 

started: 

• Why are we here? Either ask the group to tell you why they think they are there 

and help expand on that, or simply communicate to the group the purpose of the 

focus group that day. The purpose being to have real people, that mirror the jury 

that will be eventually hearing a case, give their opinions, expectaIons and 

biases. Remind the group that biases are not a bad thing, we all have them and 

we will all be respecdul throughout the day to listen even if we don’t agree. 

• Eliminate the bias of pleasing the presenters. If the focus group parIcipants 

think that the case is your own, you risk them simply sharing with you what they 

think you want to hear. Inform the group that you as the presenter were hired by 

other aPorneys to present issues or parts of their cases, and that you only have 

the informaIon provided to you, with no skin in the game regarding the 

outcome. 

• Elevate their importance. I always tell the focus group that the cases and issues 

being presented are real. That their decisions and opinions when communicated 

to the aPorneys actually working on the cases can oNen Imes help resolve them 

or clear up confusion for real people involved. This isn’t a drill, the people and 

places we present to them are real. 

• Give a thumb nail of how the day will go. Give a short summary of how the day 

will go so they know what to expect as far as when breaks will be, when payment 

will be issued, what materials they will need throughout the Ime you spend 

together. 

• Thank them. Because you are thankful they have dedicated their Ime to come 

help you win your case. 

5. Always do a voir dire sec6on. There will be a full chapter on this in the pages to come, 

but an addiIonal reminder to always carve out Ime before you begin your presentaIons 

to do a voir dire on your parIcipants. The objecIves can be endless, but those at the

forefront being bonding your group to each other and you, embedding the codes of your 

case, shiNing the POV of your parIcipants if needed, and beginning to elicit aZtudes 

and Bubba’s blackboard on the topics of your case. Unless you are in one of the rare 

states where you will not get a voir dire, it is also an opportunity for you to pracIce. This 

is not to say that even if you are in one of the states with no aPorney lead voir dire at 

trial, you do not do a voir dire secIon at focus groups. In any venue, remember the 

overarching objecIve of focus groups is to determine through repeIIon and tesIng the 

jurors that will be good, and bad for your case. Even more importantly in states with no 

voir dire at trial, idenIfying by demographics these individuals becomes paramount; voir 

dire being how to do that. 

6. Role play your presenta6on and how you will ask your ques6ons. What is meant here 

is that it is imperaIve you sit and think about the quesIons you are planning to ask, and 

anIcipaIng the responses you will be evoking. The quality and content of your 

responses will be dictated by the way in which you ask your quesIon. For instance, look 

at the below forms of quesIons that could be asked in a medical malpracIce case focus 

group voir dire, and the way asking the quesIon evokes a different response: 

Op6on 1: 

Op6on 2: 

Op6on 3: 

Please tell us some important things about health care in our society. 

Is good health care important in our community? 

When did you first learn that good health care was important to society? 

The first is open ended, you will get a myriad of responses that may or may not be 

helpful, and you will have no control over whether they are in fact going to be helpful to 

you. OpIon two is bePer, in that it is more direct. OpIon three is arguably the best way 

to ask the quesIon if your goal is to embed and get agreement with the premise that 

medical care in this country is paramount in importance. The quesIon assumes the 

answer. Think about not only the content of your quesIons, but the way in which you 

ask them to tailor the quality and purpose of which you are evoking the responses. 

7. Learn how to ask Devil’s Advocate Ques6ons. What do I mean by “devil’s advocate.” 

Very simply, the dicIonary defines devil’s advocate as: “A person who expresses a 

contenIous opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing 

arguments.” It is one thing to evoke the opinions from your focus group, it is another to 

then test the strength of those posiIons through devil’s advocate quesIons. But why? 

The why is that we need to know if the parIcipants are dead set, heels dug in, 10 out of 

10 convinced of the posiIon that they are communicaIng to you, or if they are going to 

be swayed once the defense comes in and begins presenIng their case. How to do it is 

simple. First, evoke responses on your case topic. Second, ask the group to tell everyone 

what “devil’s advocate” means. Third, do just that and play that part, presenIng the 

opposing view to whatever the group is communicaIng to you. This oNen means

presenIng a strong defense point in opposiIon to a plainIff supporIve focus group 

opinion. Lastly, when presented with this opposing point, watch and listen. Do the 

parIcipants dig their heels in further and become more adamant about their support, or 

do they begin to crack. This will show you which points can shake your foundaIonal 

support, and also how strongly the parIcipants were with you in the first place. 

8. De-brief and prac6ce interpre6ng right when the focus group ends: If the end game is 

to idenIfy paPerns, perceive what the focus group just told you and to use that in 

propelling your case forward, the de-brief aNer the focus group has ended is where you 

are going to do that. Remember the major truth that if you want to know why someone 

made the decision they made, the last thing you should do is ask them. Most of us have 

no idea why we do, say or believe the things we believe. Why your focus group 

parIcipants leaned the ways they did, will be uncovered through matching up their 

responses in the voir dire porIon of the focus group with responses sprinkled 

throughout all of the presentaIons. SiZng at the end of the focus group and 

synthesizing this data and working towards understanding it is the only way you will later 

be able to couple those paPerns and insIncIvely idenIfy the good and bad jurors for 

you when you make it to trial. 

9. Do your focus group memo within 48 hours. If we always are looking at the end game of 

focus groups being deciphering the best way to present your case to the best possible 

jury, if you are not tracking and geZng down on paper what they are saying, it is 

worthless. A sample focus group memo is included in the Appendix 1. 

10. Track paYerns and save par6cipant demographics. It can be simple, or elaborate, but 

whatever it is, be sure to save the parIcipant informaIon for each focus group so when 

you have done several or hopefully dozens of focus groups at the Ime of trial, you can 

idenIfy the jurors that will be favorable, and those that will not be, for your case. 

Before diving into the specific types of focus groups we can be running on our cases, please 

remember one last thing: have fun and be yourself! A lot of things in this profession are 

stressful. There is a reason that suicide rates, drug use and alcohol use are elevated in the legal 

profession. It is hard. We are literally holding up the lives and livelihoods of people that have 

been abused, wronged and taken advantage of in our hands. There are Imes when these things 

are literally hanging on the balance: with a witness on the stand, during an opening statement, 

during a key deposiIon. Focus groups are not that Ime. If you mess up? Do it again! If you say 

the wrong thing? Do it again? If your technology fails and you lose your video? Do it again! This 

is a Ime to try new things, to be yourself, to let loose and connect with your community. Do not 

stress too much to the point of taking the joy and connecIon out of these focus group 

experiences. The more at ease you become now when doing these presentaIons and speaking 

1 

See Appendix 1 – Sample Focus Group Memo

to the parIcipants, the more that ease and confidence will spill over into all other areas of your 

pracIce. 

Book Outline: 

This book will flow through the following chart. Each chapter will explain what the type of focus 

group is, when to do it, what the objecIves can be, how to do it and provide examples.

FOCUS GROUP STAGES 

STAGE 

INTAKE 

STAGE 

1 

NARRATIVE 

SAFETY 

ATTITUDINAL 

STAGE 

2 

SAFETY 

RULES 

TIMELINE 

BLACKBOARD 

WORD ASSOCIATION 

SMARTPHONE 

STAGE 

3 

VOIR DIRE 

ALTERNATIVE 

PASSION 

QUESTIONS 

WITNESS 

EVALUATION 

DEMONSTRATIVES 

MOTIVE 

STAGE 

4 

PLAINTIFF’S 

OPENING 

PLAINTIFF VS 

DEFENSE 

OPENING 

WHAT THE JURY 

GETS FROM 

THE VERDICT 

DAMAGES 

DETERMINE 

THE VALUE 

STAGE 5 

FINAL 

STAGE 

THE ADVERSIAL FOCUS GROUP

CHAPTER 2: THE NARRATIVE FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

The narra0ve focus group is one of the most widely executed focus groups and formats we have 

at our disposal. The reason being, at its core it is a simple presenta0on of a finite set of facts to 

test an objec0fiable element of your case. The dic0onary defines narra0ve as, “A spoken or 

wriHen account of connected events; a story.” I couldn’t love that defini0on more. A story. That 

is exactly what you are doing in a narra0ve focus group, you are telling the story in as few words 

as possible with as neutral a tone as possible, to get the blink and opinions of the par0cipants. 

It is also one of the focus groups used at the Intake Stage of your case. 

When to do it: 

Frankly, the narra0ve focus group can be used at any 0me during a case to test just about any 

issue posed. 

A major truth to remember is that lawyers live in a different world than Bubba. 

If you want to know how Bubba thinks, the last person to ask is another lawyer. 

Most oRen, the narra0ve presenta0on is going to be a focus group used at the intake and 

beginning stages of your case to iden0fy whether or not to take the case, to begin tes0ng who 

your main defendants will be and to iden0fy where in your case the emo0onal buHons are. 

From the get-go, the codes for your case begin emerging from the first narra0ve focus group 

you run. 

With that in mind, as your case progresses, don’t forget the benefit of the narra0ve 

presenta0on. While the diagram at the beginning of this book outlines a linear 0meline of sorts 

walking through the stages of a case, we all know that nothing in li0ga0on ever follows a 

predictable path. Keep this narra0ve focus group in your toolbox throughout the en0re life0me 

of your case to test issues as they arise and to add or take away facts or issues to see how they 

change par0cipant opinions and votes. The simplicity of this type of focus group can always lend 

a hand as the case con0nues to get more complicated and the case ebbs ad flows.

Objec?ves: 

Let us look into and explore some of the objec0ves and purposes behind using the narra0ve 

focus group during the intake stage and ini0al stages of your case. Remember, as set out in the 

introduc0on, going into your focus groups with a clear objec0ve is paramount to geXng useful 

feedback. It also is a checks and balances approach for yourself to ensure you are not confusing 

or adding too many facts to one single presenta0on. 

1. Does your case fulfill the Case Selec?on Criteria Stool and should you take the case?: 

The narra0ve focus group when done correctly can help you decide whether or not the 

poten0al case that has come through your door is one to take and work up through the Edge 

system. One of the things you are deciphering through this focus group is whether or not the 

case fulfills the three legs of the Case Selec0on Criteria. 

Crea0ng a presenta0on and asking ques0ons about (1) whether or not the conduct of the 

defendants in your case can impact random vic0ms, (2) why the community should care, and (3) 

what analogous system failures are there that can happen again if the defendant’s conduct 

con0nues. 

If you have these elements in your case at the onset, confirmed through your focus group, that 

is the founda0on for an Edge system-failure case workup. 

2. Iden?fy any Nega?ve ANribu?on in your case: 

Another objec0ve for the narra0ve focus group can be to iden0fy to what extent, if any, 

nega0ve aHribu0on will be an issue in your case. Nega0ve aHribu0on in this sense refers to a

juror’s perspec0ve, when hearing your case that the bad thing, whatever it may have been, 

couldn’t have happened to them. The point of view being that had they been in that 

circumstance they would have made a different decision or would have never succumb to the 

bad outcome that occurred to your client. 

Nega0ve aHribu0on has been described by Don Keenan as a “life preserver” raR. Why is that? 

Bubba cannot live in a world where he or she believes that the bad thing that happened to your 

client could or would ever happen to them. So what do they do? They use self-preserva0on to 

do mind gymnas0cs coming up with all of the reasons they would have done something 

differently from your client. And what does that do? Kills your case. You are leR with a jury pool 

that has blamed your client, shiRed the blame off of the defendant’s bad act and they can go on 

with their life feeling safe. 

Dependent on where you are in your focus group journey, this concept may be heavily 

engrained in your prac0ce, or you may have not been as familiarized with it yet. But, the more 

focus groups you do, the more this concept and aspect of human nature shows through. How 

do you overcome nega0ve aHribu0on you may ask? Work your case up to focus on the system 

failure, not your client. 

What nega0ve aHribu0on sounds like: 

“I would have goHen a second opinion.” 

“I never would have done that.” 

“The plain0ff should have done x, y, or z differently.” 

“I would have known that was not the right thing to do.” 

What nega0ve aHribu0on is not: 

“If they are able to stay in business someone else will get hurt.” 

“That could have been me or my family.” 

“If the company broke those rules, what other rules are they breaking.” 

“It was like a 0cking 0me bomb.” 

The narra0ve focus group is perfect to test this theory and to assess whether or not you have 

adequately imbedded and made the focal point of your case the system failure. Run the focus 

group first with a neutral fact paHern sharing informa0on about the client. As the case 

progresses transi0on to a presenta0on that starts with iden0fying the defendant and what they 

did, and leaning away from more facts about your client. The feedback will speak for itself and 

show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that framing your case around the Defendant’s conduct 

and the system failure in your case and not the plain0ff is the key to success.

3. Assess how much Bubba cares about your case. 

This objec0ve to the narra0ve focus group aligns with the second leg on the case selec0on 

criteria stool above. At the core of your case is emo0on. Or at least it should be. No lawyer 

wants to take a case to trial that the jury is not going to care about or one that will not evoke 

some sort of emo0on. 

To assess how much and to what extent the jury is going to care about your case, you simply ask 

them. Looking below at the wriHen ques0on outline to ask aRer every narra0ve focus group 

presenta0on, the ques0on assessing this concept is the Emo0onal Index ques0on. 

The ques0on reads as follows: “On a scale of 1-10, one being not at all, 10 being your hair is on 

fire and you do not want to live in a world where something like what you just heard happens, 

how does the presenta0on that you just heard hit you in your gut? How does it make you feel?” 

A case that people care about in these terms is going to be above a 6 as an average for a focus 

group, but in reality you do not want to take a case to trial that isn’t consistently geXng an 

average of 8 and above on this emo0onal index scale. 

What is very incredible to watch is as the case progresses, and as you focus your evidence more 

and more around the system failure and how the defendant’s conduct can affect random vic0ms 

and if not stop will con0nue to happen in the future versus on the client, how that emo0on 

index vote con0nues to go up. 

4. Who are your key defendants? 

Another important objec0ve in a narra0ve focus group is to determine based on your facts and 

the players in your case, who the key defendant and or defendants are. 

A principle of the Edge is to never allow for an empty chair defense. So while leXng out 

defendants will not be an op0on, running a narra0ve focus group to determine where liability in 

percentages lies with each of them, you can focus your case around where you know the jury is 

most heavily assigning fault; before you even get into the court room. 

This will easily show itself in the wriHen vote sec0on of your presenta0on with the ques0on 

regarding liability and asking the focus group par0cipants to assign fault to each player in your 

case. This focus group technique and ques0oning is also where you can determine any poten0al 

contributory fault of your client, and whether or not the poten0al of having to admit a small 

percentage of fault on the plain0ff will be the best road to victory. As Mr. Keenan teaches us, 

honesty and accep0ng this small percentage of fault if the client owns that and focus groups 

confirm it is the best policy.

5. Ques?ons to get answered: 

Some0mes your objec0ve in a focus group will be to test informa0on. Other 0mes it will be to 

find out from the group what else they need to know to make a thoughgul and full 

determina0on about how they feel. 

This is accomplished by simply asking aRer a focus group par0cipa0on and through the use of 

the wriHen ques0ons below what else they would like to know to make their determina0on. 

Beware: do not ever start a presenta0on out with what else do you want to know ques0ons. 

The reason being that if you start out asking what informa0on the focus group does not have, 

you will go down a path of hypothe0cals ignoring the well thought out material that you did 

include in your presenta0on. The result will be that you never truly test what was in your 

narra0ve presenta0on, but begin tes0ng the hypothe0cal ques0ons posed by the par0cipants. 

So the advice is to always ask the “what more do you want to know,” ques0on at the very end 

aRer you have squeezed the orange on what they do have in front of them. 

How to do a narra?ve focus group: 

Simple. Less is more. The simplest solu0on is almost always the best. There is beauty in 

simplicity. You get the point; but all of the axioms on simplicity are true in this context. 

This point is profound. The more facts you insert into your narra0ve, and the more complex you 

make it, the less useful feedback you will get. This is again why one of the first things we 

covered in the Introduc0on was to have an objec0ve to your focus group presenta0on. 

You frankly cannot fit everything you need to test into one focus group. This is why with an 

objec0ve you can ensure that each fact you do include helps you further your specific focus 

group objec0ve. 

The order of a narra0ve presenta0on is as follows: 

! Read your narra0ve and show any visuals that you may have. 

! Read your narra0ve and show any visuals again. 

! Have the par0cipants on a sheet of paper or however you are doing so in your virtual 

focus group write the answers to your four wriHen ques0ons. 

! Conduct your verbal de-brief sec0on asking ques0ons of the group out loud. 

! Collect all of the wriHen votes and draR your focus group memo.

The below wriHen ques0ons are those to ask every 0me aRer your wriHen narra0ve as the case 

warrants. 

WriNen Ques?ons: 

1. Liability Vote Ques?on 

a. If you believe someone was at fault for what happened, who? 

b. Please assign a percentage to each party or individual that adds up to 100% if it is 

more than one party or en0ty. 

c. Include here: defendant, plain0ff, no one and someone else as op0ons. 

2. Emo?onal Vote 

a. On a scale of 1-10, one being not at all, 10 being your hair is on fire and you do 

not want to live in a world where something like what you just heard happens, 

how does the presenta0on that you just heard hit you in your gut? How does it 

make you feel? 

3. Top Three Things 

a. List the top three things that stood out to you in the presenta0on that led you to 

vote the way you did in ques0on number 1. 

4. What More do you want to Know 

a. What more do you want to know? 

Below are some sample ques0ons to provoke conversa0on during your verbal de-brief sec0on 

dependent on your focus group objec0ve. 

De-Brief Discussion Ques?ons: 

1. What happened? 

2. Was this preventable? 

3. What could they have done? 

4. Tell us what other people could have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. 

5. Why should we as the community care about this story? 

6. What other places or systems are similar to the failures that happened here?

7. Who else could get hurt if the conduct isn’t stopped? 

8. Devil’s Advocate Ques0ons 

9. How did this impact you emo0onally and why, or why not? 

10. What was the root cause of what happened, or the first in 0me it could have been 

prevented? 

SAMPLE NARRATIVE FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATIONS: 

Do refer back to the first focus group manual to see another detailed analysis of the narra0ve 

focus group. That manual includes example presenta0ons, de-brief ques0ons as well as sample 

focus group memos. 

Below are a few sample narra0ve presenta0ons, visuals were excluded. Note that each 

presenta0on starts with the introduc0on of the Defendant first, then the plain0ff. A 

parenthe0cal objec0ve is included at the onset of each presenta0on. 

Example 1: 

(Objec+ve: nega+ve a/ribu+on, case selec+on criteria stool and emo+onal index). 

Monsanto is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotech company founded in 1901. It 

was acquired by Bayer in 2018. Monsanto was the sole producer of PCBs in the US from 

1930-1977. PCBs were ban by the EPA in 1979 aRer being linked to health risks in humans and 

to environmental harms. The EPA labelled them “highly toxic.” 

Bob owns the building pictured. He bought from a prior owner in March of 2014. 

Barbara, a shop owner, was ren0ng one of the spaces from Bob. 

The lease stated Bob is in charge of fixing any light fixtures. The light fixtures were an ongoing 

complaint of Barbara’s. 

On August 12, 2016, there was a fire caused by one of the light fixtures. 

Barbara claims that bob was on a ladder removing the burned light fixture, asked her to help, 

and dropped the PCB liquid within the light onto her chest. 

Bob claims that he did not have any duty to replace the lights and told Barbara that. Since the 

liquid fell on her, she has suffered from con0nued burns on her chest, rashes, nodules 

throughout her chest and arms, throat and breathing issues, cogni0ve and memory problems 

and an inability to do her job as a business owner. 

Example 2:

(Objec+ve: case selec+on criteria stool: does Bubba believe that those condi+ons can be caused 

by medica+on, and do they care). 

Orthopedic Specialists was trea0ng Ms. Jones for ongoing foot pain and arthri0s. 

She had surgery to insert hardware on December 17, 2018. She suspected an infec0on due to 

pain. The doctor cleaned the surgical site. 

She developed a fever and went to the ER. She became sep0c due to the infec0on. A surgery 

was done to revise and remove the hardware. 

ARer the surgery she developed drug induced lupus and fibromyalgia. 

Example 3: 

(Objec+ve: case selec+on criteria stool and nega+ve a/ribu+on). 

The ABC Hotel is a three-story hotel in Beau0ful, Washington. Construc0on was completed in 

2005. 

Show Photo. 

An HVAC unit was installed under the windows aRer construc0on. The HVAC unit creates a 

bench like surface beneath the window that is the length of the window and approximately 1 

foot wide. 

An architect hired to look at the Hotel window said: 

1. Installing a window opening control device to limit the window from opening all the way 

is required under certain residen0al building codes. 

Show Photo - show window that opens all the way. 

A decal was placed on the window glass by the Hotel that says “CAUTION Window Opens Fully” 

by the Hotel. 

Show Photo. 

John was staying in room 300, a room with no balcony on the third floor. 

He went to dinner and drinks. He was seen on hotel surveillance coming back to his room at 

10:30 p.m. He was found on the ground beneath his hotel window by a jogger at 7:00 a.m. the 

next day. His blood alcohol level when tested at the hospital that morning and was .22. 

The police found the window screen next to his body below the fully opened window of his 

room. The police ruled out suicide or any foul play. He died from a brain injury one-week later. 

John was 41 years old.

There are two theories as to what happened: 

1. That when he came back to the room he was taking his shoes off and fell out the 

window. 

2. That he sat down to chew tobacco on the HVAC unit beneath the window and fell out. 

Example 4: 

(Objec+ve: case selec+on criteria). 

State Farm insurance company is the largest auto insurer in the country. State Farm services 

over 83 million policies and accounts throughout the U.S. 

State Farm insured Jane with auto insurance in 2010 when she was rear ended. Shannon held a 

$100,000 underinsured motorist policy with State Farm. 

In May of 2012, Jane made a claim under her UIM policy for injuries. 

State Farm appointed an adjuster to her claim. He was provided Jane’s doctors’ opinions that 

her injuries were related to the crash. State Farm hired their own doctor that stated her injuries 

were not related. 

Based on that, State Farm never made any monetary offers to seHle Jane’s case. In September 

2015, Jane and State Farm went to trial, and aRer 4 days a jury found that the injuries were 

caused by the crash and the verdict was for $800,000 for future medical treatment and pain and 

suffering. 

ARer the trial, State Farm was only required by law to pay Jane the $100,000 policy, which they 

did. Now, Jane is alleging State Farm did not act reasonably or with “good faith and fair dealing” 

and is suing State Farm for Bad Faith. 

State Farm alleges that they did act reasonably in evalua0ng her claim. 

-------- 

Example 5: 

(Objec+ve: case selec+on criteria and nega+ve a/ribu+on). 

Northwest Heart Center is in Gorgeous, California. Dr. John Doe is a cardiovascular surgeon. 

(Photo). He has never done an aor0c valve replacement with a Bentall procedure before. 

A Bentall procedure is a cardiac surgery opera0on involving replacement of the clogged or nonworking 

aor0c valve. (SLIDE)

Pa0ent Phil Doe was 51. He was born with a bicuspid aor0c valve, which means he had only two 

cusps of the heart instead of three. (SLIDE) A bicuspid aor0c valve may cause the heart's aor0c 

valve to narrow. This narrowing prevents the valve from opening fully, which reduces or blocks 

blood flow from the heart to the body. Phil was followed for many years for this condi0on. 

In 2004, he began having shortness of breath. Dr. Doe, recommended an aor0c valve 

replacement using the Bentall procedure. 

Dr. Doe had Phil sign an informed consent. SLIDE. On January 22, 2004 he had the surgery. The 

surgery failed, and Phil required 5 months in the hospital and a heart transplant. 

Dr. Doe did not ever tell Phil he had never done the procedure before. 

Conclusion: 

Armed with this template to execute the narra0ve focus group, you will have confidence that 

every case that passes the test and makes it into your office is one that can be successfully 

worked up through the Edge System. 

The boHom line in these types of presenta0ons is to have a clear objec0ve, to keep the 

presenta0on simple to only include that informa0on that furthers that objec0ve, and keep track 

of how your votes and emo0onal response develops and strengthens over 0me as you 

transi0on a case from client centric to a system failure work up.

CHAPTER 3: SAFETY FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

A safety focus group is a presenta9on where you as the presenter does so from the perspec9ve 

of community safety as opposed to in the context of one side or another in a li9ga9on dispute. 

You are making the focus group a safety commiDee in your industry to spot deficiencies and 

give you the roadmap to what they expect, deserve and what to highlight from your case that 

was not done. 

Before we dig in, take your own perspec9ve and zoom out to the big picture. Think about the 

concept of the point of view (POV). This is the key to why the safety focus group is so unique, as 

well as so effec9ve and useful. 

Under most situa9ons, the POV of your focus group par9cipants coming into the day is going to 

be at the most basic level knowing that lawyers are involved, a dispute is involved and that they 

are likely going to need to pick sides in one fashion or another. It is impossible with that POV to 

completely remove all preconceived no9ons, biases and codes for lawyers and li9ga9on. They 

likely have had many thoughts about how they feel about both of those topics before you ever 

start speaking. During the narra9ve focus group we present a neutral statement with limited 

facts to uncover these preconceived no9ons, biases and codes and to find out how certain 

jurors will receive your case. The par9cipants are usually picking a side and have an engrained 

POV they are looking at the case through. 

It seems impossible to ever get a blank slate point of view going into a focus group then, right? 

With this conundrum in mind, the Edge system came up with the safety focus group. And ta-da! 

Now we can present a case from the community standpoint of safety for all, as opposed to one 

side piDed against another. 

In the safety focus group, as opposed to the narra9ve, we as the presenter introduce ourselves 

as a representa9ve of a safety organiza9on that governs or works in the realm of the topic that 

your case covers.

For instance, simply naming who is reques9ng the informa9on as the “SeaDle Safety Group for 

.” In the “blank,” inser9ng the type of case or topic you have. “SeaDle Safety Group for 

Product Safety,” or the “SeaDle Safety Group for road safety” for instance. 

I recommend not using an actual organiza9on where you are being dishonest, but instead a 

fic9onal safety commiDee or organiza9on created by you for purposes of the focus group. 

The beauty of this presenta9on is that now the POV of the par9cipants is that of a unit, with 

you and the community giving feedback on how to make the situa9on safer for all, not just one 

side. 


The safety focus group is another categorized under the Intake Stage of the case phases. The 

reason being, you can at the outset decipher from the feedback very similarly to the narra9ve 

focus group whether or not the elements of the case selec9on criteria are present. I have oên 

heard Mr. Keenan state that if you can successfully do a safety focus group in your case as the 

intake focus group, that is the superior choice based on the above comments regarding POV of 

the par9cipants . 

Objec

Full disclosure is that this does take a bit more synthesis and interpreta9on in deciphering than 

the narra9ve focus group. The reason being, in a narra9ve, you have provided the facts of the 

case and ask direct ques9ons regarding your case. In a safety focus group you are presen9ng a 

broader set of circumstances for an industry. For instance, if you asked the par9cipants about 

their safety expecta9ons and what they want as the standards in an emergency room prior to 

discharge of a pa9ent, you will get a list of expecta9ons from them. You then have to compare 

that to what was done in your case and assess whether a system failure occurred and to what 

defendants you are assigning that fault. Of course, you will eventually also run a narra9ve, but 

for intake evalua9on purposes you as the aDorney will need to compare expecta9ons and 

results of the safety focus group to the actual facts and evidence in your case. 

The results although are beau9ful. When you hear a focus group giving back to you their 

opinions, thoughts and expecta9ons of exactly what they do not want in a par9cular industry, 

that matches up perfectly with the failures that occurred in your case, you know it is a case you 

can intake and run successfully through the Edge System. 

2. Iden

harms), and where else in our world are safety systems important (other systems). All before 

ever geeng into the specific facts of your case. 

3. Iden

How to do a safety focus group: 

First, iden9fy the industry, topic or genre that you need to hone into for your par9cular case. 

Then create a wriDen presenta9on introducing that industry, your topic, and ques9ons that 

evoke comment specifically on the above, including what can go wrong, who can be hurt, how 

they can be hurt, what other industries are analogous and what their expecta9ons for safety are 

within that industry. 

For instance, in a medical malprac9ce case, the safety focus will be on safety in healthcare. In a 

product liability case, it will be product safety. In a premise liability case, it will be on keeping 

walkways and floors clear of dangers. 

While this may sound easy, be cognizant that if your case spreads across mul9ple topics as 

described above, do not try to combine them in a way that would be confusing. What you are 

aDemp9ng to decipher are the safety standards that apply to one industry or set of defendants, 

and then you can run another focus group or set of focus groups to decipher another. 

Overlapping the two will be disingenuous as well as confusing to both you and the par9cipants. 

This can occur in a medical device case where you have overlapping elements of product 

liability and medical malprac9ce, or a pedestrian/auto collision case where you have elements 

of road safety as well as premise liability. 

If you do not focus on one thing at a time, you will not recognize what safety 

standard applies to each industry. 

One important procedural comment is that you can combine a safety focus group with a 

narra9ve focus group. To do so, you would first run the safety focus group on the generalized 

topic of your case, then aêr you have completed that sec9on and drawn out all of the 

expecta9ons, run your narra9ve. This has the added benefit of embedding the expecta9ons of 

the industry prior to introducing your specific case facts. 

WriOen Ques

chaeng as a group and are influenced by the thoughts and words of others. Here, in this 

presenta9on, working as a team makes it less likely that par9cipants are going to be influenced 

by others around them. 

If I were to ask wriDen ques9ons during the safety focus group, they would be to get on paper 

the emo9onal index vote before the rest of the par9cipants shared their own. 

De-Brief Discussion Ques

Hello, we have been hired by an emergency room safety commiDee to assess safe protocol for 

discharge of pa9ents that present with chest pain. 

You all are the safety commiDee, and given the authority to form this emergency room’s policies 

and procedures. 

➔ Go to board: if a pa9ent presents to a hospital with chest pain: 

1. What symptoms would you expect with someone having a heart issue? 

2. Know what a differen9al diagnosis is? 

3. What should be on it? 

4. What tests do you expect a hospital to run? 

5. What else do you expect them to do? 

6. When a pa9ent discharged what do you expect a hospital to do first? 

7. Why is this important? 

8. Who could get hurt? 

9. How could they be hurt? 

10. What should be in the protocol for discharge of a pa9ent in general? 

11. What should be in the protocol for discharge with chest pain? 

12. Are there other areas of the hospital where you have these expecta9ons as well? 

Example 2: 

(Objec2ve: decipher expecta2ons of safety at hotel premise to assess case selec2on criteria). 

We have been hired by the SeaDle hotel safety commission to assess safety at hotel premises. 

Show people photographs of premise and hotel. 

1. Do you think what you saw was safe? 

2. If it was safe why? 

3. If it wasn’t safe then why not? 

4. From the hotel’s perspec9ve if all of the things that you men9oned to make it safer 

are not done, then what can happen?

5. To who? 

6. How can they be harmed? 

7. Whose responsibility would it be? 

8. Why? 

9. What can happen on the premises? 

10. Who can be on the premise? 

11. What are the concerns from the hotel’s perspec9ve as to what can happen on their 

property? 

12. (If FG par9cipants men9on injuries then ask)-> What would cause injury X? 

13. What can be done to reduce these injuries? 

14. What are your expecta9ons of the hotel to keep guests safe? 

15. Do you deserve these things? 

16. Why? 

17. Are they rights? 

18. Would you tolerate them being taken away? 

19. What other industries have similar standards? 

20. Who has the control over safety at the hotel? 

Example 3: 

(Objec2ve: decipher expecta2ons of safety with product manufacturer to assess case selec2on 

criteria). 

We are going to let you guys be the inves9gators in this case. Show photos of boDle caps. 

1. What are we looking at here? (safety boDle caps) 

2. Is anybody familiar with this product? 

3. What are these boDle caps designed to do? 

4. How affec9ve are they for their purpose? 

5. How do they work? 

6. How affec9ve are they supposed to be? 

7. Are they affec9ve against a 10-year-old? 

8. How about a 5-year-old? 

9. What are your expecta9ons of a company making this product? 

10. Who does it protect? 

11. What happens if your expecta9ons are not met? 

12. Who can get hurt? 

13. How can they be hurt? 

14. Is this important? 

15. Why or why not? 

16. Who is in control to make this product safe?

Example 4: 

(Objec2ve: decipher expecta2ons of safety with product manufacturer to assess case selec2on 

criteria). 

Safety FG Outline: 

1. Introduc

j. What safety rules can you think of that would stop any of the bad things from 

happening? 

k. What do you think about the marke9ng materials? 

l. What else could they have included, if anything? 

m. What do you expect this company to do before pueng a product like this on the 

market? 

Conclusion: 

Add the safety focus group template to your toolbox in order to bring the focus group 

par9cipants to the table with a whole new POV compared to the narra9ve presenta9on. Watch 

and learn as the group comes together with real feedback and solu9ons about how to make the 

world a safer place, and with that allowing you to show how the defendant’s system failed in 

doing so. A bonus is the prac9ce for voir dire that comes along with asking Bubba what their 

expecta9ons for safety are within a par9cular industry.

CHAPTER 4: SAFETY RULES FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

Nothing embodies the Edge system more than safety rules. Safety rules are at the pinnacle of 

our cases and the vehicle by which we deliver our system failure cases to the jury. Safety rules 

likewise make up one of the three necessary legs on the RepEle Stool. 

Safety rules are to be used in all of our deposiEons, with our expert witnesses, in our opening 

statement, with plainEff and defense witnesses, our client and lastly in closing. Safety rules are 

the vessel in which we deliver the facts and opinions in our cases. Safety rules provide direcEon 

and clarity in the case. At the conclusion of reading the safety rules, with no other informaEon, 

the audience should know what system failed, how it failed, why it failed and how the 

community conEnues to be subject to future harm if the violaEon of those rules conEnues. 

These truths make the formulaEon of safety rules paramount in having a successful trial and 

result. Let’s remember the major truth that if you want to test something in a way to assess 

how a jury will react, ask a focus group, not yourself or another lawyer. With this importance in 

mind, it is paramount that we know how to use focus groups in the draLing and tesEng of our 

safety rules. 

What this chapter is: an outline to help determine how to use focus groups in the formulaEon of 

your safety rules and also how to then conEnuously test those safety rules. 

What this chapter is not: a comprehensive tutorial on how to draL safety rules in the Edge 

System format. For that, the Keenan Trial InsEtute is the only true way to learn through the twoday 

course specifically formulated on how to draL safety rules correctly.

When to do: 

The simple answer is, you want to begin forming your safety rules as early as possible in your 

case. Once you have made it through the intake stage, and the case is officially signed up with 

your office, it is Eme to dive into Stage 2 and begin draLing and tesEng your safety rules. 

If we intend to be able to get agreement in deposiEons with our safety rules, the formaEon of 

these rules needs to begin early in the case. Even if the format or ordering changes, having the 

general concept and core to each rule to get acceptance from deposiEon witnesses is a good 

start. As the case progresses, the sentence structure may change, or order of the rules change, 

but there will be confidence that the core principles of the rules you tested and formed through 

focus groups have been embedded into the discovery phase of the case. 

Start creaEng, focus grouping and tesEng your rules as soon as you sign up the case. 

Objec=ves: 

At the end of the day, the ulEmate objecEve to running focus groups both on the formaEon and 

tesEng of your safety rules is to create case winning rules. To do that we need to use focus 

groups to formulate the rules, order the rules and test the rules. 

1. DraAing your safety rules. 

While I said at the onset of this chapter that it is not intended to replace that of taking the KTI 

Safety Rules course, but instead to focus specifically on how to use focus groups in the wriEng 

process; a brief recap and summary of Eps to remember and our Edge teachings on safety rules 

will help to get you started. Remember the early Edge teachings of the 7 Simple Rules for Safety 

Rules as you begin draLing your safety rules with the focus groups’ feedback.

Through the years the Edge system has given us an addiEonal 5 rules for safety rules to keep in 

mind: 

1. First in =me goes first – first Eme the bad act could have been prevented. 

2. All rules should address the emo=onal stool – lie, betrayal and hypocrisy. 

3. All rules should include the quid pro quo – you do for me what I do for you, the 

client followed the rules, but the defendant did not. 

4. The last rule is always the mo=ve – the why this happened. 

5. Every rule must have its own checklist – checklist are the facts that show the 

rule was violated. 

While with the above rules on safety rules you are equipped to formulate the sentence 

structure of the rule, the focus group comes in to give you the content. The objecEve here is to 

give the focus group your facts, players and informaEon regarding what happened and ask them 

what safety rules would have prevented the harms that occurred. 

By simply asking the first in Eme that the harms could have been prevented, by whom and how, 

you begin narrowing down when Bubba believes the system failed. The litmus test is to ask the 

parEcipants, do the safety rules give you the system failure? Has Bubba idenEfied for you the 

system that failed, or did not exist in the first place that led you to be bringing the case to 

them? 

2. Iden=fy your first in =me and case system failure. 

This is an extension of the above, but warrants reiteraEon and its own objecEve. A key objecEve 

in focus grouping your case to formulate your safety rules and test them is to have the jurors 

idenEfy the first in Eme event and place in the history of your case that the bad thing that 

happened to your client could have been prevented. 

When you correctly idenEfy the first in Eme moment that the harm could have been prevented 

you have unequivocally also idenEfied your system failure. Please read that again. I cannot

stress this enough. In my experience, idenEfying and appreciaEng the connecEon between first 

in Eme, the system failure and how to create your case around these things is the biggest failure 

we as aôrneys encounter. 

If you use your focus groups to successfully idenEfy this point in Eme the work is easy. You also 

automaEcally avoid the piàll of making your case an event case. If you take one thing from this 

book, I hope it is this. IdenEfy the first in Eme through your focus group, and you have idenEfied 

your system failure that is the framework for your Edge System case. 

3. Test your safety rules. 

Now that your focus group has heard your case, idenEfied your safety violaEons and you have 

created your safety rules, it is Eme to test them out. As you will see below, tesEng your safety 

rules should be very simple. It is as easy as presenEng a short descripEon of your case and 

presenEng the safety rules and asking if they are adequate, or just presenEng the safety rules in 

order and ensuring they answer the quesEons as to what happened, was it preventable and by 

whom. The safety rules should stand on their own to tell the story of the defendant’s conduct 

and why you are in the court house at all. 

4. Incorporate your safety rules into your opening statement. 

Once you have used focus groups to form your safety rules, confirm your first in Eme and 

system failure and tested your safety rules, it is Eme to put them to the test in your opening 

statement. 

This objecEve regarding safety rules will be one of the last tests to solidify focus group approval 

of your safety rules. In the opening statement focus group secEon of this book, examples of 

quesEons will help you formulate how to ask if the group remembers the safety rules, if they 

worked in your case, and if they would have prevented what happened to your client had they 

been followed. 

How to do a safety rules focus group: 

As discussed above, how to specifically run each type of focus group on safety rules will depend 

on the objecEve idenEfied. 

First, if you are at the onset seang out to draL your rules and idenEfy the first in Eme, start 

with a short narraEve presentaEon to the group and ask the following quesEons: 


2. Was it preventable? 

3. Who could have prevented it?

4. When was the first Eme what happened could have been prevented? 

5. What safety rules would have prevented the harms from occurring? 

6. Why did this happen? 

Second, once you have formulated your rules, now it is Eme to test them. Present the safety 

rules to the group either alone or with a short descripEon of the case followed by the safety 

rules. Then, ask the group again the above quesEons, with the addiEon of the following: 

1. Do you agree with these safety rules? 

2. Do they make sense? 


4. Can you tell from these safety rules alone what happened here? 

5. Would you re-order the safety rules? 

6. Are there any safety rules you would add? 

7. Would you be willing to give a pass for the violaEon of these rules? 


9. What can happen if these safety rules are violated? 

10. Who could be hurt? 

11. What other similar situaEons or industries have safety rules such as these? (analogous 

system failures). 

Third, to run a focus group incorporaEng your safety rules into your opening to test them, see 

Chapter 11 on Focus Grouping Opening Statements. It is as simple as running your opening 

statement which includes your safety rules and asking for feedback on memory retenEon of 

those rules, if they make sense and also if they most importantly would have prevented the 

harms if they would have been followed by the defendant in your case. 

SAMPLE SAFETY RULE FOCUS GROUPS: 

Example 1: 

(Objec-ve: formula-ng your safety rules). 

Happy Medical Center is a hospital 2 hours outside of Sea^le, Washington.

In 2015, Jane and John were expecEng their second child. No complicaEons during pregnancy. 

Mom was 5 days overdue and goes in to have birth. She is induced with medicaEon. She is in 

labor for 2 days. The labor did not progress, they kept giving her medicaEon. 

The nurses and First OB were monitoring her through the first day, but the doctor to be with her 

family and newborn, and went home and took over by phone. 

On day two, the baby’s heart rate dropped low, then went high and the nurses were concerned 

and called the doctor. She didn’t come in but just had the nurses turn her and walk the halls. 

They kept giving her medicaEon to induce labor. Mom signed a consent to have a c-secEon but 

they did not give her one and went with the natural birth route. 

The baby is born blue and not breathing. Was diagnosed with a brain injury due to lack of 

oxygen during birth. Now does not walk or talk or feed himself. 

De-Brief QuesEons: 



3. Who could have prevented it? 




Example 2: 

(Objec-ve: formula-ng your safety rules). 

The Kamikaze is a roller coaster in Portland, Oregon. It is a 100-foot tall roller coaster that goes 

forward and backwards. 

The roller coaster was manufactured in 1989 by Fun Games, Inc. Each year before anyone can 

ride it, it has to be inspected by a private inspecEon company and reported to the Oregon 

Division of Fire Safety. The ride was never properly inspected. 

On March 5, 2016, Amy was at Senior day, she was 18 and went on the Kamikaze. 

When the ride reached the top and started to go backwards, it derailed. The emergency stop 

was hit by an employee, and came to an abrupt stop. Two sets of wheels and the chain broke on 

the way down. Amy sustained a serious traumaEc brain injury.

The ride was inspected by the state’s fire safety inspector aLer and it was found that the 

emergency stop switches were defecEve and the fasteners for the chain needed to be replaced. 







Example 3: 

(Objec-ve: tes-ng your safety rules). 

Please listen to the following safety rules: 

Safety Rule Number 1: A company must hire qualified employees to protect us all from harm. 

Safety Rule Number 2: A company must properly train its employees to protect us all from 

harm. 

Safety Rule Number 3: A company must properly supervise its employees to protect us all from 

harm. 

Safety Rule Number 4: A company must not put profits over people to protect us all from harm. 






5. What addiEonal safety rules would have prevented the harms from occurring? 







12. Are there any safety rules you would add or take away? 



15. What can happen if these safety rules are violated? 

16. Who could be hurt?



Example 4: 

(Objec-ve: tes-ng your safety rules). 

Hospital A is a hospital in the city of Sea^le. The hospital has at its disposal MRI machines. Jane 

Doe came into Hospital A with a headache, blurry vision and dizziness. Hospital A monitored 

Jane but discharged her aLer 3 hours. Ms. Doe suffered a stroke that night and died as a result. 

Below are Safety Rules that apply to this case. 

Safety Rule Number 1: Healthcare providers must properly diagnose paEents in order to 

prevent harm and protect us all from serious injury or death. 

Safety Rule Number 2: Healthcare providers must properly use medical equipment in order to 


Safety Rule Number 3: Healthcare providers must properly monitor paEents during procedures 

in order to prevent harm and protect us all from serious injury or death. 

Safety Rule Number 4: Healthcare providers must not put profits over paEent safety in order to 







5. What addiEonal safety rules would have prevented the harms from occurring? 







12. Are there any safety rules you would add or take away? 



15. What can happen if these safety rules are violated?




Conclusion: 

At the end of the day, the above consideraEons are all to give us the ability to walk into the 

courthouse with a winning case. By having safety rules formulated by Bubba himself, tested 

through mulEple focus groups and answering the quesEons of when, who and how the harm 

could have been prevented, you are almost to the finish line.

CHAPTER 5: TIMELINE FOCUS GROUP 

What is it: 

Let us begin with this major truth: all cases should have a ?meline. A ?meline is a demonstra?ve 

and graphic representa?on of the passage of ?me in your case. Your goal is to chronologically 

arrange key sets of events in the order of their occurrence either linearly, on a clock, or on a 

calendar. 

The Linear *meline 

The Clock Timeline

The Calendar Timeline 

When to do: 

The ?meline focused group falls in the second stage of the case phases. 

The ?meline focus group is best done aGer the case has made it through the intake phase and 

has been signed up with your office, and you have run either a narra?ve focus group or safety 

focus group on your case. Having safety rules already formulated through your focus group is a 

good idea as well. The ?meline that you create and begin focus grouping will be one that will 

need to be tested early and consistently throughout your case as discovery progresses and facts 

are learned and changed. 

Objec>ves: 

Your objec?ves in focusing grouping your demonstra?ve ?meline are to decipher if the events 

that transpired were preventable, how/what went wrong and at the fault of whom.

How to do a >meline focus group: 

The obvious first step in doing a ?meline focus group, is crea?ng a simple yet effec?ve ?meline. 

Many programs these days including PowerPoint, the Keenan Case Presenta?on System and 

numerous programs online provide ?meline crea?on soGware. 

When draGing your first ?meline presenta?on, ?ps include first making a list of all of the 

poten?al items to go on your ?meline. At this point, if you have a complicated set of facts it 

would be a good ?me to do an interim focus group to ask the par?cipants what items on your 

longer list should go on your ul?mate demonstra?ve. 

Another ?p in deciding which facts of the many to put onto your ?meline is to ask yourself if 

that par?cular fact helps prove that the defendant violated the safety rules of your case. One of 

the biggest poten?al piQalls in draGing your ?meline will be fac?ng it up. 

Ask yourself before putting it on your timeline: “Does this fact help prove the 

safety rule violation?” 

With each poten?al fact ask yourself if it ul?mately will help the focus group answer the above 

three ques?ons on preventability. Be flexible and truly listen to the feedback of the focus groups 

on what to keep on a ?meline, what is working for them and what s?ll needs to be included. 

Once you have draGed your ?meline in demonstra?ve form, it will be ?me to put it in front of 

the focus group. 

Procedurally, you will first show the focus group the ?meline presenta?on you prepared in 

whichever soGware you choose. Next, you will go through the items on the ?meline to get 

feedback, then do your wriWen ques?ons, then run through your de-brief ques?ons and 

discussion. Voila! 

Prac?ce ?p: A ?p to engaging the focus group with this type of presenta?on is to go through the 

focus group par?cipants having them read each of the items in chronological order on your 

?meline. This allows engagement with the group and your demonstra?ve instead of simply 

reading it to them.

WriIen Ques>ons: 

The wriWen ques?ons to ask aGer presen?ng a ?meline are below. Remember, these wriWen 

ques?ons are done in silence, prior to the open mic de-brief por?on of the focus group. Here 

with the wriWen ques?ons you are evoking the raw, unfiltered opinions of the par?cipants 

before they are impacted by the words and contribu?ons of the other par?cipants. 

AGer the above wriWen ques?ons are answered, move into the de-brief por?on of your 

presenta?on and discussion. Many of the sample de-brief outlines will follow those of a 

narra?ve presenta?on, dependent of course on your iden?fied objec?ve. 

SAMPLE FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATIONS: 

A sample set of presenta?ons and de-brief ques?ons for discussion following a ?meline 

presenta?on are below. Remember, the actual graphic ?melines are not included, just the 

introduc?on, wriWen ques?on outline and de-brief ques?on outline. 

Example 1: 

Smith Medical Center is a hospital three hours outside of SeaWle, Washington. 

Dr. A is an OB/GYN and finished her residency in 2004. 

Dr. B is also an OB/GYN and finished her residency in 2005.

In 2010, Mary and Joe were expec?ng their first child. There were no complica?ons noted 

during her pregnancy. 

SHOW TIMELINE 

WriIen Timeline Ques>ons: 


2. If so, when? 

3. If so, how and by whom? 

Debrief: 


2. Liability vote: 

a. Medical Center 

b. Dr. A 

c. Dr. B 

d. Pa?ent 

e. Someone Else 

f. No one/Act of God 

3. Emo?onal index vote? 1-10 

4. What top three facts stood out to you? 

5. What makes this happen? 

6. Expecta?ons of mom expec?ng a baby? 

7. Is 48 hours of labor normal? 

8. How long does it take to give birth? 

a. How long is too long? 

9. What can happen if it takes too long? 

10. What do you think about mom? 

11. What do you think is going on with this baby? 

12. How can the ?meline be improved? 

13. What facts were included that you did not need? 

14. Graphically, what did you think about the ?meline? 

15. Did you understand everything on the ?meline? 

16. If not, what? 

17. Was it confusing? 

18. Anything you would want added on the ?meline? 

19. What more do you want to know?

Example 2: 

Specialist OB/GYN working in Florida is following a pa?ent. His name is Dr. Lee. He has been 

prac?cing for over 30 years. 

Pa?ent is having her first baby. She is 27. She gets diagnosed with gesta?onal diabetes in her 

second trimester. 

SHOW TIMELINE 





De-Brief: 



a. Medical Center 

b. Dr. A 

c. Dr. B 

d. Pa?ent 

e. Someone Else 

f. No one/Act of God 




6. Based on the informa?on you have, who is at fault for what happened? 

7. Was it preventable and how? 


9. How did this baby die? 

10. What did you think of the doctor or nurses you saw? Credible? 

11. Did you know all of the medical terms? 


13. What facts were included that you did not need?






19. What more do you want to know? 

Example 3: 

CASE TIMELINE: 

A 25-year-old married couple found out that they were expec?ng their first child. 

The specialist does a biophysical profile of the baby each week. 

On January 1, a biophysical profile was done and the baby passed with an 8 out of 8. 

On January 19, the baby scored an 8 out of 8. 

On January 26, a biophysical profile is done and a non-stress test. A nonstress test check's the 

baby's movement, heartbeat and contrac?ons. The baby scored a 10 out of 10. 

On February 5, the baby scored an 8 out of 8 but only aGer being s?mulated. 

On March 8, the mother does not feel the baby moving and calls the hospital. A nurse advised 

the mother to lay down, elevate her feet, and call back in a few hours if she s?ll does not feel 

any movement. 

On March 9, the mother is admiWed and seen by the on-call doctor. 

At 10:00 pm, the doctor does not perform tests on the baby because he believes the tests are 

not available on weekends during night shiG. 

At 3:30 a.m., the doctor is no?fied that the baby's heart rate is s?ll nonreac?ve and the doctor 

asks not to be called unless the baby’s heart rate stops. 

At 6:20 a.m., the doctor makes his rounds and orders tests for baby. 

At 7:30 a.m., a new doctor comes in for the day shiG. 

At 8:30 a.m., a biophysical profile is done. The baby fails with a 2 out of 8.

At 9:48 a.m., the doctor performs a C-Sec?on. The baby is very pale and shows very liWle 

response. Two days later, the baby passes away. 





De-Brief: 



g. Medical Center 

h. Dr. A 

i. Dr. B 

j. Pa?ent 

k. Someone Else 

l. No one/Act of God 




6. Based on the informa?on you have, who is at fault for what happened? 

7. Was it preventable and how? 


9. How did this baby die? 

10. What did you think of the doctor or nurses you saw? Credible? 










Example 4:

Merry Hospital, its doctors and nurses, are providers in Tennessee that treated Mr. Miller, a 25- 

year old man. 

Dr. Johnson is a urologist. Dr. Doe is a hospitalist. 

Mr. Smith was a quadriplegic. 

In 2015, Mr. Miller was diagnosed with autonomic dysreflexia. Autonomic dysreflexia is a 

condi?on that occurs in individuals with spinal cord injuries. If not treated, it results in 

uncontrolled high blood pressure. He was on a daily medica?on to manage his blood pressure. 

In November, 2015, Mr. Miller was admiWed to Merry Hospital to have kidney stones removed 

by Dr. Johnson. 

The nurses trea?ng Mr. Miller have tes?fied to the following: 

- They were not told he had autonomic dysreflexia 

- They had no training on autonomic dysreflexia 

- Didn’t know what it was 

- No training on quadriplegic pa?ents by Merry Hospital 

- Had they been told, they would have been able to look it up 

SHOW TIMELINE 





De-brief: 


2. What did you hear? 

3. Liability vote. 

4. Emo?onal index vote, 1-10. 



7. When? 

8. By Whom? And how? 

9. Who did you say was at fault, why? 

10. What caused his death? 

11. Some people would say – this is so rare, how were they supposed to know?

12. Some people would also say – this is so rare, how were they supposed to train on it? 

13. Mo?ve: If y’all were going to point out why this happened, what would it be? 

14. When was the first in ?me this could have been prevented? 

15. Type of malprac?ce? 

16. How can we improve ?meline? 

17. If it weren’t this surgery, what else could it have been? 

18. 1-10 how complicated is the ?meline? 

19. What is system failure if any? 

20. Get other analogous system failure. 

21. What more would you want to know? 

Example 5: 

Surgery Clinic North is one of the largest ambulatory surgical facility owners in the country. 

Lakeside Surgical Center is in Lake, Mississippi. Special?es include neurosurgery, orthopedics, 

pain management, plas?c surgery and spine surgery. Dr. Smith is an orthopedic surgeon at Lake 

Surgical Center. Dr. Dee is an anesthesiologist at Lake Surgical Center. 

Mr. Low was involved in a car crash in May of 2019 and developed neck pain. In August of 2020, 

he agreed to have neck fusion surgery. Mr. Low is now in a vegeta?ve state following the 

surgery. 

SHOW TIMELINE 





De-Brief: 

1. When was the death preventable? 


3. What bad thing happened? 

4. Liability vote. 

5. Emo?onal index 1-10. 

6. List the top 3 things that you heard that were important to you? 

7. What should this facility be called? 

a. Surgi center 

b. Same day surgery center

c. Surgery Center 

d. Outpa?ent surgery center 

e. Something else 

8. What could the nurses have done, if anything? 

9. Based on the informa?on you have, who is at fault for what happened, if anyone? 

10. How did this man become injured? 

11. What is his life like now? 










Conclusion: 

An effec?ve, focus group approved ?meline, is a killer demonstra?ve that you need to win your 

case at trial. The ?meline should build which each added fact and slide, giving the audience a 

sense of an?cipa?on as you approach the point of no return for our client. Not only does it help 

keep you organized and focused on the case winning facts, it provides a guiding light for the jury 

to follow as they hear the evidence. As with everything, the only people that can tell you what 

should and should not be on your ?meline, are focus groups.

CHAPTER 6: BLACKBOARD FOCUS GROUPS 

What are they: 

This chapter will focus on finding out what is on Bubba’s blackboard. We will cover the 

overarching concept of what we mean when we say “blackboard,” and three separate focus 

groups to help uncover what is on the conscious and subconscious mind of your parIcipants as 

it pertains to various topics in your case. 

a. The a9tudinal focus group. 

b. Word associaFon. 

c. The Smart Phone focus group. 

In doing and pracIcing the below focus groups, you are simultaneously pracIcing your voir dire 

quesIons. You will be deciphering what quesIons are most efficiently evoking from the group 

where they stand on key issues in your case. In addiIon, you are learning the community 

opinions of enIIes, people, places and things involved. The more focus groups you do 

uncovering Bubba’s blackboard, the more confident you can be walking into trial with the 

knowledge of how to meet the jury where they are instead of explaining things they already 

know, or failing to explain things they are unfamiliar with. 

Let me give you an example: meningiIs. If you have a medical malpracIce case that involves 

meningiIs, and you have not run focus groups on this condiIon, my hunch is most people 

would assume that it is a complex medical term that will not resonate easily with the jury. It

sounds complex, it is hard to pronounce and we learn not to “medicine – up” our malpracIce 

cases, so what to do? 

The blackboard focus group tools if uIlized in a meningiIs case tell you the direct opposite. The 

vast majority of people know exactly what meningiIs is, the types, how you get it, and how you 

treat it. 

Do not overlook how detrimental this could be if you never ran any blackboard focus groups on 

the topics of your case. 

You learn what you need to explain, and what you do not. 

What this sequence of focus groups will do is give you confidence to walk into the courtroom 

knowing what the jurors already know, what you do need to spend Ime explaining and even 

beUer the demographics that correspond to the jurors most likely to have a posiIve reacIon to 

your case. Added bonus, you learn what quesIons most effecIvely will evoke the blackboard on 

your case topic. 

When to do them: 

We have the Blackboard set of focus groups under Stage 2 of the case phases. This isn’t an exact 

science. PorIons of the blackboard focus groups can be extremely useful in the intake stage of 

your case, and conInue to be useful as the case progresses. But the key takeaway here is to 

begin pracIcing these focus groups at the very beginning of your case and track your results 

carefully. Track them as they change with current events, and be sure you are doing so in a 

manner that later before trial you can correlate any paUerns in opinions with demographics 

such as age, poliIcal preference or career. 

As with anything, use this tool early, and conInue to keep it in your repertoire as new issues 

present themselves in your case. 

Blackboard: 

What do we mean when we say “blackboard?”

Very simply, the blackboard of a person as it pertains to a topic are what life experiences, 

opinions, biases and preconceived noIons do they have siZng on their subconscious brain that 

are going to be triggered in their decision-making process in giving you a verdict. You are 

answering the quesIons: do they know what this “thing” is? Do they have experience with it? 

What do they think about it? And what life experiences have shaped a posiIve or negaIve 

experience with said topic? 

PracIce Ip: In your focus group, once you go through the blackboard porIon of your 

presentaIon, you can then add in more specific facts of your case and transiIon into a narraIve 

focus group. In doing so, you have embedded the concepts and codes of your topic as you 

would in voir dire during an actual trial before presenIng your case specific facts. 

Before we dive into the three more specific examples, the simple outline for a blackboard focus 

group is: 

1. What is . 

2. What causes it? 

3. How do you diagnose it/find it? 

4. Do you have experience with it? 

5. What happens when happens? 

6. Is it good or bad? 

7. How do we fix it? 

8. Is it important to you? 


10. Who can be impacted by ? 

Now to dive into some specific examples of topics and quesIons to ask in a blackboard focus 

group. 

BLACKBOARD FOCUS GROUP EXAMPLES:

Example 1: 

ErecIle dysfuncIon: 

1. What is erecIle dysfuncIon? 

2. What causes erecIle dysfuncIon? 

3. Who is impacted by it? 

4. Good or bad thing? 

5. What is going on anatomically? 

6. How do you diagnose it? 

7. What about trauma, being in a car wreck, or something else, can that lead to erecIle 

disfuncIon? 

8. If you have funcIoning legs, you can stand, and walk with a help of a walker can you sIll 

suffer from it? 

9. How many people suffer in the US from erecIle disfuncIon? 

10. Are there medicaIons that can help? 

11. Can other substances cause it? 

Example 2: 

MeningiIs 

1. What is meningiIs? 

2. Who gets it? 

3. Are there different types? 

4. Is it dangerous? Why or why not? 

5. What is an immune system? 

6. When does your immune system develop? 

7. What is the difference between bacterial and viral meningiIs? 

8. Which is more dangerous? 

9. Why? 

10. If 10 people get viral meningiIs how many of them are likely to die? 

11. If 10 people get bacterial meningiIs how many of them are likely to die? 

12. How many of you believe that if it is caught early enough you shouldn’t have a death 

from bacterial meningiIs? 

13. What are the signs of bacterial meningiIs? 

14. What are the symptoms that doctors are looking for? 

15. What is going on with the body when someone has bacterial meningiIs? 

16. What drugs do we use to fight off bacteria? 

17. Are there any tests that can be done for bacterial meningiIs that would give the doctor 

more informaIon whether it is or it isn’t bacterial meningiIs? 

18. What is a spinal tap?

19. Prognosis? 

20. Mortality rate with treatment? Without? 

a. The A9tudinal Focus Group: 

The aZtudinal focus group is a subset of the blackboard focus group because it is another tool 

in our toolbox to decipher a juror’s aZtude on a parIcular topic of your case. While the 

blackboard focus group elicits what exists on the blackboard of a person, the aZtudinal focus 

group homes in on feelings, opinions, thoughts and biases towards that parIcular topic. 

AZtudes are going to be based on life experiences. Through an aZtudinal focus group we 

discover what is on Bubba’s blackboard and specifically how are they feeling about that topic 

and why. 

The outline for an aZtudinal focus group tracks that of the blackboard focus group above, but 

has a specific objecIve of also eliciIng the why and how come. Specific examples below show 

the how to. Pay aUenIon to how the aZtudinal focus group quesIons shii the objecIve as 

compared to the blackboard focus group. 

ATTITUDINAL FOCUS GROUP EXAMPLES: 

Example 1: 

Safety in Apartment Complexes: 

1. How many of you at some point of your life lived in an apartment complex? 

2. Knowing that there are different types of apartment complexes: on a 10-point scale 

where 10 is high end of fancy, and 1 is terrible; where would you rate your experience 

that 10-point scale? 

3. What expectaIons of safety do you have at an apartment complex based on that 

experience? 

4. What about security guards? 

5. Do you think that from Ime to Ime they have the duty to change locks? 

6. How many of you believe that in order for there to be responsibility on the apartment 

there has to be a prior bad act? 

7. What is the minimum safety that you would expect in any apartment complex? 

8. If I say to you that a tenant has a right to be and feel safe in the apartment that they are 

renIng, would you agree or disagree? 

9. How many of you believe that this right depends on how much you are paying? 

10. How many of you considered renIng an apartment for you or for somebody in your 

family and you looked at the apartment and said, “I don’t have a good feeling about it”?

11. How many of you believe that a renter has a responsibility to find out what the crime 

staIsIcs are in a neighborhood and not the landlord? 

12. How many of you have done research about crime staIsIcs before renIng an 

apartment? 

13. What is your opinion of landlords? 

14. Why, why not? 

15. Any personal experiences that happened to impact that opinion? 

Example 2: 

Parking Lot Safety: 

Imagine a parking lot at night surrounding a shopping mall. You are going there when it is dark: 

1. What is running through your head? 

2. What do you see? 

3. What are some of the specific things that you would look for, do or want to have done 

for you by the retail establishment? 

4. What kind of security would you want, if any? 

5. How many of you would want a person to guard the premises? 

6. How oien would you want them to be within eye site? 

7. What about cameras? 

8. What good do cameras do? 

9. Do you have any expectaIon that the retail establishment keeps up with the crime 

staIsIcs in the area? 

10. What do you think is worse: a company that never looks at the crime staIsIcs or the 

company that looks at the crime staIsIcs and sees that there is a double increase in 

violent crimes in the last year but doesn’t do anything about it? 

11. Is there anything else beyond what we talked about that you would want for your 

personal safety and your family’s safety at night when you go to a parking lot? 

12. Have you ever gone to a parking lot and felt that there is something not right about your 

surroundings? 

Example 3: 

Alzheimer’s Disease: 

1. What is Alzheimer’s disease? 

2. Can it ever be healed? 

3. Who gets Alzheimer’s disease? 

4. What is it about geZng old that makes someone get Alzheimer’s?

5. Is anyone more prone to geZng it? 

6. Thinking of drugs, alcohol, smoking, injury, does anything contribute to someone 

developing Alzheimer’s earlier? 

7. Raise your hand if you think that traumaIc injury to your brain can set in moIon or 

cause Alzheimer’s? 

8. How many of you think it is just pure geneIcs? 

9. Tell us who are some of the most famous people with Alzheimer’s? 

10. What do you call the end stages of Alzheimer’s? 

11. Let’s assume we have someone who is in the end stage, someone who does not 

acknowledge people coming into the room, does not react to the television, but this 

person is breathing and looking, but is not reacIng to the surroundings. What do you 

believe is going on in their mind? 

12. Do you believe someone with Alzheimer’s sIll feels pleasure and pain? 

Example 5: 

Roller Coasters: 

1. What do y’all think about roller coasters? 

2. Where do you find them? 

3. Do you ride them? 

4. Why do people ride them? 

5. What kind of people are riding roller coasters? Kids, grandmas? 

6. What assumpIons do you make about the people that make roller coasters? 

7. What assumpIons do you make about people that work at the amusement parks? 

8. What assumpIons do you make about the people that go to amusement parks? 

9. What expectaIons do you have for the people that make roller coasters? 

10. What will they do to make them safe? 

11. What rules should they have? 

12. If something happened, who’s fault would it be? 

13. Some people would say, you get on the ride, you kind of sign up for whatever happens? 

14. What do you guys say to that? 

15. Do they have restricIons on some rides? 

16. Should they? 

17. Why? 

18. How does a roller coaster work? 

19. How do they go upside down without falling to the ground? 

20. What are other rides or acIviIes that are similar to roller coasters?

. The Word AssociaFon Focus Group: 

World associaIon is a simple concept with a profound result. I encourage you to go back to both 

the original RepIle and also the Edge blog arIcle on how in the early days 

What word associaIon therefore is doing, is removing the raIonalizing porIon of the brain that 

Ime gives the responders. The quick response is the closest we can get to taking from the 

subconscious mind and geZng it out of their mouths before the raIonal brain interferes and 

alters or changes their answer to fit with social norms or what other parIcipants are saying. 

The power of word associaIon: you say one word and they give you the first thing that comes to 

their mind. The first thing that comes to their mind is repIlian, they do not have the Ime to 

think about it. 

Examples of word associaIon focus groups would simply be a list of words. Instead, below, what 

is included are not only the different words that have been used in word associaIon focus 

groups but also the responses from the parIcipants to show examples of the type of 

informaIon this type of focus group can elicit for you. 

SAMPLE WORLD ASSOCIATION FOCUS GROUPS: 

WORD 

SHOPPING CART 

SHOPPING CART WITH A CHILD 

ASSOCIATION 

1. Food 

2. Groceries 

3. Money 

4. Metal 

5. Basket 

6. Germs 

7. Spending 

8. Shopping 

9. Wheels 

1. Dangerous 

2. Safety 

3. Candy 

4. Family 

5. Single mom

FEDERAL EXPRESS 

1. Brown 

2. Blue 

3. Next day 

4. Package 

5. Truck 

6. Fast 

7. Expensive 

8. Shorts 

9. Rushing 

10. UPS 

FORKLIFT 

PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT 

NURSE PRACTITIONER 

1. Speedy 

2. Dangerous 

3. Warehouse 

4. Crane 

5. ConstrucIon 

6. Material 

7. Safety 

8. Factory 

1. Qualified 

2. Medical personnel 

3. Nursing school 

4. Nurse 

5. Not your doctor 

6. Student 

7. Weird 

8. No respect 

9. Just looking 

1. Prescribing drugs 

2. Chemistry 

3. Nurse 

4. Legit 

5. Does everything 

6. Helpful 

7. Good job

CHIROPRACTOR 

1. Bones 

2. QuesIonable 

3. Back pain 

4. Adjustment 

5. Crack your back 

6. Shady 

7. Hustler 

8. Not a doctor 

9. Bad 

With all of the above word associaIon results, follow up quesIons to squeeze the orange on the 

why and what life experiences led them to that word are imperaIve. 

c. The Smart Phone Focus Group: 

What it is: 

The Smart Phone focus group is almost exactly what it sounds like. You are prompIng the focus 

group to use their Smart Phone, tablet or computer simultaneously with you as you ask them to 

do research on the internet regarding a parIcular topic of your case. 

This focus group outline is tailored towards medical malpracIce cases or the damages porIon 

of your cases and the human body, as the outline regarding symptoms, diagnosis and treatment 

signifies. Do not let this discourage you from using this method to test any parIcular topic or 

concern in your cases. Simply adjust the outline as needed to correspond to your case topic. 


The Smart Phone focus group is contained in the Second Stage case phase group. This focus 

group, as with those contained within this chapter, all should be done sooner rather than later. 

Once you have idenIfied the main injury or concept in your case that jurors will be potenIally 

researching at trial on the internet, you are equipped with enough informaIon to run the Smart 

Phone focus group template to begin tracking what they are finding, what sources are providing 

informaIon and how credible the informaIon they are locaIng is to them. 

ObjecFve: 

The why is very important. You may be asking yourself, why would I want the parIcipants to be 

searching for these answers online, isn’t the point of a focus group to determine what they 

know?

The purpose of this focus group is although just that, to figure out what jurors are finding on the 

internet. Be sure to limit responses to what they are finding as they search, and not to their 

own personal experiences so that you are not mixing and matching objecIves. This all stems 

from the major truth that jurors are very likely looking up terms and informaIon on the topics 

of your case, regardless of the judge’s instrucIons to the contrary. 

Assume jurors are doing internet searches, and act accordingly. 

The purpose of going through this exercise with the focus group is to first, know what they are 

finding, two, ensure that your evidence and experts are in line with what is on the internet 

regarding your topic and three, to address any inconsistencies between your evidence and the 

internet. 

Especially as our world in the face of COVID-19 moves more and more towards the virtual, with 

trials happening in juror’s living rooms, with their smart phones off camera and at their 

fingerIps; it makes knowing the results and answers to these quesIons imperaIve. 

How to do a Smart Phone Focus Group: 

The basic outline for the Smart Phone focus group is below. Simply insert whatever medical 

term, condiIon, product or item into the “what,” and run through the quesIons, with the focus 

group telling you what they find and what source it is that gave them that informaIon. You all 

the while tracking this informaIon real Ime on a flip chart or white board. 

PracIce Ip: Do not skip the step of asking the parIcipants what the source is of the informaIon 

they are giving to you, and also having them assess how credible they believe that source is. It is 

important when you are running this focus group to also assess the sources that the focus

groups are finding for the informaIon they are searching. This way, you can assess what sources 

are credible to them, and which are not. 

SMART PHONE FOCUS GROUP EXAMPLES: 

In the below examples, the topics that the group were responding to are listed, as well as the 

general outline above. In addiIon, the responses that were wriUen on the board and found by 

the parIcipants are included as samples. 

Example 1: 

Topic: Placental AbrupIon: 

Please look up the following: 

1. What is a placental abrupIon? 

2. What are the symptoms? 


4. How do you treat it? 

5. Mortality/Morbidity? 

Responses: 

1. What is a placental abrupFon?




5. Mortality/Morbidity?

Example 2: 

Topic: Monsanto/Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): 


1. What is Monsanto and what do they make? 

2. What are PCBs? 

3. What are the symptoms of PCB exposure? 

4. How do you diagnose PCB exposure? 

5. How do you treat PCB exposure? 

Responses: 

1. What is Monsanto – what do they make?

2. What is/are PCBs?

3. What are the symptoms of PCB exposure? 

4. How do you diagnose PCB Exposure? 

5. What is the treatment for PCB Exposure?

Example 3: 

Topic: Birth Asphyxia: 


1. What is a birth asphyxia? 





Responses: 

1. What is birth asphyxia? 



4. How do you treat it?


Conclusion: 

At the end of the day, what we want, and need as trial lawyers are tools in our toolbox to 

decipher as much as possible before ever walking into the courtroom who will be good for our 

case and who will not be. Once we can start to see paUerns and idenIfy these demographics 

that are trending towards us versus away from us, we start pracIcing and using the skills in voir 

dire.

CHAPTER 7: THE VOIR DIRE FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

The voir dire focus group is your 9me to shine! Now we are moving into Stage 3 of the case 

phases and into the real niDy griDy trial prep. 

The voir dire focus group is just as it sounds: giving your trial voir dire to the par9cipants to 

prac9ce and refine it. 

Remember when going into prac9cing your voir dire the Keenan Edge voir dire stool: 

Prac9ce 9p: When we are talking about a “Voir Dire Focus Group” what we mean is prac9cing, 

refining and perfec9ng your actual voir dire you will be giving at trial. We also instruct to do a 

voir dire sec9on at the beginning of focus groups to find out who your par9cipants are, get 

some informa9on about what is on their blackboard and embed certain concepts of your case. 

OTen por9ons of these will overlap, and some9mes they will not, but do know that while the 

verbiage may be the same, don’t misinterpret the two things or their objec9ves. 


The voir dire focus group and beginning to prac9ce it can begin early. For example, parts of your 

narra9ve focus group and parts of your blackboard focus groups will eventually be part of your 

voir dire at trial, so technically every focus group you are doing is prac9cing for that final 

moment in front of the jury.

As a whole, you will begin having the tools to go through the en9re Keenan Pie of voir dire aTer 

you have tested your narra9ve, formed your safety rules, put together your 9meline and ran 

several blackboard and aWtudinal focus groups. 

Objec>ves: 

The Keenan Voir Dire Pie is taught in the KTI undergraduate Voir Dire course. 

The objec9ves and purposes of a voir dire focus group can be as vast as the ques9ons you will 

be asking in your actual voir dire. But in broad brush, part of what you are prac9cing is the 

following: 

1. Do you have a solid outline for what you want to tackle in your voir dire set? 

2. Are you sufficiently embedding the codes of your case?

3. Are you learning how to ask ques>ons in a way to get to the juror’s blackboard, life 

experiences, opinions and biases? 

4. Are you spreading the tentacles of danger? 

5. Are you able through your ques>ons to iden>fy jurors you want and ones you cannot 

live with? 

6. Are you geXng comfortable enough with your outline that you will be able to deliver 

it to your actual jury? 

7. Are you consistently bonding with the par>cipants and going off code? 

If the answers to the above ques9ons are trending yes, you are mee9ng your objec9ves of a voir 

dire focus group presenta9on. 

How to do a Voir Dire Focus group: 

Again, this chapter is not meant to replace the KTI college courses on voir dire, nor could it ever. 

It is instead meant to prompt you to first, remember to be prac9cing your voir dire set prior to 

trial and with actual people in your focus groups, and second, to teach you how to tailor your 

outline for the best possible success. Best possible success meaning tailoring your ques9ons to 

meet the above objec9ves and get any people you cannot live with on your jury: off. 

Hopefully, what is contained in this chapter also gives you inspira9on on different ways to ask 

ques9ons about common issues in cases that we face. 

Your voir dire focus group can take many different routes, as you may be tes9ng the en9re voir 

dire pie, or por9ons of it. Some of the most important parts of the pie that will be changing the 

most as your case progresses will be that of general and specific expecta9ons jurors have. Many 

examples of these are below, but the general outline is as follows:

Running your case topic through the above, such as “safe roads” in a tractor trailer case, or 

“healthcare” in a medical malprac9ce case begin to embed those par9cular codes into your case 

and prepare you to get into the more case specific facts. 

VOIR DIRE FOCUS GROUP EXAMPLE OUTLINES: 

The below outlines are for different por9ons of voir dire in varying cases. Use as they fit your 

case or to prompt ideas to fit your specific case facts. In addi9on, the objec9ve of each outline is 

in parenthe9cals and italics at the onset of each example outline. 

Bonus: ATer taking both the KTI voir dire and advanced voir dire classes, prac9ce iden9fying 

what por9on of the voir dire pie each outline would fit into. 

Example 1: 

(Objec:ve: embedding code elements of your case.)

General Outline: 

What do you Expect, do you deserve it, is it right, would you tolerate it being taken away? 

1. Do you expect to know the risks involved in a par9cular ac9vity? 

2. Do you deserve to know those risks? 

3. Do you have a right to know those risks? 

4. Would you tolerate someone taking those rights away?? 

Case Specific Outline: 

1. Who believes that our roads should be kept safe? 

2. How important are safe roads? 

3. Quan9ta9ve – how important is that to you? 

4. Do you expect to have safe roads? 

5. Do you deserve safe roads? 

6. Are having safe roads a right? 

7. Would you tolerate someone taking safety on our roads away from you? 

Example 2: 

(Objec:ve: voir dire on qualifica:ons in a specific case example, spreading the tentacles of 

danger, general and specific expecta:ons). 

Qualifica9ons for Bus Drivers: 

1. How many of you had to be qualified for the job that you have? 

2. Here to talk about bus drivers – and what you expect about qualifica9ons. At some point 

in your life or your children’s lives, did you or they have to ride the school bus? 

3. What are your expecta9ons of a school bus driver? 

a. Help me made a checklist. 

b. What would be on that checklist for qualifica9ons? 

c. Is this everyone’s checklist? 

4. With regards to a school bus, from a parent’s point of view, tell me the range of dangers 

that may occur by an unqualified driver? 

a. Unsupervised kids on the bus? 

b. Wreck? 

c. Leave someone on the bus? 

d. Let kids off at the wrong stop? 

e. Not using the lights?

5. What damage can occur by an unqualified driver? 

6. What is the WORST thing that could happen? 

7. Why do we need qualifica9ons? 

8. On a scale of 1-10 how important is it to have a qualified driver on a school bus? 

9. Is this reasonable to ask for? 

10. Do qualifica9ons only apply to school busses? What else requires a qualified person? 

11. SO AGREE YOU ALL HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT A BUS DRIVER IS GOING TO BE 

QUALIFIED, YOU ALL HAVE THAT EXPECTATION? 

12. DO YOU DESERVE TO HAVE A QUALIFIED SCHOOL BUS DRIVER? 

13. IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN OUR MIND? 

a. 10 – POINT SCALE, WHERE IS IT? 

14. DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A QUALIFIED SCHOOL BUS DRIVER? 

15. WOULD YOU TOLERATE SOMEONE TAKING THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM YOU? 

Example 3: 

(Objec:ve: prac:ce voir dire on the importance, expecta:on and opinions on a safety system). 

The Safety System: 

1. Who has heard the term safety system? 

2. Who has a safety system they use? 

3. What is that system? 

4. Why do you use that system? 

5. When do you use that system? 

6. What happens when there is a system failure? 

7. What do you do about it? System failure analysis? 

8. What are you trying to figure out? 

9. When you have iden9fied a system failure, what happens if you don’t fix it? 

10. Do you expect a company to do that? 

a. Do you feel like you deserve that? 

Example 4: 

(Objec:ve: embedding specific codes of road safety and expecta:ons on safe roads and drivers). 

Tractor Trailers on the Road: 

1. When I say tractor trailer, what does that mean to you?

2. Are safe roads important to you? 

3. Are having tractor trailer drivers that are qualified are important? 

a. Does everyone agree with that statement? 

4. Does everyone feel safe on the road with tractor trailer drivers? 

5. Believe they are safe, qualified? 

6. Would you agree that the tractor trailer company and driver are fully in control of 

whether they are qualified? 

7. Is it too much to ask that if they are in control, that in return they should keep me safe? 

i. Do you expect that? 

ii. Deserve that? 

iii. Do you have the right to that? 

iv. Would you tolerate if that right was taken away? 

8. If there is a risk involved, as in the driver was not qualified, do you put it on the company 

to fix that problem? 

9. Some people would disagree, but some would say if there are risks, I have the right to 

know? 

10. If so, why? 

11. Do you assume that a tractor trailer company forces their drivers to follow traffic laws 

100%? 

12. Okay if they say “speed”? 

13. Do all of you believe that tractor trailer companies qualify, train and supervises their 

drivers? 

14. What happens if they do not do so? 

Example 5: 

(Objec:ve: general expecta:ons on product liability cases). 

Generic – Products: 

1. How many of you feel that generally the products you come in contact with are 

safe? 

2. How many of you think: “I don’t trust anything on the market?” 

3. Who else do you depend on to keep you safe? 

4. Are they towing the line? 

5. How many of you think it isn’t un9l someone dies that they do something? 

6. If there is one message that could make the world safer from a product sense, 

what would it be? 

7. Leaning Ques>ons: Some people believe that in corporate America, the boDom 

line is always profits over people, and they will always choose profits first and 

people second, other people believe, that is ludicrous, because why would a

Recall of Products: 

Warnings: 

corpora9on want to manufacture and distribute a dangerous product. Then the 

world would get out and hurt the brand. Which way do you lean? 

1. How reliable is a recall? 

2. Infants, teenagers, early adults and older people, which category has more 

recalls? 

3. If a toy gets recalled aTer so many deaths, does it make you angry or relieved? 

4. Who thinks that instead of having a lawsuit, they just recall the product? 

1. Do people read them? 

2. Why, or why not? 

3. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being very effec9ve, how effec9ve are warnings? 

4. Are we progressing downward in our common sense? 

Example 6: 

(Objec:ve: general expecta:ons regarding qualifica:ons). 

Qualifica9ons: 

1. From 2010 to now, has the world goDen beDer with the qualifica9ons of the 

people you have to depend on? 

2. Why do you think this is? 

3. Have you heard: “it is not okay to be okay?” 

4. Is the world fairer to you than it was 10 years ago? 

5. Is it fairer geWng a job? 

6. Fairer with healthcare? 

7. One thing that hits your day that isn’t fair? 

Example 7: 

(Objec:ve: general and case specific expecta:ons regarding healthcare). 

Medical AWtudes:

1. How important is medical care to you on a scale of 1-10? 

2. Who thinks medical treatment has goDen beDer in this country in the last 10 

years? 

3. Is quality healthcare something that you expect? Do you deserve that? Is it a 

right that should be afforded to you? Would you tolerate someone taking that 

away? 

4. Reasons why healthcare has gone down, LIST them out. 

5. So, if doctors did these things, do you really think it would help? 

6. How much of this is really they just don’t know? 

i. Are they not trained? 

ii. Are they stupid? 

iii. Are they distracted? 

iv. What is it? 

7. How do we get safe? 

8. How do we fix it? 

9. 7 types of malprac9ce, which one are you the most afraid of? 

i. Failure to diagnose 

ii. Failure to test 

iii. Failure to treat/transfer 

iv. Failure to monitor 

v. Failure to communicate 

vi. Contamina9on 

vii.Qualify, train, supervise 

viii.(Informed consent) 

10. Why? 

11. Why is that the worst? 

12. Think doctors have the right diagnosis usually, or do they just give you a 

prescrip9on? 

i. What % of doctors get it right? 

Example 8: 

(Objec:ve: general expecta:ons on premise liability). 

Premise Liability: 

1. When did you first learn that if something happens on your property, it is your 

responsibility? 

2. Why? Why not? 

3. Do you agree with that? 

4. What is the reasoning behind it?

5. Is it good or bad? 

BONUS – THE ALTERNATIVE PASSION QUESTIONS 

The first slice on the Keenan Voir Dire pie is the passion ques9on. The ques9on being just as it 

sounds, what is your passion, and what does that passion say about you? 

As the Rep9le and Edge swept the country, more and more aDorneys went into voir dire using 

this ques9on with success. As with anything we do successfully, the other side caught on and 

aDempted to create resistance to its use. We adapted, and Mr. Keenan created and tested 

mul9ple alterna9ves to the passion ques9on to accomplish the same objec9ves. 

The purpose of the passion ques9on or an alterna9ve is to do the following: 

1. Take yourself off code. 

2. Promote bonding. 

3. Ini>ate and encourage cross talk. 

4. Assess how the par>cipants will deliberate and listen to one another. 

5. Get the first glimpse into who your juror is. 

The below alterna9ves to the passion ques9ons all tackle the same objec9ves. Which is your 

favorite? 

Example 1: 

“The Best Friend” 

1. What is a “BFF?” 

2. Everyone has one, right? 

3. One need do you have that is fulfilled through your best friend? 

4. What do you not have that they give to you? 

5. What do you get out of that? 

Example 2: 

“Disney Character”

1. Of all the Disney characters who represents you? 

2. Tell us, what does that reveal about you? 

Example 3: 

“One Single Event” 

1. We all have events in our life, both good and bad, that have changed the trajectory 

of our lives. Without them, we would be someone or somewhere else. 

2. Here the presenter goes first. Share a single event that changed the trajectory of your 

life. 

3. What is one single event that has altered the trajectory of your life? 

Example 4: 

“Kindness to Strangers” 

1. Can you tell us the last 9me you did something nice to a stranger or someone not in 

your family? 

2. How did it make you feel when you did that? 

3. Do you think there is something in us that makes us reach out once in a while to do 

something nice? 

4. The world we live in, what percentage of people do you think do gratuitous 

kindness? 

5. Anyone have an opinion on this? Anything else? 

6. Last word on kindness? 

Example 5: 

“Thankfulness” 

1. Hopefully we all have things in our life outside of family and faith we can be thankful 

for.

2. What do you feel thankful for? 

3. In general: on a 10-point scale how thankful are people around you? 

4. Are we as a people thankful? 

5. How many think that right now we are far more thankful than we were 10 years ago? 

6. What about you? 

7. One idea that us as a people would make us more thankful? 

Example 6: 

“Tagoos” 

1. Where are your taDoos? 

2. What is your favorite taDoo? 

3. Do you regret it? 

4. What does it say about you that you have that taDoo? 

5. Why did you choose where you did to get it? 

Example 7: 

“The Screensaver” 

Conclusion: 

1. What is your screensaver? 

2. What does that tell us about you, that that is your screensaver? 

3. Why? 

The key to voir dire and to focus groups in general, is to be open, honest and your authen9c self. 

With that backdrop, you have the best possible opportunity for success in geWng valuable 

feedback from your audience par9cipants. 

The Voir Dire focus group is our ul9mate system to obtaining a meaningful verdict. It is our MRI 

tool of Bubba’s brain to see inside their mind and hearts to uncover their percep9ons, aWtudes 

and biases. Don’t forget the key to all of this is listening and truly hearing both what the focus 

group par9cipants are saying, but importantly also what they are not.

CHAPTER 8: WITNESS EVALUATION FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

This focus group is specifically designed as a reminder and tool to seek feedback from your 

focus groups on the people that will be tesAfying at your trial. 

The witness evaluaAon focus group is as simple as puDng either photographs or videos of 

witnesses and their tesAmony before a focus group. An oEen overlooked but essenAal tool to 

ensure that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt how each person that will be tesAfying is 

received, both posiAvely or negaAvely. This way, you can help your own witnesses overcome any 

negaAve feedback from the focus groups, and capitalize on how defense witnesses are received. 


EvaluaAng witnesses is included in Stage three of the case phases. While the photographs of the 

parAes can be done at any Ame, deposiAon clips and video will come together further into the 

discovery phase of your case. 

Remember to conAnually be focus grouping witnesses as their deposiAons are being taken. 

Also, do not overlook the importance of giving negaAve focus group feedback to your own 

witnesses, making the necessary changes, and re-running for their input and eventual approval. 

Objec?ve: 

The objecAve of the witness evaluaAon focus group is to know before going into the courtroom 

how the jury is going to respond to everyone that is going to come before them to tesAfy. 

Instead of using costly trial consultants that are out of touch with Bubba’s reality, use your focus 

groups to help deposiAon prep and trial prep your witnesses.

The potenAal piOalls that you are avoiding by doing this focus group early, oEen and with each 

new player in your case include assuming someone will be accepted as trustworthy or genuine 

by the jury and being wrong; or vice versa. 

PracAce Ap: Always videotape your deposiAons. Even if the other side does not order video, you 

do. The reasons being obvious, that if you do not have video of a witness or your client, there is 

no way to adequately get that video before a focus group to evaluate. Now, in the age of 

technology and more and more Zoom deposiAons, the cost associated with videography is now 

greatly decreased for our offices and our clients. 

How to do a witness evalua?on focus group: 

EvaluaAon of witnesses in your case can be done on any of the following: 

1. Photos of your own client 

2. Photos of lay witnesses 

3. Photos of expert witnesses 

4. Photos of the defendant 

5. Video of your own client 

6. Video of lay witnesses 

7. Video of defendants 

8. Video of expert witnesses 

In regard to witness evaluaAon there are generally two different routes to go. The first, is a staAc 

photograph and the second, being actual deposiAon video of the parAcular client, witness or 

expert. 

Below is a general outline of quesAons to ask to get focus group feedback. Taylor to your case as 

you see fit.

PHOTOGRAPHS 

VIDEO CLIPS

Conclusion: 

EvaluaAng witness photos and tesAmony through your focus groups allows you to know what 

the iniAal blink of your client as well as all witnesses on your side and against will be. From that 

starAng point, you can frame your case around those percepAons for best possible outcome. Do 

not overlook this important step in determining how your client, your witnesses and the 

opposing party’s witnesses will present to a jury. Our percepAons as lawyers mean nothing, and 

what your focus groups tell you means everything.

CHAPTER 9: DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

This chapter is all about demonstra;ve evidence. While the “how to” contained herein is an 

easy template to get down, it is just as much about the reminder to be geFng focus group 

feedback on your demonstra;ve evidence well before you get to trial. The focus groups should 

be u;lized not only in reviewing the finished product, but also in helping you iden;fy where 

your case needs demonstra;ves and what those should entail. 

The below is by no means an exhaus;ve list, but demonstra;ves can take many forms. The new 

KTI Seeing is Believing course will be a game changer in both the op;ons for demonstra;ves but 

how and when to use them. Use this list to brainstorm where your case could benefit from 

demonstra;ve evidence, and whichever items are included in the presenta;on of your case, be 

sure they are being run by a focus group for approval regardless of their apparent simplicity. 

1. Photographs 

2. Videos 

3. Safety Rules Board 

4. Flip Charts 

5. Timelines 

6. Checklist Boards 

7. Medical illustraPons 

8. Mechanism of Event (MOE) 

9. Mechanism of Injury (MOI) 

10. MedicaPon chart 

11. AnimaPons 

12. Symbols 

13. Forensic Artwork 

14. Age Progression 

15. Right way/Wrong way 

16. Accident ReconstrucPon Visuals 

17. Crash SimulaPons 

18. Exhibit Blow-Ups 

19. Medical Models 

20. Literature/AuthoritaPve Source 

21. A Family Tree 

All of the above should be focus grouped in their iden;fica;on and recogni;on of need, in their 

crea;on and then the final product tested before shown to a jury. Do not risk ever puFng a 

piece of demonstra;ve evidence in front of the jury that you have not tested and that has been 

approved by your focus groups.

Demonstra;ve evidence should always help move the needle forward in answering the 

ques;ons on the demonstra;ve evidence stool. 

Just like with everything in an Edge trial, less is more. Do not include demonstra;ve evidence 

just to include it or overload the audience. Each item should be specifically and inten;onally 

targeted toward an objec;ve. 

When to do: 

The obvious answer here is to run a focus group on your demonstra;ve evidence when you 

acquire it or your graphic ar;st completes it. While this is certainly true, do not overlook the 

opportunity and need to also have your focus groups help you determine what demonstra;ves 

you will need, and to help create the demonstra;ves in real ;me, not just to review at 

comple;on.

Prac;ce ;p: The more expensive an anima;on or demonstra;ve that you hire out for, is not 

always the best. Remember that the focus groups are who get to decide what visual evidence 

they need from you, not the graphic ar;sts or in-house doctors at pricey anima;on companies. 

Run a focus group on what they want and need before ever hiring out. If not, you may end up 

with a tens of thousands of dollar anima;on that does not answer the basic ques;ons above, 

and gets dumped by your focus group. Leaving you back at square one and out a pricey penny. 

ObjecPves: 

The purpose of demonstra;ve evidence as a whole has been wriVen about by Mr. Keenan and 

taught by the Edge extensively throughout the years. The power of non-verbal persuasion is 

combining it with the vocal and verbal presenta;on. Your demonstra;ves as a visual form of 

communica;on helps solidify juror recall and memory of what you are sharing with them as a 

whole. Therefore, the importance of having demonstra;ves that are tried and tested is 

impera;ve.

The main objecPves of a demonstraPve focus group are as follows: 

1. Determine where in your case you need demonstra;ves to communicate the story; 

2. To help develop your demonstra;ves in line with what Bubba wants and needs; and 

3. To con;nually assess the effec;veness of your demonstra;ve evidence. 

How to do a focus group on your demonstraPve evidence: 

Below we will walk through some examples of how to test various pieces of your visual 

evidence. Remember, Chapter 3 on Safety Rules, Chapter 5 on Timelines, Chapter 8 on Witness 

Evalua;on, Chapter 11 on Opening Statements and Chapter 13 on Damages are all forms of 

tes;ng demonstra;ve evidence as well. 

First, here is a simple overarching outline for tes;ng a piece of demonstra;ve evidence: 

1. QuesPons to test a DemonstraPve:

2. TesPng a Photograph: 

In order to test a photo, first, do no tell focus group members anything about the case just show 

the photograph. You can show a photo of your client, the place of the incident, the vehicle, the 

defected product or anything else you want to gather people’s opinion about. Some example 

outlines are below. 

a. Tes;ng a photo of your client: 

1. I would like to hear your impression about the photo I am going to show you, this 

photo might be entered into evidence throughout the trial (show photo). 

2. What are your ini;al reac;ons aeer seeing her? 

3. What about this photo makes you think that? 

4. Is she a professional? 

5. White collar or blue collar? 

6. If she were to wear a suit, would it change your percep;on? 

7. Based on this photo and only this photo is this a person who is reliable, trustworthy? 

8. What would you want to know about this person to gain a full understanding? 

9. Does this photo make us want to find out about her general life or do you just want 

to know about this photo? 

b. Tes;ng a photo of a parking garage where an injury event occurred: 

1. Raise your hand if you have been to a parking lot that looks like the one on the 

photo? 

2. What was the first impression you got when you looked at these photographs? 

3. In terms of safety on a 10-point scale where 10 means you feel absolutely protected 

and nothing will happen to you, and on the other end of scale is a 1 where you are 

thinking that you are taking your life into your hands for being in that parking lot. 

Give me your number? 

4. What is it about this photograph that made you feel at number X? 

5. Pretend that you are the parking person for the community and the parking lot 

company asked you to come in and make recommenda;ons as to how to make this 

parking lot safer. What would you recommend? 

6. Let’s talk about what happened in this parking lot, I will give you some choices: 

a. A woman was a vic;m of an armed robbery, 

b. An assault, or 

c. A woman was in the parking lot and someone snatched her purse. 

7. Which one do you think it was based on the photograph you saw? 

c. Tes;ng a photo of a hospital subject to a malprac;ce suit:

1. What is this place? 

2. Is it warm and friendly? 

3. Is it a place that you would go to? 

4. What kind of clientele do you think goes there? 

5. Does it look like a state or private hospital? 

6. What do you think of the exterior? 

7. Is it well kept, poorly kept? 

8. Would you go to this hospital? 

9. Why? 

10. Why not? 

3. TesPng a Mechanism of Injury DemonstraPve (MOI): 

Many of you will recall the following MOI that has been shown at colleges as well as in the Edge 

4 Blog: “MOI: The Silent Nuclear Bomb.” In that blog, the following case was autopsied and the 

MOI included depic;ng how the client was brain injured due to falling boxes.

The above MOI was tested extensively in focus groups leading up to trial. Some of the ques;ons 

asked in that focus group tes;ng process are below: 


2. Does this make sense? 

3. What did she injure, if anything? 

4. Did the woman have to hit her head to be injured? 

5. What was the mechanism of her geFng hurt? 

6. What do you assume she hurt by looking at this visual? 

7. What would you assume her deficits are now? 

In tes;ng your MOI demonstra;ves, remember the three Major Truths of these visuals:

MOI MAJOR TRUTH NUMBER 1: 

If the purported MOI simply shows how the injury occurred, that is visually depic;ng the rearend 

collision or visually depic;ng the slip and fall, that is not an MOI. That is simply showing a 

possible reason. There needs to be the link between the what happened and the result: 

causa;on. 

Prac;ce ;p: With this in mind be sure not only to ask your focus group how the injury occurred 

but assess whether through the visual they can make the causal link. 


There are so many MOIs that will speak for themselves, such as an auto crash that takes 

someone’s leg. Other ;mes, there is a slip and fall, or a car wreck that does not speak for itself. 

Be sure you know the difference. 

Prac;ce ;p: Use your focus groups to assess whether you have a no-brainer causa;on case and 

MOI, or one that needs more steps from event to injury to prove causa;on. 


There are many instances where your MOI will need two separate parts. First, the “how it 

happened,” and second, the injury that occurred. 

Prac;ce ;p: Ask your focus group to draw out for you from event to injury how the final result 

occurred. See how many steps it takes to get there and follow suit in your demonstra;ve 

evidence MOI. 

Conclusion: 

Just like with everything in our cases, from ini;al intake, our safety rules, witnesses, and to now 

demonstra;ve evidence, the boVom line is everything needs to be run through a focus group; 

especially your visuals.

CHAPTER 10: THE MOTIVE FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

At the beginning of this manual I defined narra>ve as, “a spoken or wriEen account of 

connected events; a story.” 

Imagining our cases as stories, every story must have a main character and a protagonist. There 

is conflict and there is purpose. And finally, most importantly, there is resolu>on. 

In our cases, a defendant’s mo>ve is the why. And the jury verdict is the resolu/on. The 

defendant’s mo>ve can oMen be drama>c and seedy, showing greed or lack of commitment to 

their professional oaths. But a mo>ve does not always have to be evil such as “profits over 

people.” It does although need to be wrong, so the jury can come in and through their verdict 

put an end to the story, and right that wrong. 

Motive: “A reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not 

obvious; something such as a need or desire that causes a person to act.” 

The mo>ve focus group is how we determine what Bubba sees as the why in our case, and 

combined with the “what the Jury gets from the verdict” focus group, how we tailor our 

evidence to expose that mo>ve and give Bubba a path to righ>ng the wrong for us all. 

When to do: 

GeSng the why, and therefore the mo>ve wrong in your case and not taking this opportunity to 

expose the defendant’s dangerous aStude towards community safety is a death knell to your 

case. The answer to when to run this focus group is as soon as you have enough informa>on to 

do so.

Some>mes, the mo>ve will be obvious in our cases, and a focus group will serve to simply 

confirm it and to help you rank evidence suppor>ng it. Other >mes, we truly may not know the 

why or be able to properly ar>culate it. Act accordingly in terms of case development and giving 

yourself adequate >me to iden>fy the mo>ve, accumulate the evidence to support it and >me 

to weave it through your case. 

Objec>ve: 

The simple answer is, the objec>ve of the mo>ve focus group is so that you can establish what 

the mo>ve of the defendant’s bad acts were so that you can win your case. 

Let’s look to some of the things Mr. Keenan said in his Edge 2 Blog: “Mo>ve” on this topic: 

I examined the theme that the Black Hats consistently used, that is the 

defendant was a likable person and therefore how could they be capable of 

being “guilty” of medical negligence or unsafe product design. The humaniza/on 

of the defendant and the constant word “guilty” seemed to be the chorus in their 

hymnal. They coupled humaniza/on of the defendant with the power of the 

rhetorical ques/on, ‘How could this be?’ and rarely lost a case. 

The First Bo,om Line: The use of the medical a7tudes with the facts of the 

case clearly trumps the Black Hat’s good doctor chorus. Simply stated, it 

creates the MOTIVE of why the medical negligence occurred and more 

importantly why it will conGnue to pose a life-threatening danger to all future 

paGents.

The MOTIVE in most product’s liability cases is the /me-honored mantra of 

‘profits over people.’ 

If it’s not a ‘profits over people’ or ‘the conveyor belt is running so fast that even 

a qualified professional will sooner or later violate the safety rules,’ there is one 

simple mo/ve that can be explained: ‘The defendants simply didn’t care.’ 

Understand that the ‘don’t care’ mo/ve creates a Rep/lian danger in Bubba that 

clearly implies this will happen again. Remember, not every /me, but, like 

Russian roulePe, sooner or later if you have this kind of mindset it will happen 

again as a certainty. 

Second Bo,om Line: Your Tort professor was either a lying dog or simply 

wrong when he told you that if you establish liability, causaGon, and damages 

then a plainGff’s verdict will certainly occur. 

“Every case must have a motive.” – Don Keenan 

You are therefore, just using the focus groups to iden>fy a necessary element of negligence. 

Think of mo>ve as important as any other element of the prima facia case you must prove. 

If you have taken the KTI Advanced Opening Course, you have learned the small snippet 

regarding mo>ve contained in the opening statement:

The Edge case therefore is built around priming in opening statement the mo>ve you will weave 

throughout your case. Then the jury gets to play detec>ve and iden>fy all of the clues you have 

strategically placed throughout your case. 

How to do a mo>ve focus group: 

The first op>on is that if you are lucky enough to have alterna>ve theories as to why the bad 

thing in your case occurred, the focus group can be used to rank in order of importance and 

what they care about the most the reasons (mo>ve) behind the why it happened. 

Put the op>ons before the focus group and let them decide which is in your case and resonates 

with them: 

• Profits over people 

• Not paying aEen>on 

• Not careful 

• Ignored professional requirements 

• Lazy 

• Distracted/mul>tasking 

• Too busy/overworked 

• Ignoring policies and procedures 

• Just didn’t care 

If you are at a complete loss, but have several pieces of evidence that your gut tells you could 

contain your mo>ve, simply tell the focus group the brief neutral facts of your case, show them 

the pieces of evidence and let them decide. A sample ques>on template below will assist you in 

geSng to the root cause and mo>ve. 

Ques>on template: 


2. Where did it go wrong? 

3. What is wrong with that if anything? 

4. Devil’s Advocate: why is that a bad thing? Isn’t that how businesses operate? 


6. Why did it go wrong? 

7. Why do you think they did a, b, or c? 

8. Who was in charge? 

9. If you were going to tell the Defendants one thing, what would it be? 

10. Why? 

11. Does this ma[er? 


13. What if nobody has go[en hurt yet?


15. What other industries do things like this happen in? 

16. What were the top three things that stood out to you? 

17. Why? 

18. Emo>onal index. 1-10 

Prac>ce >p: Do not overlook also iden>fying and developing your own client’s mo>ve as “right” 

and pure. Then you are able to illuminate the juxtaposed posi>on between a defendant’s 

egregious mo>ve, and your client doing everything they could have and should do. 

This is the viola>on of the societal quid pro quo. Your client doing everything they were 

supposed to do, but in exchange the defendant violated safety rules and did not do what they 

were supposed to do. 

For instance, in a medical malprac>ce case, highlight that your client went to the hospital or 

doctor when they first believed there was a problem, took their medica>ons, and placed their 

trust in the person with the exper>se. 

Even simpler, in an auto crash case, showing how your client followed the rules of the road, did 

not pick up their cell phone and drive, and otherwise had their eyes on the road; while the 

defendant did not. 

Conclusion: 

If you have made it through the Keenan Trial Ins>tute colleges you know that mo>ve is a major 

proponent of both the opening statement template as well as the closing argument template. 

The verbiage that is laid out in opening as quoted above, comes full circle when you deliver your 

closing. As the quote goes: “Tell them what you are going to tell them (opening statement), tell 

them (evidence and order of proof), and then tell them what you told them (closing argument).” 

This means that in our opening we lay the groundwork for the jury to play detec>ve and look 

throughout trial for the mo>ve and the why. During our order of proof and presenta>on of our 

case we show them the mo>ve and the why. Lastly, in closing argument we equip them with the 

power to do something about it. Through our focus groups we know what they believe that 

mo>ve is, ensure it hits the emo>onal buEons, and lays the founda>on for a substan>al verdict.

CHAPTER 11: OPENING STATEMENT FOCUS GROUP 

What is it: 

This chapter will focus on the procedure and objec=ves behind focus grouping not only the 

plain=ff opening, but then that combined with the defense opening back to back. 

What this sec=on is not, is a “how to” on draIing opening statements, as that can only be 

adequately learned through the KTI college courses. What it is although, is a teaching tool on 

how to focus group your opening statement once draIed, both alone and then in combina=on 

with a defense opening to mirror how opening statements from both sides would play out at 

trial. 

Something that Mr. Keenan says repeatedly, is that you do not want to jump ahead to doing 

both the plain=ff and defense opening back to back at the outset. We must be able to win our 

case with just our own opening statement before we can ever an=cipate winning when done in 

combina=on with the defense opening. 

If you cannot win a focus group only with your opening statement, you likely 

won’t win once the defense opening is added. 

When to do: 

We are now into Stage Four of our case phases and moving into full blown trial prepara=on. Of 

course we know that in an Edge case the moment we assess the Case Selec=on Criteria and sign 

up a client we are preparing for trial, but at this stage of your case you have made it through 

some discovery and have enough informa=on to not only draI your own case opening, but that 

of the defense as well.

You have heard it now in almost every chapter, the “when” is most certainly always going to be 

the sooner the beRer. Beginning to draI your opening statement should technically start as 

soon as you have learned the KTI Opening template. As the informa=on regarding your case 

comes in, plug it into the template, and once you have enough informa=on to put in front of a 

focus group, begin doing so. It is a process, not just one singular event. 

Prac=ce =p: Do not become married to any part of your opening statement and always be open 

and welcoming to altera=ons, changes, addi=ons and dele=ons that come from your focus 

groups. Know that all of the work that goes into the opening statement, the demonstra=ves 

contained within it, the safety rules and corresponding checklists are hard. They take =me, 

crea=vity and hard work. So it is understandable that once all that has gone into the opening 

statement it will be hard for the creator to make changes or addi=ons to diminish that work. Do 

not look at it this way. Every single minute spent on an opening, even if completely changed and 

altered, is not work wasted. Be open to what the focus groups tell you to change or add, or 

doing them at all is worthless. 

Objec>ve: 

Just like every single thing that we present to a jury that needs to go before a focus group, our 

opening statement is no different. 

The beauty of this focus group is that you truly can use it for dozens of objec=ves beyond the 

obvious one of deciphering if you have a winning opening statement. The new Advanced 

Opening Template as taught in the KTI graduate course, has ten elements. Each of those 

elements also containing sub-elements. Therefore, theore=cally, and advisable, that you could 

run a focus group or combina=on of focus groups to test each one of these elements and subelements. 

Some of the objec=ves and purposes gained from focusing grouping our openings are:

Prac=ce =p: While of course your opening statement by its very nature will include your 

sta=s=c, safety rules, checklists and the defendant’s arguments, don’t get overwhelmed by 

tes=ng, asking about or trying to focus on assessing every single aspect of the opening at one 

=me. Always remember that there needs to be an objec=ve when focus grouping, and the 

opening is no different. Step back and remember every =me that your opening will be focus 

grouped dozens of =mes, and that cramming every single objec=ve into one focus group is not 

necessary, but also overwhelming for both you and the focus group par=cipants. 

How to do an opening statement focus group: 

Here we have a two-fold process. The first, is that you will be focus grouping your own opening 

statement alone. Remember, if we cannot win our opening on its own, it will never hold up to 

being juxtaposed with the defense opening. You give your own opening statement as many 

=mes as it takes to get a unanimous focus group. It may take you ten =mes, but you cannot 

move on to the second stage, which is pu[ng it up against the defense opening, un=l this 

happens. 

Mr. Keenan has wriRen: 

Now, when you conduct your opening statement focus group one thing is for sure 

– you'd be9er win it. If you give your opening statement and people are not 

100 percent lockstep with you, then your opening statement isn’t ready and 

you've got to keep revising unBl you get that unanimous focus. In the last couple 

of cases I've tried, we haven't go9en a unanimous opening statement focus 

group unBl the 15th (or more) try. If you do it right and keep perfecBng it – like

turning, spinning clay into a beauBful vase – then you simply miss the power of 

the opening. 

Procedurally, give your opening statement either live, or via video to the par=cipants. Ideally, 

the aRorney giving the opening statement to the focus group, will be the aRorney giving it at 

trial. The person running the de-brief and asking the ques=ons following the giving of the 

opening, also ideally should not be the same person. The person that presents the opening 

should also not be in the room when the focus group is giving feedback to avoid any soIening 

or altera=ons of opinions or feedback from the group trying not to offend or impact that 

person. 

AIer the opening is given, first ask the wriRen ques=ons below, having the par=cipants write 

them down before discussion. Following the wriRen ques=on are some sample de-brief 

ques=ons to prompt verbal discourse when the wriRen ques=ons are completed. Remember, 

those de-brief ques=ons will also be governed by your specific objec=ves in your case and at 

that par=cular focus group. 

QUESTION TEMPLATE: 

AIer the group has wriRen the answers to the above, move into the discussion.

De-brief Ques>on Samples: 

1. Based on the opening statement that you have just heard, tell me what happened? 

2. Does anyone else want to add something? 

3. What demonstra=ves or visual aids did you like or dislike? 

4. How well were you able to follow the presenta=on? 


6. Tell us how this impacted you emo=onally. 

7. Why did you put the number that you put? 

8. Are you leaning towards plain=ff, defense, or neither? 

9. Explain to me why are you leaning towards this side? 

10. If you were going to foresee the future what do you think the other side is going to say? 

11. Please think of the best possible argument the other side can make. 

12. Raise your hand if you think what happened in this case was preventable. 


14. Liability vote. If you believe this was preventable, by whom and assign a percentage. 

15. How did you rate the aRorney? 

16. Why? 

17. How do we prevent this from happening? 

18. What are some safety rules that would prevent this from happening? 

19. What type of case is this? 

20. What happened to the injured person? 

21. Who else could it have happened to? 

22. What defenses stood out to you the most and did it impact you one way or another? 

23. What was the mo=ve as to what happened? 

24. Sta=s=c – do you remember it? 

25. What was the sta=s=c I read? 

26. Do you care about it? 

27. Is this case one where it could have been prevented? 

28. How? 

29. What was the source of the sta=s=c? 

30. Do you trust that source? 

31. Why or why not?

32. Safety Rules: do you remember them? 

33. You have men=oned some safety rules that you have heard, tell me what were these 

safety rules? 

34. Do you care? 

35. Would those safety rules have prevented this from happening? 

36. Do you agree with them? 


PLAINTIFF V. DEFENSE OPENING: 

Once you have gone through the above with your plain=ff opening, move on to presen=ng it, 

immediately followed by a defense opening that you or your colleagues draI. 

When draIing your defense opening, don’t put blinders on to the strengths of the defendant’s 

case. In draIing it, make it as strong as possible and in the hopes of bea=ng your own. Only 

then, can you truly know if you have your own winning opening statement. BeRer yet, have a 

defense aRorney friend give you feedback. Be sure to use focus group feedback on the strengths 

of the defendant’s arguments that you have acquired through the life of the case in formula=ng 

the other side’s opening. 

Remember also the “Why the Defense” wins stool, and incorporate these aspects into the 

defense opening just as the defense aRorneys surely will in their actual case presenta=on.

The ques=on template for the plain=ff v. defense opening statement focus group is largely the 

same as above. Now you will be able to compare the answers to the ques=ons when it is just 

one opening, as compared to two sides. 

When analyzing, ask yourself, does this change the results of the focus group? Does it lower the 

emo=onal scale, or raise it? Are the focus groups s=ll leaning towards the plain=ff aIer both 

openings? Or are you losing trac=on? And most importantly: why? 

SAMPLE OPENING STATEMENT FOCUS GROUP RESULTS: 

What the above wriRen ques=ons look like in an actual focus group memo following tes=ng the 

opening statement are below. 

*The below case involved a failure to diagnose medical malpracBce case. 

BoPom Line: 

1. Complexity/Difficulty to Understand: 

FG Par>cipant 1-10 

Elizabeth 2 

Teresa 1 

Angela 7 

Quinton 1 

Tuguldur 3 

Karen 1 

Clarissa 1 

George 1 

Bruce 1 

Theresa 1 

Felecia 1 

AVERAGE 1.8

FG Par>cipant 

EV 

Elizabeth 6 

Teresa 5 

Angela 1 

Quinton 3 

Tuguldur 4 

Karen 10 

Clarissa 9 

George 6 

Bruce 2 

Theresa 8 

Felecia 6 

AVERAGE 5.5 

2. Gut Check: 

3. Which Way Do You Lean?: 

FG Par>cipant 

P, D, or N

Elizabeth 

P 

Teresa 

P 

Angela 

P 

Quinton 

P 

Tuguldur 

P 

Karen 

P 

Clarissa 

P 

George 

P 

Bruce 

N 

Theresa 

P 

Felecia 

P 

# P 10 out of 11 


Elizabeth 8 

Teresa 9 

Angela 1 

Quinton 8 

Tuguldur 3 

Karen 10 

Clarissa 8 

George 1 

Bruce 2 

Theresa 5 

Felecia 3 

AVERAGE 5.3

4. Did You Have Enough Info To Lean One Way or Another?: 

5. Top Facts: 

a. It took the pa=ent 5 visits before she got the proper treatment (x5) 

b. The doctor didn’t read the radiology report / ignored the radiologist (x4) 

c. Not enough tes=ng was done (x3) 

d. The doctor didn’t use an eye scope on the pa=ent (x3) 

e. If diagnosed properly, her sight could have been saved (x3) 

f. A basic eye chart wasn’t used when the pa=ent complained of blurred vision 

g. Brain pressure was so bad, it needed to be addressed first before saving vision 

h. The pa=ent was not put first (“take two pills and call us in the morning”) 

i. The aRorney said the hospitals pay doctors a bonus for seeing as many people as 

possible in the ER 

j. The aRorney said that the two specialists reviewed the case and recommended 

surgery 

k. Safety checklist helps plain=ff 

l. Happened in North Carolina

m. Doctor liability 

n. What was needed and the availability 

o. They blamed the plain=ff 

p. Hospital sta=s=cs 

q. The black screen 

r. ARorney talk 

s. Statements of patrio=sm and bad influence however without knowing should be 

leI out since odds are they won’t affect end result especially if some were 

angered by them 

6. Want To Know More: (pre-debrief) 

a. The defense’s side (x3) 

b. Why didn’t the doctor perform addi=onal tests? (x2) 

c. Why didn’t the pa=ent insist on more/beRer care / go to a specialist? (x2) 

d. The pa=ent’s medical history (x2) 

e. How much =me passed in between the opinions she got? (x2) 

f. What events happened in what order? (x2) 

g. At which visit was the proper diagnosis made? 

h. Reasons for delayed proper steps 

i. Why was the report not read? 

j. What else was the pa=ent complaining of? 

k. Expert’s tes=mony (directly from the expert) 

l. Did the 5 other doctors that saw her see the clot? 

m. What caused the clot? 

n. Why child shots are mandatory 

o. How much money she is suing for 

7. Likeability of the APorney: 7.2 (pre-debrief) 


Elizabeth 7

Teresa 10 

Angela 4 

Quinton 10 

Tuguldur 3 

Karen 10 

Clarissa 7 

George 10 

Bruce 5 

Theresa 6 

Felecia 7 

AVERAGE 7.2 

Conclusion: 

It is oIen said that if you can win your voir dire and opening, you will win your case. The Keenan 

opening through the Edge system is designed to win your case within the first four minutes. 

With the huge caveat that you should walk into court already knowing that you have a winning 

opening. And even beRer, a winning opening when also presented with a defense opening, and 

again tried and tested through an Adversarial Focus Group.

CHAPTER 12: DETERMINING WHAT THE JURY GETS OUT OF A VERDICT FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

Zoom out to the big picture of why we are running all of these focus groups in the first place. 

We are at the very core, asking the people that are going to be deciding our case, how the 

verdict can impact them. More specifically, we are geHng to the core of the quesJon, how can a 

verdict in our client’s favor make the community, and in turn the jurors and their families, safer? 

The pracJcal point of focus grouping to do this is so that once we have pin-pointed the 

community’s idenJficaJon of what they get out of a verdict, for example safer roads, we can 

assemble and present our evidence accordingly. 

We can give back to the jury what we now know through focus groups they want 

If we fail to learn what the jurors want and need from the verdict, then our focus groups are 

overall not prosperous, as this is our ulJmate goal. We are doing all of these focus groups to 

learn everything that Bubba wants and needs to decide the case in our favor. 

The defense oRen wins cases almost by default, where the jury pulls from one of their random 

arguments something that maSered to them. Almost if by accident, but striking at the core or 

major truth of Bubba. We need to know what resonates and maSers to them long before we 

get into the courthouse. 

PracJce Jp: If you have not already, be sure to get and read the black leSer law book: 

Negligence: Purpose, Elements & Evidence: The Role of Foreseeability in the Law of Each State. 

This book includes case law in each state on not only foreseeability, but also on the differing

purposes of tort law engrained in cases and state statutes. Use the law in your state regarding 

the purposes of tort law, such as deterrence, to couple with what the jury is telling you they get 

out of the verdict in your parJcular case. 


This focus group is categorized within Stage Three of the case phases focusing on trial 

preparaJon. 

Begin weaving this concept into your focus groups as you have goSen through some of the 

discovery in your case, idenJfied your moJve, and have aspects of your trial preparaJon ready. 

ObjecCve: 

We are literally running this focus group to do just as it says: find out under our case 

circumstances what Bubba wants and needs, and how a verdict in favor of our client gets them 

those things. 

Why would we want to do that you say? Aren’t the answers obvious? If you have never done a 

focus group evoking quesJons such as these, I have a hunch that you will think the answers are 

obvious and you have no real need to be doing this. You may assume, “well obviously they will 

say jusJce.” Or they will certainly say “to give the client what they lost.” But if we have learned 

one thing through the Edge it surely has been that Bubba does not give a you know what about 

our clients. And they certainly don’t equate that with “jusJce.” Run the focus group and you will 

quickly learn that the repJlian brain will kick in, and most of the things that the focus group 

wants out of the verdict will be a preservaJon of their own rights and safety.

What they need out of the verdict are Safety Rules, confirmaJon of their Codes and a resoluJon 

of the system that failed leading to a conJnued harm, shown through the spreading of the 

tentacles of danger. 

The ulJmate objecJve then is to take what the focus groups tell you they will get from a verdict 

in your client’s favor, and ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt you are reiteraJng those 

community rewards in your presentaJon of the evidence. 

How to run this focus group: 

This focus group can be run alone, or in combinaJon with other types of focus groups by asking 

quesJons evoking a response to what they will get from the verdict. For instance, if you run an

Opening Statement focus group, you can weave into the quesJon outline ones soliciJng this 

informaJon. Same can be done in combinaJon with a narraJve, safety, safety rules or moJve 

focus group presentaJon. AnyJme there is enough informaJon for the focus group to digest 

regarding what has happened, and what threat the defendant conJnues to pose to society, this 

focus group will be beneficial. 

In order to provoke responses to this quesJon of what the community gets, ask some of the 

following quesJons: 

PracJce Jp: Examples of what the jury will get out of a verdict in specific case types helps shape 

how you will ask the quesJons and form your presentaJon. In an auto crash case, reducing 

roadway crashes, protecJng the community from speeding and eliminaJng and deterring 

distracted driving are common responses. In medical malpracJce, making the community 

hospitals safer and more aSenJve to all is a clear benefit to the jurors. Likewise, in a product 

defect case, holding manufacturers accountable for unsafe products keeps us all safer in the 

future. 

Also pay close aSenJon to how the responses and determinaJon of “what a jury gets out of a 

verdict” corresponds with the moJve in your case. 

Conclusion: 

The whole purpose of running focus groups is to win our cases. It is not to manipulate people 

into believing you, or persuade them through lawyerly tacJcs or big words. While all of those 

stereotypes about lawyers are surely swimming in the minds of our jurors, we want to be the 

exact opposite.

How? We need to present our cases to them to fit what they already come into the court room 

feeling, believing and wanJng out of our judicial system. When we present our case to match 

what they already believe, most of the baSle is already won. This focus group allows us to find 

out long before walking into trial, what the jury, and the community, get out of a vote in your 

favor. Think of the power you will have simply giving back to them exactly what they want.

CHAPTER 13: DAMAGES FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

This chapter is all about assessing the broad topic of damages in your case. As will be covered, 

some damages to be presented in your case will be easier to assess their importance through 

focus groups, such as a death or clear-cut broken bone or amputaEon. But as we know, most 

damage cases are not “clear-cut” and take precision to be presented and to prove not only their 

extent but causaEon. This chapter will assist in both circumstances. We will give outlines to 

more obviously sustained injuries, as well as those such as emoEonal and brain injuries that give 

all aLorneys trouble. 

I want to strongly emphasize an important point: do not be fooled that a damages focus group 

is all about the impact on our client. If you are not familiar with the “intangible damages focus 

group” that Mr. Keenan tags as one of the best, if not the best focus group he has ever done in 

his career, we will be covering that as well. That focus group outline is provided below. That 

focus group was for the purpose of assessing what the focus group thought and felt about a 

client that suffered just forty-five days of pain and suffering before fully recovering. The 

quesEon was to the focus group, do you care, and is this person enEtled to any damages at all? I 

will save you the suspense and tell you that the answer is enErely in line with the Edge system. 

The focus group was adamant, of course it maLered, and the reason? All because of the 

fundamental principles of deterrence, accountability and ensuring that the failures did not go 

unpunished, or it would happen again to someone else in their community. 

PracEce Ep: With the above preface, a great focus group to combine with assessing the 

damages, is the “what the jury gets out of the verdict” focus group. Also use the below 

template quesEons regarding assessing damages in combinaEon with such focus groups as a 

narraEve and in the opening statement focus group de-briefs. 

When to do: 

An Edge case is centered around the defendant’s bad acts, their violaEons of the safety rules 

and the system failure that led to the damages that occurred. With this backdrop, it is important 

that those elements of your case are developed in tandem, if not before, you start tesEng the 

damages porEon of your case. 

This is why the damages focus group is included in Stage Four of the liEgaEon phases. While a 

necessary element of any negligence case, it is not our focus.

Nonetheless, while not the focus, it is the reason that we are in the courtroom. It is the reason 

that we do our jobs. To compensate our clients for what they have lost. And that is where this 

focus group comes into play. The “when” means before you do any sort of seLlement 

discussions or alternaEve dispute resoluEon, and before your adversarial focus group and 

ulEmately trial. 

Objec

How to do a damages focus group: 

The first step is to idenEfy what the objecEve will be in your focus group as it relates to 

damages. This focus group does not happen in a vacuum, and in an Edge case, damages can’t 

truly be assessed without placing them within the context of the system failure. 

That is why this focus group is placed so late in this book, and in the fourth stage of the liEgaEon 

phases. We want to reiterate and drill the point down that our cases are about the defendant’s 

conduct and the failure in the system, not our clients. 

This is why it is encouraged to look at this focus group as a progression. First, develop the 

system failure in your case. Second, assess the damages in your case on their own. Third, 

combine the system failure, defendant’s acEons and damages into a focus group as they will be 

presented at trial. Lastly, incorporate the system failure, defendant’s acEons, damages to your 

client and what the jury is geYng out of the verdict to truly test how a jury will receive the full 

picture. 

Some damages are much easier than others to assess. For instance, death, loss of a limb, or a 

clear broken bone or head fracture can give us less strife to present than others.

Let’s first, give a quesEonnaire template on clearer cut damages such as this. Pay aLenEon to 

how the quesEons related to these damages go towards the five listed objecEve quesEons listed 

above. 

Next, let’s look at some of the damages we see in our cases that oên give us as aLorneys 

apprehension. Those being the intangible damages focus group template, emoEonal injuries 

such as PTSD and brain injuries, including the template for a brain mapping focus group. 

Intangible Damages Focus Group Template: 

Below is the quesEon template for the “intangible focus group” referenced above. This template 

can be used to assess what is truly important to community members even when the damages 

may have resolved. Why can we not just give a pass to a defendant? Why does it maLer if the 

damages have resolved? 

1. Which way do you lean quesEon: If a person is injured on a highway because a driver 

violated the safety rules and they incur medical bills, they also lose Eme from work and 

therefore have loss of income, and as well the person goes for a period of 45 days of 

rehabbing, potenEal loss of sleep, mental anguish or wanEng to be beLer; and they get 

beLer and they are back to normal now. Some people believe that if the defendant 

violated the safety rules, then the person injured should have their medical bills paid, 

loss of income paid and also should receive some financial amount to be determined by 

the jury for the 45 days of interrupEon in their life even though they are okay now.

Other people believe, that they should be able to get their medical bills and their loss of 

income back, but if they are okay now then shouldn’t be compensated by the jury for 

those 45 days of interrupEon in their life. Which way do you lean? 

2. Those of you who said that they should be compensated for the 45 days of interrupEon, 

think of your best argument and tell us what that is. 

3. Those of you who said no compensaEon, think of your best argument and tell us what 

that is. 

4. Devil’s Advocate: The saying goes that no man is an island, and everybody is a part of 

everybody else. We are all affected by what is happening in the community. We can’t 

compensate these people who are okay now, because it will open flood gates to these 

other people wanEng money, money will be paid out. So the community gets hurt by 

compensaEng. What do you have to say about that? 

5. What is the opposite, what does the community get out of holding others accountable? 

6. Let’s say we have someone who went through some problems, some loss of sleep, and 

mental anguish for 45 days, and it was determined that this person won’t be 

compensated because the defendant will get a pass. What happens when conduct is 

rewarded? 

7. As a community, we are not geYng money out of these lawsuits but we are at least 

sending the message that we are not giving a pass to this. Do you agree with that? 

8. How many of you lean towards if the person is okay now, you give them the medical bills 

and the loss of income, but you don’t give them anything for the 45 days of mental 

anguish? 

9. Why did you lean one way or another? 

10. What does the community get out of holding the person accountable? 

Post-Trauma

3. Why? 

4. Known anyone with it? 

5. Personal experience? 

6. Of all people who claim they have PTSD, how many of them do you think are faking it? 

7. How many of you are familiar with the term PTSD? 

8. How many do not know what that means? 

9. What does it stand for? 

10. Can you explain what it is? 

11. My cat fell off a tree and killed herself, is that a traumaEc event for which I can get 

PTSD? 

12. There are a number of medical condiEons for which there is a debate as to whether they 

even exist, do any of you think a PTSD diagnosis is malarkey? 

13. Raise your hand if you think it is overused? 

14. Is there any injury that can cause it? 

15. Is there a chart that we can go to look at an event and determine that this for sure will 

give a person PTSD? 

16. Examples? 

17. What can and cannot give it to a person? 

18. How would it impact a person? 

19. Does it get beLer? 

20. Last forever? 

Tes

2. Explain to them that the image shows how the various parts of the brain work, where 

they are and each area’s funcEons. 

3. Give the focus group parEcipant the DTI images or medical records specifically referring 

to your client. 

4. Explain to them what DTI is, or those porEons of the medical records.

5. Tell focus group parEcipants that the DTI scan or medical records alone are not going to 

tell them anything. 

Direct their aLenEon to the grey image of the brain which is in the center of the DTI 

showing damage, or to the porEons of the medical records indicaEng the cogniEve 

deficits. 

6. Highlight whatever evidence there is of damage. 

7. Instruct them to take a few minutes and study the brain map. 

8. Ask them to look at the various areas and tell you what they suspect this person can’t do 

or have difficulEes doing based on the imaging and/or medical records in conjuncEon 

with the brain diagram. 

9. Provide an example: If a certain area corresponds to smell and it is all blacked out then 

you would suspect that a person will have difficulty smelling or won’t be able to smell at 

all. 

10. Have parEcipants use the flip chart to go and draw a brain with shaded damaged areas 

just like on the DTI picture and corresponding to the brain map.

11. Ask, in looking at your brain map and the records can you tell us what areas were not 

damaged and therefore would not have any problems? 

12. For example, you look at N-11 on the “areas of the brain” picture, you see that N-11 is 

called the brain stem. Then you look at the DTI picture and locate the brain stem there 

and decide whether it was damaged or not. 

13. Now tell me what other areas appears not to be damaged? 

14. And what do those areas of the brain do? 

15. Now, list for me all of the areas that were damaged. 

16. Now let’s indicated the damaged areas on the brain map that was drawn for you. 

Someone please volunteer to be in charge of the brain map 

17. What other areas are damaged? 

18. What do those areas do? 

19. Is it damaged less than other areas? 

20. What else? 

21. Anything else we missed in terms of damages? 

22. Can someone give me a summary, if a person whose brain map you are looking for came 

to you and asked you what is wrong with this person, how would you explain it to them? 

23. How many of you think that based on this picture the brain was hit mulEple Emes? 

24. How many of you do not have a clue?

25. If I menEon to you a phenomenon known as coup contrecoup, it describes the 

movement of the brain when you are involved in a wreck or a fall down. Does anyone 

know what it means? 

Coup/Contrecoup 

26. Does that movement tell you what part of the brain received the biggest injury? 

27. Let’s assume that it was first the forward moEon and then the backward moEon, based 

on that can anyone tell us, is it the front of the brain or the back of the brain that is most 

likely to receive the most impact? 

28. I am going to give you three words: TBI, PTSD, concussion. If we can assume that they all 

deal with the brain, what is the difference? 

29. How many of you had a certainty that when I gave you the three words, you knew 

exactly what those were? 

30. Can you have PTSD without your head having trauma? 

31. Is it possible to have a traumaEc brain injury and not have PTSD? 

32. Is it possible to have a PTSD and not have a traumaEc brain injury? 

33. Is it possible to have a concussion and not have a PTSD or a traumaEc brain injury? 

34. Can we think of any common events that all of us know, where it clearly says that you 

can have a traumaEc brain injury but your head did not hit anything? 

35. Can you think of anybody in historical sense that was hurt this way? 

36. Can anybody recall an actress or an actor who died the same way and never hit their 

head?

Conclusion: 

The outlines and quesEons asked in a damages focus group can look as different as there are 

injuries we see in our cases. Stay focused on your objecEve, and remember that while what has 

happened to our client is the why for us as aLorneys, the why for the jury is the system failure, 

so that is where the focus of our cases needs to be.

CHAPTER 14: DETERMINING THE VALUE FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

This focus group is used as one of the necessary tools in assessing the value of your case. An 

important takeaway is, and needs to be, that this is only one piece of the puzzle in determining 

the value of your case. If you have been taught or work under the assumpFon that a focus 

group is useless in helping you assess the value of your case, a main takeaway of this chapter is 

to show you that is not the case. 

This is just one piece of the puzzle in determining the value of your case. 

One of the consideraFons throughout this journey is to determine whether your case is one 

that will be labeled as a seIlement case or one that you want to take to trial. This is almost 

always going to be a fluid decision, but do not overlook it. The reason we go through the steps 

outlined below to help us determine the value of our case, is to also make the decision as to 

whether it is a case we can march towards a jury trial, or one that we may need to gear up to be 

in the best posiFon for seIlement. 

Know that these two tasks: determining the value of your case, and assessing whether to seIle 

or try, work in tandem. That is the why. We are going through these steps of determining the 

value so that we have adequate expectaFons, do not put blinders on to the pros and cons of our 

cases, and most importantly conFnue communicaFng all of this to our clients throughout the 

process. 

PracFce Fp: Do not wait unFl the last minute to begin thinking about and taking steps to 

determine the value of your case. Not only do you need to disFnguish your case as a seIle or 

try case, but you also need to communicate that to your client early so that they are on board 

with what either a mediaFon or a trial will look like in terms of numbers. This is not a task to be 

completed a few days before mediaFon. You need to know the value of your case and your cut 

line at any seIlement discussion long in advance of that meeFng. 


We have now moved into Stage Three and the trial preparaFon stage of focus groups. In order 

to have enough informaFon to run a focus group such as this, you will likely be well on your way 

through the discovery process.

In order to be successful, be sure to have enough informaFon that both sides of the case can be 

presented. Do not play cheerleader and leave out important defense points, or you will end up 

with a skewed result. 

ObjecBve: 

As you learn through the Edge System, many things go into determining the value of your case. 

The below tools are all necessary steps in coming to a conclusion on this topic. 

1. BuffeI Paradigm (taught at the KTI Media2on Course). 

2. Jury Verdict Research and Analysis. 

3. Personal jury and seIlement experience results. 

4. Judge and mediator surveys. 

5. Focus group input on determining the value of the case. 

The objecFve with this focus group is to accomplish one of the many tools we have in puZng 

together the puzzle of determining the value of our cases. Not one of the above can do that on 

its own, but together can help you assess where the seIlement number or jury verdict request 

should fall. 

How to determine the case value through a focus group: 

The template for determining the case value through a focus group is one of the simplest; but 

do not deviate from the wording. The reason being, the set up and wording is helping us avoid 

falling into the pracFce Fp trap below and not geZng a meaningful evaluaFon of your case. This 

focus group is also well paired with the “what does the jury get out of the verdict” presentaFon. 

PracFce Fp: Do not fall into the trap of asking open ended quesFons about dollar values from 

the focus groups. Doing so is strictly like talking about Monopoly money with them. It does not 

resonate, and is not a true or real depicFon of how they value the case.

Specific outline: 

The following is the script for assessing value in your case: 

“I’ve been asked by the parBes to ask a personal quesBon. If the insurance companies for the 

defendants all got together, and it was one of your family members that died that day, and 

they came to you and made a cash seTlement offer of $5,000,000, do you take it and release 

all claims forever, or reject it and go to trial?” 

Remember, this is not an event case, and this case is not about your client. This focus group is 

not one where your descripFon prior to asking the above quesFons is all about damages. Quite 

the contrary, the presentaFon describing the case needs to be framed around the system failure 

as you would try the case, with just enough informaFon to assess what the harm done was. 

Aèr you have given the descripFon of the case including the system failure and damages, ask 

the above per the script. Key points include not negoFaFng. It is important that it is a “take it or 

leave it” number. Also ensure you have follow-up quesFons ready including why, and the 

reasons for their decision. At this point, you can easily transiFon into asking what the 

parFcipants would get out of a verdict if they went forward. 

Also, listen. In the response to the above quesFon on value, the parFcipants will give you the 

thing that is most important to them in their decision-making. It may be accountability, it may 

be deterrence, or it may be taking the offer you have given and blaming the client. Whatever it 

is, listen to the first thing they say aèr their accept or reject response.

Conclusion: 

Determining the value of your case through a focus group cannot be done in a vacuum. It is not 

the only tool in your toolbox in properly assessing your case, but one of the many to combine 

and synthesize in making the decision to seIle your case or try your case; and if so what to ask 

for from the other side and/or the jury.

CHAPTER 15: THE ADVERSARIAL FOCUS GROUP 

What it is: 

The adversarial focus group is the coup de grace to the defendant’s success. The adversarial 

focus group is a full day mock trial where you essenCally put on your abbreviated case as you 

would present it at trial. First and foremost, read Mr. Keenan’s blog addressing Adversarial Focus 

Groups. 1 Much of this chapter will expand on that informaCve blog and build on it to give the 

tools and checklists necessary to allow you to run your own successfully. 

PracCce Cp: This is part pracCce Cp, part fellowship war story. What I want you to take away 

from this example, is that the presentaCon that is made at the mock trial is not every single part 

of your case. The adversarial focus group is just one 8-hour day, when a trial as we know may 

be several days to several weeks. Therefore, abbreviaCon is key. What we are presenCng at the 

focus group is a laser focused issue board of the main contenCons of the case and the best 

arguments each side has on those issues. Before you put anything into an opening, closing or 

any direct or cross in your outlines, ask yourself, does this go towards arguing the items on the 

issue board. If not, do not include it. 

The first adversarial focus group I parCcipated in at the Keenan Law firm was a medical 

malpracCce case I had been heavily entrenched in. Many samples are included in this chapter 

from that case, which has since resolved. I played the plainCff aTorney, and was very excited to 

get up in this seUng and lawyer it up. I did my opening statement and then started in on our 

1 

See Appendix 3 – Adversarial Focus Group Blog

first witness, then the second. SiUng here today, I can sCll remember the feeling I had, which 

was elaCon; I felt like I was back in a courtroom, and I felt very “lawyerly.” I could feel myself 

being a bit theatric, but hey, it was trial right?! 

Mr. Keenan promptly took me outside, and said, “knock it off.” I was a bit shocked and my ego 

forced my stomach to drop and my heart to sink. But I received the following advice about 

adversarial focus groups that has stuck with me since, and made me so much beTer at 

execuCng them. He told me that the purpose of the focus group is not to be a theatrical lawyer, 

not that it would work in the courtroom anyway, but it definitely had no place there on that day. 

The reason being, it is sCll a focus group. The purpose was to present the issues through the 

issue board that will be the most contenCous at trial, and as straighôrwardly as possible both 

sides present their arguments to that laser focused issue on the issue board. Then, the focus 

group decides. This allows for no outside noise, and also gets you straight answers to which way 

the parCcipants will lean on those most contenCous issues. The closing piece of advice was, 

short, leading quesCons, in a way that gets the informaCon the focus group needs out in the 

least amount of words. No theatrics, no lawyer funny business, just what they need to make the 

decision on each of the elements on the issue board. 

I pass that sacred advice on to you as you begin puUng together your adversarial focus groups 

and preparing for trial. 

When to do: 

The adversarial focus group is the last focus group you do before trial. It is the culminaCon of all 

of the hard work you have been doing up to that point. 

Regarding Cming, Mr. Keenan states in the Adversarial Focus Group blog, “Today I am leading 

the charge for a revival of the adversarial focus group. But I only advocate for it AFTER you 

have honed your issues, developed what you believe is a winning trial template and now you 

are ready to do a final test.”

ObjecOve: 

Mr. Keenan puts it simply, “The adversarial focus group is never a ‘first’ focus group, but aber 

you start seeing the blueprint for success then your final focus group should be the adversarial, 

which is the most predicCve for the trial outcome of any of the focus groups.” 

The objecCve here is simple: can our side win on the biggest issues in our case, and if not, how 

do we make adjustments to be able to do so. 

In addiCon, this is the true test on interpretaCon of focus groups. See below regarding 

demographics, life experiences and tells during voir dire. During the mock trial focus group, you 

are puUng together all of the research and development you have done up to that point 

together to assess who is going to be best on your jury. 

PracCce Cp: Do not let your focus group memos sit collecCng dust. If we are not going back and 

reviewing them, interpreCng them and analyzing the results, they are of no purpose. I suggest 

siUng down before the adversarial focus group and coming up with a list of who you believe is 

going to be your best juror and worst juror based on the focus groups you have done to date. 

Then, when the seaCng chart and demographics for the adversarial focus group are put

together, analyze and make an educated decision on who you believe in that group will support 

your case and who will not. At the end, see how you did at projecCng good and bad jurors. 

How to do an Adversarial Focus Group: 

Below is a checklist to help assist in seUng up and preparing for your adversarial focus group. 

Make no mistake, it is an enormous amount of work. Following the checklist will be specific 

instrucCon and Cps on elements of the checklist that are not self-explanatory. 

ADVERSARIAL FOCUS GROUP CHECKLIST 

Completed Task Assigned To Due Date 

CHOOSE DATE AND TIME OF FOCUS GROUP 

DETERMINE PRICE FOR PARTICIPANTS 

DRAFT AND POST ADVERTISEMENT 

SEND CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE TO FOCUS 

GROUP PARTICIPANTS 

CREATE A SCHEDULE 

IDENTIFY AND CREATE ISSUE BOARD 

IDENTIFY ALL ITEMS AND WITNESSES TO BE 

PRESENTED 

a. PlainOff opening statement 

b. Defense opening statement 

c. All witness direct exams 

d. All witness cross-exams 

e. PlainOff closing statement 

f. Defense closing statement 

g. Jury InstrucOons 

h. IdenOfy demonstraOves 

CHOOSE ATTORNEYS TO PLAY PLAINTIFF AND 

DEFENSE 

CHOOSE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES TO PLAY 

WITNESSES

SEND CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE TO FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS: 

There are going to be quesCons, just as there would be at the actual trial, that you will be able 

to ask prior to the focus group that can be done via wriTen quesConnaire. A sample of a 

quesConnaire sent in a school premise liability case is included as Appendix 2. 

The quesConnaire was sent out a few days prior to the focus group, with a deadline of noon the 

day before. Use the quesConnaire for items you have idenCfied in your focus groups leading up 

to that point that you believe may be idenCficaCon paTerns for favorable or non-favorable 

jurors. It can also be an opportunity to test quesCons to be placed on juror quesConnaires at 

trial if your jurisdicCon allows them. 

PracCce Cp: Make submiUng the quesConnaire mandatory to parCcipate on the day of the 

focus group to ensure that you receive it back on Cme. 

CREATE A SCHEDULE 

ASSIGN PERSON WHO WILL BE TRACKING THE 

VOTING AFTER EACH PRESENTATION ELEMENT 

RECORD FOCUS GROUP 

COLLECT AND SAVE ALL NOTES AND WRITTEN 

TALLIES 

CONDUCT DELIBERATIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS 

DE-BRIEF FOCUS GROUP WITH ALL ATTORNEYS 

DRAFT ADVERSARIAL FOCUS GROUP MEMO 

Do not underesCmate the need for a schedule. This will keep all of the parCcipants and 

witnesses on track. Below are two samples of what a focus group schedule may look like. 

Sample Adversarial Focus Group Schedules:

Example 1: 

Example 2:

IDENTIFY AND CREATE ISSUE BOARD 

You may sCll be asking yourself, what is an issue board? An issue board is an idenCficaCon of 

where the key disagreements are going to be in your trial. This is one of the most important 

elements of the adversarial focus group. The reason being, we only have one day to present our

case to the focus group, when our trial could be slated for several days to weeks. So the Cme 

needs to be spent geUng focus group feedback on the topics and main points in your case. No 

excess. Having an issue board is a way to also avoid adding unnecessary noise, facts and 

evidence into your adversarial focus group. If it does not go towards the main points on your 

issue board, you do not need it. 

With that explanaCon, you may be beginning to see therefore how important it is to properly 

idenCfy the issues in your case that will be the crux of the actual trial. Do not load the deck in 

your favor and be honest with yourself about how the trial will truly shake out. If you do not 

know, or do not feel confident in idenCfying these issues, ask for help from those in your 

community and working on the case with you. 

The set up for the issue board in the actual adversarial focus group presentaCon is to: 1. IdenCfy 

the main point. 2. Have plainCff’s support and argument towards that point. 3. Have the 

defendant’s counterpoint and argument supporCng their posiCon. 

The when, is prior to the presentaCon of opening statements. Inform the group that this mock 

trial will be focusing on the following main points, plainCff will read their posiCon following 

each, and the defense will be reading their posiCon as well. 

Issue Board Example:

CHOOSE ATTORNEYS TO PLAY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE 

A key point here is emphasized in the Adversarial Focus Group blog aTached as Appendix 2. Mr. 

Keenan states: 

The ego trip of it mandates that the lead plain2ff lawyer be the real lead plain2ff 

lawyer. No. This is a huge mistake. The lead plain2ff lawyer in the real 2me needs 

to focus 100 percent of his or her efforts on watching every detail of the focus 

group. Secondly, if you do this you’re loading the deck. Instead, my rule for the 

adversarial focus group is that the best lawyer in the focus group should be the 

defense lawyer. That’s how you learn where your strengths truly lie. 

So very simply, the lead plainCff aTorney on the case needs to either sit and observe (best 

opCon), the results in real Cme, or be the defense aTorney. And the best aTorney in the focus 

group should be the defense lawyer. 

CHOOSE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES TO PLAY WITNESSES 

Witnesses in your case and the defense case can either be done so in person or through actual 

deposiCon tesCmony video. If you go the route of deposiCon clips, the best way to do so is 

create a PowerPoint presentaCon of the sliced video where the deponent answers key 

quesCons going towards your issue board. You must also include porCons of the deposiCon that 

help the other side as well, remember, no stacking the deck in your favor.

For live witnesses, get actors in the community, whether they be office staff, other aTorneys in 

the community, friends or family, that as closely as possible resemble the actual live person they 

are depicCng. 

The quesCons that each witness answers in direct and cross examinaCon are prepared by the 

lead aTorneys on the case as they know the case the best. Every quesCon should go towards 

the main points on the issue board. The quesCons should be short, direct and leading quesCons. 

PracCce Cp: DO NOT BREAK CHARACTER. In every one of the adversarial focus groups I have 

been a part of, absent a bench mock trial, the jury focus group parCcipants believed that the 

witnesses tesCfying were the actual witnesses. Therefore, do not break character, do not allow 

the witnesses to be chaUng with and acCng friendly to one another in the presence of the 

focus group. Have a separate room where all witnesses will go and can watch on live stream, or 

if they stay in the view of the parCcipants, they are stone faced and not breaking character. 

ASSIGN PERSON WHO WILL BE TRACKING THE VOTING AFTER EACH PRESENTATION ELEMENT 

Aber each part of the case: opening statements, each witness direct and cross, closing 

arguments and jury instrucCons, the person assigned to vote tracking will take silent wriTen 

votes from the parCcipants. The votes will then be tracked on a full board out of sight of the 

parCcipants. This is one of the most important parts, you are tracking whether they are leaning 

more towards the plainCff or the defense, and why. This way, you can see what evidence is 

turning them, if anything, and what is bringing them back. What the wriTen vote sheet should 

look: 

PART OF TRIAL: 

WHICH WAY ARE YOU LEANING (check one): PLAINTIFF: 

DEFENSE: 

HOW STRONGLY (check one): 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

TOP 3 REASONS WHY: 1. 

2.

3. 

What the tracking board looks like as a whole at the compleCon:

CONDUCT DELIBERATIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS 

At the compleCon of the case, now it is Cme to hand out the last wriTen vote which will be the 

verdict form, and to start the deliberaCons. 

One aTorney should take the lead on deliberaCons. In the below depicCon, Mr. Keenan has split 

the room into the two sides and is having them speak and deliberate amongst themselves to 

come to a resoluCon: 

DE-BRIEF FOCUS GROUP WITH ALL ATTORNEYS 

Last but not least, do not forget to take the Cme to meet and confer aber the conclusion of the 

focus group to fully dissect, analyze and synthesize what has happened. This is where the real 

magic happens. Here is where the focus group parCcipants and responses are being interpreted 

to assess the root of the exercise which is: who were the good and bad jurors, and why.

At the Keenan Law Firm, it is firm policy that a referring aTorney must parCcipate as a witness 

and in the interpretaCon session in an adversarial focus group run by Mr. Keenan prior to doing 

their own on their case. 

Conclusion: 

The Adversarial Focus Group is the culminaCon of everything we have discussed and that you 

have done in your cases up to this point. It is the mock trial, the test of the core contenCous 

issues in the case to ensure that you fall on the winning side of the deliberaCons. And if not, 

how to make changes to ensure that you do. 

Happy Focus Grouping!

CHAPTER 16: VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUPS 

This book is being wri7en over the course of 2020. In March of this year, Covid-19 on a macro 

level changed our enJre world, and on a micro level, almost every aspect of how we as trial 

lawyers liJgate our cases. Focus groups are no excepJon. 

When the pandemic first hit, the iniJal thought was, a virtual focus group will never be the 

same as if we were in person. We thought, “let’s just wait, this too shall pass.” Very quickly it 

became clear, that life was not going to be returning to “normal” and that a method of 

conducJng focus groups remotely would have to be figured out. 

While much of the who, what, where and when mirrors that of an in-person focus group, some 

items are completely different (the “where” for example), and some altered enough that a 

detailed checklist will assist those not knowing where to start or uncomfortable with the fear of 

complicated technology. 

First, let us acknowledge some of the pros and cons of the new virtual world we are navigaJng. 

Next, ways in which we can work with and celebrate the pros, and ways to work around the 

cons. 

Pros: 

1. Loca5on and venue no longer ma>er. Have a case outside of your general office 

vicinity? No problem! With virtual focus groups, we now have the ability to adverJse 

and pull parJcipants from anywhere across the country. We can mix and match 

parJcipants from different venues and states, or conduct a focus group in a county or 

state far from home if the case warrants. 

2. Convenience of work from home. With most of the populaJon working from home, or 

sadly, unemployed in the face of the pandemic, virtual focus groups unlock a large 

majority of the populaJon that would have once been unavailable to parJcipate during 

the workday, to being available. This assists us in mirroring more directly the jury pool 

we will be pulling in our actual trials. 

3. Quality of par5cipants. Anyone that does a high quanJty of focus groups knows that 

there are career focus group parJcipants that spend Jme each week parJcipaJng in gigs 

online. While these people are great to have in your city, a]er a number of focus groups 

you start running out of parJcipants with only these career parJcipants sJll circulaJng. 

Now, with the ability for people from anywhere, at any Jme to simply log online, we are 

seeing a huge influx of more diverse and new parJcipants. People working from home 

can take a break and parJcipate in a focus group, or those on furlough or temporarily 

laid off are now available to help parJcipate in our presentaJons.

4. Lower cost. When we do focus groups in person, we provide coffee, water, supplies, and 

meals. In addiJon, the technological support o]en requires addiJonal staff members 

and expensive equipment. With a virtual focus group, the need for supplies and food is 

eliminated, as well as the need for no other equipment than your computer and a solid 

internet connecJon. 

5. The environment fosters openness and less in5mida5on. While in person focus groups 

and what they provide in terms of inJmacy cannot be duplicated on a screen, there are 

benefits to the parJcipants’ openness when parJcipaJng virtually. First, parJcipants are 

in their own element, usually the comfort of their own homes. This provides for an 

inJmate se_ng and ability to be more open. Second, being on a screen instead of in 

person removes the shields of insecurity that can be present when face to face with 

people and open up the lines of communicaJon. Lastly, parJcipants’ faces can be seen 

much closer than in person, showing reacJons, facial expressions more clearly than 

si_ng further away in a room. 

With all posiJves, do come the negaJves of our changing world. 

Cons: 

1. It is difficult to recreate the in5macy of being in the same room with a person. When 

interpreJng focus groups a]er the fact, one of the most important elements is body 

language. While we can see the parJcipants’ faces closer on the computer than in 

person, we cannot see their bodies on just a small screen; how they hold their hands, 

how they shi] their bodies, or how they would communicate with others if they were in 

a room together side by side. Nothing is more telling than watching back a de-brief of a 

focus group and catching how parJcipants recoil at the comments of others in the 

group, or lean closer and smile when they agree with something they heard. While not 

impossible to catch online it is much less organic and visible than when in person. 

Tips to help: Ways to help overcome the above, include ensuring at the onset of the 

focus group you help parJcipants posiJon their bodies in a way where their enJre heads 

and as much of their bodies as possible are in the computer frame. In addiJon, ensuring 

that lighJng is adequate, as well as sound, and a steady camera and good background 

are all ways to help the presentaJon. Yourself as the presenter also using honesty and 

good quesJoning to bond yourself to the parJcipants, acknowledging the difficulJes of 

inJmacy of the computer are all ways to assist your connecJon. 

2. Distrac5ons are easier for par5cipants. With the benefits of parJcipants being in their 

own homes, comes also the comfort and the distracJons of that environment. I have 

seen children running in the background, pet birds flying about, pet dogs, pet cats, and 

every pet in between. I have had parJcipants that have been outside, in bed, playing 

video games, on other calls or even at work. There is li7le other than the words and

stern direcJon of the leader of the focus group to retain order in the group; and o]en 

even with direcJon the distracJons can remain. 

Tips to help: One of the most important steps in the below checklist that can easily be 

overlooked, is confirming with the parJcipants beforehand via video the adequacy of 

their equipment and also the locaJon where they will be during the actual focus group. 

During this confirmaJon session, it is imperaJve to lay the ground rules on distracJons 

including being in a room alone, having a stable internet connecJon, and a clear picture 

on the screen with as much of the parJcipant’s body showing as possible. 

It is also recommended to get on the virtual conference the day of your actual focus 

group approximately 15 minutes before your slo7ed start Jme to work out parJcipant 

posiJoning, any problems with video or audio and to again remind parJcipants of the 

rules on distracJons. 

Lastly, do not hesitate to remove someone from the room that simply cannot comply 

with the ground rules. The distracJons and/or an unusable video or audio are not worth 

the tradeoff of simply having one addiJonal body in the group. 

3. Computer glitches. This is basic to explain, in that if you have someone with an unstable 

internet connecJon or malfuncJoning equipment it very simply will not only make their 

feedback impossible to hear or see, it will distract others in your group. 

Tips to help: Again, the biggest piece of advice here is to not skip the step of verifying 

connecJon issues and equipment in the days leading up to the focus group. Having two 

viable opJons of both a computer and smart phone, and a good and stable internet 

connecJon are key. 

4. Collec5ng Wri>en Votes and Notes: In person, this is something that comes as second 

nature and doesn’t take much coordinaJng. The parJcipants get a pad of paper and a 

pen, they write the answers to their quesJons as we dictate to them, and collect them 

to use in our focus group memos and analysis. Over Zoom, that is simply not the case. 

You have many opJons during online on how you want to collect wri7en votes. You can 

have parJcipants text answers to you real Jme, have them email the answers to you, 

use the chat feature within Zoom to write to you, or have them write on paper and then 

provide those papers to you by either showing them on screen or emailing them. The big 

piiall to avoid here is to not somehow collect and read the wri7en votes before you 

start the speaking porJon of the de-brief. 

Tips to help: Have a plan before you start. What doesn’t work is not thinking about this 

step beforehand, having the parJcipants simply write on paper they have in front of 

them, but never collecJng that paper. What you risk there is that even if they do write it 

down and you go around the room, that they will say something to you that is different

from what they wrote down a]er hearing other parJcipants. So then, you are not 

ge_ng their unabridged feelings and thoughts. The best way I have found is to have the 

parJcipants instead of using pen and paper use the private chat feature just to you when 

doing the wri7en quesJon porJon of your presentaJon. That way, you have all of the 

answers in private, real Jme, and in a form you can save. Again, don’t forget that with 

some Zoom accounts the chat box is not saved once you close the Zoom, so simply 

screen shot those chats before you leave and close the meeJng. 

5. Harder to ini5ate cross talk: A computer screen is simply by nature less inJmate than 

talking to other people in person. While not impossible, it takes more strategy and 

intenJon on the part of the presenter to engage the parJcipants in cross talk. If not, the 

presentaJon ends up being simply short conversaJons only between the presenter and 

one parJcipant at a Jme. 

Tips to help: Be intenJonal. Have a plan and quesJons wri7en out or thought out before 

hand on how you will iniJate cross talk in each segment of your focus groups. Ways 

include prompJng yourself to ask parJcipants to ask quesJons of others in the group, 

asking parJcipants what they thought of other’s statements or opinions, and using the 

breakout room feature to have two separate groups present sides of the case to one 

another. The more ways you as the presenter can iniJate talking among the parJcipants 

without your involvement, the be7er. 

Virtual focus groups will be a tool in our toolchest that we will be able to use and uJlize in our 

cases in the short term when we must, and in the long term when they can benefit our cases 

both in terms of venue, finding parJcipants, and in working with other a7orneys across the 

country. 

I recommend taking the below and making a checklist that either yourself or someone from 

your office follows each Jme you set up and execute a virtual (or in person) focus group. That 

way, in the heat of the moment and everyday tasks, a small step that can impact later results is 

not missed. The Appendix contains a sample Virtual Focus Group task checklist 1. 

How to: 

1. DraT and post an ad. Several sample ads are included in the Appendix 2. The 

adverJsement should be simple staJng the date, Jme, short descripJon, what to bring 

with you or have available (computer and smart phone, paper, pen, etc.). 

1 

2 

See Appendix 4 – Virtual Focus Group Task Checklist 

See Appendix 5 – Sample Virtual Focus Group AdverJsement & QuesJonnaire

2. Pick a price: A good place to start is minimum wage or higher per hour for your 

parJcipants. For instance, if minimum wage in your state is $15 per hour, paying $60 for 

a 4-hour focus group would accomplish that. 

3. Pick your par5cipants. The number of parJcipants will depend on the type of focus 

group you are presenJng. Generally, you want to split the categories into two: a regular 

3-4 hour focus group or a full day adversarial focus group. The more experienced you 

are, the easier it is to manage a larger group. To start, 6-8 parJcipants is a good 

manageable target for a regular several hour focus group, while 10-14 would be a good 

target for an adversarial mock trial. 

4. Create a ques5onnaire. The Appendix contains a sample quesJonnaire to send to 

parJcipants prior to the beginning of the focus group. You can send this quesJonnaire in 

tandem with number 5 and 6 below. 

5. Get back confiden5ality agreements. The Appendix contains a sample confidenJality 

agreement to send parJcipants prior to the beginning of the focus group. 3 The 

confidenJality agreement ensures that any of the facts, names, and circumstances the 

parJcipants hear during the presentaJons will not be shared a]er it is over. 

6. Confirm in wri5ng. When sending the wri7en confirmaJon via email, a7ach both the 

confidenJality form, as well as the quesJonnaire to be returned back to you before the 

start of the focus group. Also confirming how the parJcipants want to be paid is helpful 

to acquire beforehand their address or applicaJon handles to accomplish payment when 

the presentaJon is finished. 

7. Confirm again via phone. One to two days prior to the focus group date, confirm again 

via telephone. This way, you have 24-48 hours should you lose any of your parJcipants. 

8. Test audio & video. In the telephone confirmaJon, this is where you inform your 

parJcipants that they may need both a computer or tablet to parJcipate in the focus 

group on, as well as another smart device, such as a cell phone, to do research on should 

that be part of your focus group. In this test call, you can also test the internet 

connecJon, video quality, lighJng and sound quality of the parJcipant’s computer. 

9. Make sea5ng chart. Prior to the start of the focus group, be sure to have the parJcipant 

names and demographics readily accessible with names to ensure your focus is on the 

presentaJon and responses you are receiving, not trying to remember someone’s name 

or occupaJon. In addiJon, having idenJfying demographics in front of you can help with 

prompJng quesJons based on responses, such as employment, educaJon or age. For 

example, a]er a quesJon is answered, you can check your demographic sheet and ask 

3 

See Appendix 6 – Sample ConfidenJality Form

follow up quesJons including perhaps how one’s occupaJon or hometown has impacted 

their response. 

10. Generate and send zoom link to all par5cipants. An easy step, but just as easy to forget. 

Create your Zoom meeJng with a waiJng room iniJated, that way you can admit all 

parJcipants at once when you as the presenter are ready to begin. Send that link to all 

presenters and parJcipants the morning of your focus group. 

11. Make a schedule. Making a schedule helps not only give you a target for spli_ng up the 

Jme most effecJvely, it also helps give the parJcipants a roadmap to know where you 

are going and how many cases they will hear. This step is also essenJal to be able to split 

the cost of the focus group equitably based on Jme to the respecJve case files. 

12. Start promptly. Taking this even a step further, as indicated above, starJng 10-15 

minutes early to ensure that you have tested all video and audio helps the presentaJon 

start right on Jme, not wasJng any of the precious feedback Jme. 

13. Press RECORD! You can set up your Zoom video in advance to begin recording when the 

meeJng is started. This way, there is no chance that you will miss or forget this crucial 

step. 

14. Before closing Zoom – save your chat. There are several technical aspects that are only 

learned the hard way. Some lower cost versions of Zoom do not automaJcally save the 

group chats that are used during the meeJng, so know what is included and not 

included in your plan. To protect yourself, always screenshot the chat box before ending 

your video meeJng. 

15. Collect any wri>en votes either via email or in the chat. As discussed above, be sure to 

have a plan on how to collect any wri7en votes a]er the focus group is over. Whether 

that be through email, holding up their pieces of paper or by saving the chat box. You 

surely want to think about it in advance so you don’t miss this step and lose one of the 

most important pieces of unadulterated opinion – the wri7en vote. 

16. Confirm payment preference. This also will be a personal preference dependent on your 

bookkeeping pracJces and how many different offices are spli_ng the cost of the focus 

group as a whole. OpJons generally include wriJng a check and mailing it, Cash app, 

Venmo or PayPal. A few Jps are to double and someJmes triple check the Venmo or app 

handle or the physical address of the parJcipants to ensure there are no errors. Also, 

making sure you have contact informaJon for the parJcipants in the event the money 

somehow isn’t received you can contact them a]er to correct any errors. 

17. End mee5ng and upload the video. On Zoom, when you end a meeJng, dependent on 

your account, you will have the ability to upload the video either to the cloud or to your

actual computer. Whichever preference you choose, the video will begin downloading 

immediately upon closing the focus group Zoom meeJng. One Jp is to be sure to leave 

yourself enough Jme or have your computer in a place it will not be losing internet 

throughout the enJre downloading process. It usually takes approximately one hour to 

download a two to three hour Zoom meeJng. 

18. Save and share with all presenters. Once your Zoom downloads, save it to whatever 

cloud-based service you use such as Dropbox or Share File, and share a link with all of 

your presenters and a7orneys involved so it is readily available to all. 

19. Do your focus group memo! A step not to be missed. There is no way to remember the 

focus group parJcipants or informaJon gleaned from them years a]er it has happened. 

Without a focus group memo idenJfying parJcipants, wri7en vote calculaJons as well as 

a verbaJm transcript of the important and relevant secJons, the whole exercise is 

mostly a waste of Jme. Having your focus group memos completed allows you to 

prepare for trial by synthesizing who will be a good and bad juror for your case. 

20. Save all par5cipants in your database. It is helpful to save the parJcipants you use so 

that you can track what parJcipants in your community or in a parJcular focus group 

heard what parJcular case. For instance, you would not necessarily want to have the 

same parJcipant or parJcipants hear a case mulJple Jmes; they would not be coming 

into the presentaJon with a clean slate or blank blackboard. 

As with everything, pracJce makes perfect, and the more we engage in doing these virtual focus 

groups, the more the kinks will be worked out. If at first you feel inJmidated, or not familiar 

enough with the technology, reach out to one of your state’s listserve and team up with 

someone already running them. This is a great way to observe how others are successfully 

running virtual focus groups and to learn from watching.

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

DATE: 

KLF 

Focus Group Memo Template 

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain (1) the template and (2) the content to be included 

in all KLF focus group memos. Remember, these memos are to be completed within 48 hours 

after the focus group. 

The focus group memos will be prepared in the following format, and saved as follows: 

Case Name ! Focus Groups ! Memos ! yyyy.mm.dd CASE NAME [TYPE OF FG] Memo 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

DATE: 

[CASE FILE], DCK, [RA] 

[ENTER YOUR INITIALS HERE] 

[ENTER TYPE OF FG] 

[ENTER DATE OF FG] 

FOCUS GROUP NUMBER 

Facts 

Under this section include a 1-2 sentence explanation of the case. 

Include RA and State of Origin 

Bottom Line 

Here is where we put the synthesized written votes, and our takeaways from the focus group. 

1. Average Gut Check: [enter average pre-debrief]; [enter average post debrief] 

FG 

Participant 

EV 

1

Gabriel 8 

Jennifer 10 

Renee 10 

Cathy 8 

Joel 5 

Chris 8 

Eric 10 

Michelle 8.5 

Monica 7 

AVERAGE 8.28 

2. Liability Vote: 

Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 

Pre Debrief [Enter Average] [Enter Average] [Enter Average] 

Post Debrief [Enter Average] [Enter Average] [Enter Average] 

3. Top Facts: In this section you synthesize the top facts written down by the participants 

during the written vote. If more than 1 person says the same thing, then acknowledge it 

by putting a “(x[however many times it is referenced])” beside the fact. For example: 

a. The time took to examine the test results (x5) 

b. Changes hospital but not the situation (x3) 

c. Didn’t take him for test (x2) 

d. Didn’t do aorta, did heart cath instead 

4. Want To Know More: In this section you synthesize the facts or information the focus 

group participant wants to know more about as written down by the participants during 

the written vote. Again, If more than 1 person says the same thing, then acknowledge it 

by putting a “(x[however many times it is referenced])” beside the fact. For example: 

a. Where was his family? (x5) 

2

. Why did it take 18 hours? (x2) 

c. Plaintiff lifestyle (x2) 

d. Was he able to speak for himself? 

e. Did the hospital have his past medical history? 

5. [Any Other Written Vote]: If there are any other written votes then you will synthesize 

them in this section. Organize by list or by table. 

6. Takeaways: In this section you detail your takeaways and the takeaways discussed with 

DCK in the debrief post focus group. 

FG Participants 

[Enter a screenshot photo of the focus group so that you can see their faces.] 

[Enter seating chart] 

Limited Voir Dire: 

[Enter verbatim transcript of any limited voir dire.] 

Presentation: 

In this section, you describe in 1-2 sentences the presentation to the focus group. For example, 

“AFM PRESENTS NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY RA.” 

Debrief: 

This section describes like a play what is going on during the debrief. It should be as close to 

verbatim as possible, including any blatantly apparent body language. All words spoken or action 

taken by us are in CAPS to indicate it is us. 

You also give the long form written votes in this section. Please organize the votes in order of 

the juror’s seating chart. 

Please also insert any flip chart pictures focus group participants at the location where the flip 

chart was created. 

Here is an example: 

WRITTEN VOTES TAKEN 

LIABILITY VOTE TAKEN 

Liability Vote 

3

FG 

Participant 

Plaintiff Hospitals Doctors 

Gabriel 0% 60% 40% 

Jennifer 5% 20% 75% 

Renee 0% 50% 50% 

Cathy 0% 20% 80% 

Joel 0% 10% 90% 

Chris 5% 35% 60% 

Eric 0% 25% 75% 

Michelle 0% 50% 50% 

Monica 0% 75% 25% 

AVERAGE 1% 38% 61% 

EMOTIONAL VOTE TAKEN 

FG 

Participant 

EV 

Gabriel 8 

Jennifer 10 

Renee 10 

Cathy 8 

Joel 5 

Chris 8 

Eric 10 

Michelle 8.5 

Monica 7 

AVERAGE 8.28 

4

1. TOP 3 FACTS: 

a. Gabriel 

i. The time took to examine the test results 

ii. Changes hospital but not the situation 

b. Jennifer 

i. Didn’t take him for test 

ii. Didn’t do aorta, did heart cath instead 

iii. Didn’t intubate him at Boston 

c. Renee 

i. Severe emergent condition 

ii. Tests not reviewed for 18 hours 

iii. Reviewing team not knowing condition 

d. Cathy 

i. Tests were done 

ii. One test not reported 

iii. Doctors did not analyze heart test results 

e. Joel 

i. “unnecessary cath” 

ii. transfer times 

iii. valve needed to be replaced, acknowledged prior to cath 

f. Chris 

i. Unnecessary surgery – waste of time 

ii. No correspondence between doctors 

iii. Family members? 

g. Eric 

i. 60 yrs. Old 

ii. not read EKG for 18 hours 

iii. multiple doctors and hospitals 

h. Michelle 

i. Echo not ordered until 1:35 pm 

ii. Echo not reviewed 

iii. Patient not diagnosed when transferred 

i. Monica 

i. Test not needed 

ii. Time between transfer 

iii. Lack of communication to new hospital 

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? 

Jennifer: 

Eric: 

Lack of communication 

Yes. 

5

Michelle: I think hospital procedure needs to be looked at. The echo was not 

ordered until like 5 or 6 hours after he got there. Some sort of procedural 

thing going on there 

Cathy: 

Michelle: 

Then no one looked at the results. 

You’ve got to look at whether they were overworked, not scheduled at the 

right times. 

Presentation Material: 

If there was a narrative presented, put it here. In addition, attach copies of all timelines and 

presentations used. 

6

ADVERSARIAL FOCUS GROUP (MOCK TRIAL) 

DON KEENAN LEAVE A COMMENT 

By Don Keenan 

The very ;irst focus group I ever did was in a quadruple death penalty retrial. 

The focus group was handled by a National Murder Task Force and lasted two full days, 

including what amounted to be a replication of the ;irst trial. I did not try the ;irst trial but 

was lead counsel on the retrial and we had the full bene;it of the transcript.

So my very ;irst FG included doing voir dire after the District Attorney (another lawyer on 

the team), followed by adversarial opening statements, then direct and crosses of all the 

witnesses. Finally, there was a jury charge and closing arguments. The outcome (which we 

videotaped) was instrumental in escaping four death penalties and receiving life sentences 

instead. 

Later, when I transitioned into civil law, once again the only focus groups I took part in were 

all-day adversarial focus groups. 

Over time – up until today – the adversarial focus group has all but disappeared. Instead, 

you’ll ;ind the narrative focus group, the opening statement focus group, the demonstrative 

evidence focus group and about 20 other different types of focus groups. However, today I 

am leading the charge for a revival of the adversarial focus group. But I only advocate for it 

AFTER you have honed your issues, developed what you believe is a winning trial template 

and now you are ready to do a ;inal test.

To help you with implementation, I’m going to cover some crucial components. 

VOIR DIRE – I usually do a written questionnaire followed by an actual voir dire. I don’t 

strike anybody during this time, I just clearly know the demographics of the people that I’m 

going to be working with and know that will impact how they come in on a verdict. 

TRIAL – Just like the real trial, this part of the focus group starts with an opening from the 

plaintiff followed by an opening from the defense and then your order of proof. 

There is ONE considerable difference: After each component (either after the plaintiff 

opening or after the plaintiff and defense opening), go ahead and do a silent paper vote. I 

like the “which way you do lean” questions during this time, so you’re not forcing the jury. 

Example: “Which way do you lean, more toward a plaintiff or defense verdict?” and ask 

them to quantify it on a scale of 1 to 10, etc. 

Of equal importance, ask them to list their top three reasons why they are leaning this way. 

Also ask them to write down a list of anything they want to learn or know about, which they 

haven’t heard yet. 

The interim votes are silently written down and passed up to the moderator. The 

moderator tallies the votes and writes the total on a ;lip chart, along with a summary of the 

issues. Below is a sample ;lip chart work up. Note that not only do you list the “p” and “d” 

votes, you also get to list the three most important issues that are helping produce the vote:

VOTE AGAIN AND AGAIN – Do the interim votes after each segment of the adversarial 

focus group. Each time, you’ll learn exactly how the ebb and ;low of the trial would/will go. 

If you consistently have your jury leaning toward a plaintiff’s verdict, that’s wonderful. On

the ;lip side, if you are seeing more “d’s” than “p’s,” you also have a list of reasons why. If you 

effectively chart the way the votes are coming in, you can easily make adjustments. 

Just like in a football game, when halftime arrives, the teams don’t stand idle or relax. They 

furiously analyze what went wrong, what went right and where they need to make 

adjustments. You, too, must do that after every witness, after the plaintiff rests, and at any 

other times you feel are necessary to pause/analyze/tally a vote/and review. You don’t have 

to continue the trial with your hands in your pocket. Make changes if you’re seeing hits and 

“d’s” are showing up. 

PARTICIPANTS – The ego trip of it mandates that the lead plaintiff lawyer be the real lead 

plaintiff lawyer. No. This is a huge mistake. The lead plaintiff lawyer in real time needs to 

focus 100 percent of his or her efforts on watching every detail of the focus group.

Secondly, if you do this you’re loading the deck. Instead, my rule for the adversarial focus 

group is that the best lawyer in the focus group should be the defense lawyer. That’s how 

you learn where your strengths truly lie. 

This is one of the biggest issues when Black Hats run FGs. They put the “gray hair” up as the 

defense lawyer and get some non-experienced puppy associate to play the plaintiff’s 

lawyer. What happens when you do that? You don’t get any real results. Align your 

adversarial focus group as close to the real trial as possible. In these days and times, you 

can get video clips of depositions and show the actual people in your trial. (Beware if the 

real plaintiff testi;ies then you must get somebody real to testify as the defendant.) 

With most of my adversarial focus groups over time being medical malpractice cases, there 

was never any problem going over to the Emory Med School in Atlanta and getting middleaged 

residents to play the defendant doctor. They were glad to do it for the extra money and 

it was fun. Why a middle-aged resident? Because if you’re suing a defendant doctor who has 

25 years’ experience, you’re certainly not going to have a 20-year-old med student play that 

role. It’s also great practice to get people in your of;ice to play the witnesses in the case if 

they are law students or young/new lawyers; it gives them a lot of experience in the inner 

workings of a trial. You can’t be a great cross-examiner unless you’ve been on the receiving 

end of some great cross-examination. 

This brings me to the ;inal bene;it of the adversarial focus group. 

Let’s face it, we’re not trying the number of cases that we were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Most 

years, it’s only a handful. This gives the younger lawyers in the of;ice (who may not see the 

courtroom for years) immediate “courtroom” experience. I can tell you ;irst hand that the 

Saturday all-day adversarial focus group is highly competitive. The lawyers want to win and 

often become rather aggressive.

While I think it’s a mistake for the lead plaintiff’s lawyer to be a participant in the focus 

group (remember, you’ve got to focus on all the details – how can you do that and be a 

participant?) if your ego requires it…play the defense lawyer. I don’t have to point out the 

obvious advantages of walking a mile in their moccasins. 

For the terminal shortcutters reading this blog, do not believe for a minute that the ;irst and 

only focus group should be the adversarial focus group. It should be the last one after a 

culmination of tremendous information gained from the lead-up focus groups prior to the 

adversarial focus group.

Here’s the bonus point; of the multitude of adversarial focus groups that I’ve been involved 

both as lead counsel or consult, each and every one heard the actual trial. 

Finally, you should already have the Ultimate Focus Group DVD, containing 29 hours and 

further instruction of how to do adversarial focus groups: www.keenantrialinstitute.com/ 

You are not without tools. 

Bottom Line: The adversarial focus group is never a “;irst” focus group, but after you start 

seeing the blueprint for success then your ;inal focus group should be the adversarial, 

which is the most predictive for the trial outcome of any of the focus groups.

VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUP CHECKLIST 

VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUP CHECKLIST 

Completed Task Assigned To Due Date 

CHOOSE DATE AND TIME OF FOCUS 

GROUP 

DETERMINE PRICE 

DRAFT AND POST ADVERTISEMENT 

MONITOR RESPONSES AND CHOOSE 

PARTICIPANTS 

CREATE A QUESTIONNAIRE AND SEND TO 

PARTICIPANTS BEFORE FOCUS GROUP 

DATE 

SEND AND GET BACK CONFIDENTIALITY 

AGREEMENT BEFORE FOCUS GROUP 

DATE 

CONFIRM PARTICIPANTS IN WRITING 

(48-HOURS BEFORE) 

CONFIRM HOW PARTICIPANTS WANT TO 

BE PAID 

CONFIRM PARTICIPANTS VIA PHONE 

(24-HOURS BEFORE) 

TEST PARTICIPANT VIDEO AND AUDIO 

MAKE SEATING CHART WITH 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

GENERATE AND SEND ZOOM LINK TO ALL 

PARTICIPANTS 

(1-HOUR BEFORE) 

MAKE A SCHEDULE 

PREPARE YOUR PRESENTATIONS AND 

ASSIGN PRESENTERS 

RECORD FOCUS GROUP 

1

SAVE VIRTUAL CHAT BOX 

COLLECT AND SAVE ANY WRITTEN VOTES 

FROM PARTICIPANTS AND TAKE PHOTOS 

OF ANY FLIP CHARTS USED 

UPLOAD VIDEO AND SAVE 

(SEND TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES) 

PAY PARTICIPANTS 

DO FOCUS GROUP MEMOS FOR ALL 

CASES (WITHIN 48-HOURS) 

SAVE PARTICIPANTS TO CENTRAL 

DATABASE FOR TRACKING 

2

Example 1: 

On Monday, April 13, 2020 from 1:00 pm - 4:30 pm we will be holding a Virtual focus group. This 

will not be an in-person session and anyone arriving at the office will not be admiFed. You must 

have access to the internet and either a computer with a video camera and microphone or a 

smartphone with the Zoom link. This is a mock jury where people will give their opinions of 

cases. If selected, you will receive a confidenMality agreement via DocuSign. This must be 

returned prior to receiving the link. You will receive a Zoom video conference link at 12:50pm 

via e-mail provided the confidenMality agreement is returned. Log in will be no later than 

1:00pm and anyone aFempMng to log in aRer that will not be allowed to parMcipate. The pay is 

$60.00. Payment will be made through PayPal and funds will be available 15 minutes prior to 

the end of the session. You must have an acMve PayPal account to parMcipate and be paid as no 

other payment method will be allowed. 

***Note: ParMcipants who have parMcipated in a mock jury focus group within the last 6 

months may not be eligible to parMcipate this date. Thank you for your interest. 

THIS IS A REAL FOCUS GROUP PLEASE DO NOT FLAG AS SPAM. 

To apply, you must complete the following quesMons and respond via email. APPLICATIONS 

WITHOUT COMPLETE ANSWERS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. We are trying to meet certain 

demographics. 

Full Name (as you want it to appear on the check, should you be selected): 

Cell Phone: 

Gender: 

Age: 

Race: 

PoliMcal AffiliaMon (Dem, Rep, Other): 

Email Address: 

Is this the e-mail address associated with your PayPal account?: 

City you live in: 

Marital Status: 

Any Children?: 

Highest grade/level completed in school (e.g. high school, some college, bachelor's, master's) : 

Place of Birth (City/State): 

Current or most recent trade & how long: 

Self-Employed?: 

Ever been party to a lawsuit: 

Ever parMcipated in a focus group, If so what kind? 

All informaMon will be kept confidenMal and will not be shared.

Thank You 

Example 2: 

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 from 9:00am - 1:00pm we will be holding a Virtual focus group. This 





returned prior to receiving the link. You will receive a Zoom video conference link at 8:50am via 

e-mail provided the confidenMality agreement is returned. Log in will be no later than 9:00am 

and anyone aFempMng to log in aRer that will not be allowed to parMcipate. The pay is $60.00. 

Payment will be made through PayPal and funds will be available 15 minutes prior to the end of 

the session. You must have an acMve PayPal account to parMcipate and be paid as no other 

payment method will be allowed. 






demographics. 


Cell Phone: 

Gender: 

Age: 

Race: 










Self-Employed?: 


Ever parMcipated in a focus group, If so what kind?

All informaMon will be kept confidenMal and will not be shared. 

Thank You. 

Example 3: 

VIRTUAL FOCUS GROUP - MOCK JURY - Friday, May 22, 2020 

On Friday, May 22, 2020 from 1:00pm - 4:00pm we will be holding a Virtual focus group. This 





returned prior to receiving the link. You will receive a Zoom video conference link at 12:45pm 

via e-mail provided the confidenMality agreement is returned. Log in will be no later than 

1:00pm and anyone aFempMng to log in aRer that will not be allowed to parMcipate. The pay is 

$60.00. Payment will be made through PayPal and funds will be available 15 minutes prior to 

the end of the session. You must have an acMve PayPal account to parMcipate and be paid as no 

other payment method will be allowed. 






demographics. 


Cell Phone: 

Gender: 

Age: 

Race: 










Self-Employed?:


Ever parMcipated in a focus group, If so what kind? 

All informaMon will be kept confidenMal and will not be shared. 

Thank You

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 

The undersigned acknowledges participating in a jury project in regard to the 

matter known as__________Focus Group. In consideration of payment received for 

participating, the undersigned agrees to keep confidential all information obtained and 

acknowledges that he or she will be disqualified from serving as a juror or other 

participant in the pending litigation. 

________________________________ 

(Signature) 

________________________________ 

(Print Name) 

________________________________ 

(Today’s Date) 

________________________________ 

(Your Date of Birth)

MY FOCUS GROUP TAKEAWAYS AND GIFTS 

BY AMY MILLER, KLF 

In celebra*on of my third month as a fellow with the Keenan Law Firm, below are three of my 

biggest takeaways from my focus group journey, and three of the greatest gi>s I have been 

given through the process of learning how to do them. 

I do, although, have to preface that before this journey, ignorance was bliss. 

I equate my focus group journey almost in parallel to my first experiences with voir dire. I 

thought it was easy, un*l I realized how hard it was. 

I remember vividly the first *me I stood up to do voir dire. I loved talking to people, how hard 

can this be? I enjoyed the 40 minutes I chaHed with the poten*al jurors, and for all intents and 

purposes didn’t find it very stressful at all. I also to this day can tell you I gained absolutely 

nothing valuable for my case from them that I was able to capture. I had zero plan, and surely 

no ability to interpret what the jurors were saying even if I had stumbled upon a meaningful 

ques*on. As I got more proficient in knowing what to ask during voir dire, the learning curve 

quickly steepened, and I realized how hard what I was undertaking really was. 

Eight years into prac*ce and a>er a handful of jury trials, I started dabbling in focus groups. Up 

un*l I got here, I actually thought I was doing a preHy good job… the mock juries were always 

agreeing with me! 

Those of you that do focus groups the Keenan way, with that statement, immediately know I 

was doing something very wrong.

Without further ado, a>er three months of watching hours of focus group clips, reading stacks 

of focus group memos and narra*ves, as well as having the great pleasure to get up and run 

focus groups with Mr. Keenan, here is what I have learned: 

Three Lessons Learned: 

1. PracCcing ObjecCvity: 

We as lawyers, at our core, were likely drawn to this profession because of our skills to 

advocate, present our case from our perspec*ve, and to synthesize facts in a manner that helps 

us do both of those things. Unfortunately, if we spend our *me trying to convince a focus group 

of our posi*on, we will never discovery what they truly believe or hold as their core beliefs. 

Not being objec*ve was my cardinal sin, and what I see as the number one most difficult part of 

focus groups. And while those in the focus group won’t say to your face what they really feel 

when you are spending your *me trying to convince them of something, the jury when brought 

back to the jury room outside of your presence, surely will. 

So to help myself overcome my innate nature to try and convince, or frame facts in a certain 

way, I go into every focus group shi>ing my perspec*ve from its natural state of advocacy, to a 

place of neutrality. A place of true wonder and intrigue to find out what the 6-12 people in front 

of me are bringing to the table in terms of life experience and opinions. 

2. Fostering ConnecCon: 

Every single focus group Papa Don starts includes some authen*c exercise in building 

connec*on. Why is this important? 

This exercise has helped to teach me how to iden*fy people that may not be so good for our 

juries. We have been taught, a happy juror is a Plain*ff’s juror. With ques*ons formulated to 

create bonding, openness and connec*on from the group, think twice about whether a 

par*cular person who does not elicit the ability to do so would be good for your jury. 

What I have also learned is to not just jump straight into the facts of the case. Ask personal 

ques*ons, create dialogue, and bring the group to a place where their minds and hearts are 

open to communicate with you and those around them. 

No beHer way to demonstrate this than through a missed opportunity. My very first focus group 

at the office, a woman joined us in a wheelchair. Mr. Keenan challenged me to get up and speak 

to her, with graciousness and thanks for joining us, and to invite her to tell us her story. 

I was nervous, and I choked. Instead of recognizing the gi> I would give her, and the group, in 

acknowledging her courage and daily obstacles, I ignored her disability, as likely most of the

world does because I was too scared to ask. Going forward I see the great strength in asking the 

tough personal ques*ons, and sharing life stories with others to be able to create a community 

in the focus groups, and ul*mately future juries. 

Every person that comes to us in our groups gives us the gi> of their story, so I’ve learned to 

take the *me to discover it, before just jumping right in. 

3. Slowing Down and CreaCng Silence: 

This I accept as a personal problem, but one I think I share with many in the public speaking 

arena. Nerves take over, and you end up speaking more quickly than you normally would. 

Papa Don has true fear in his eyes when I get near the controls to a PowerPoint or Timeline 

presenta*on, due to the sheer speed I try to rip through things. Even when I have consciously 

thought about being slow and deliberate with speech, I go back to watch focus group videos 

and want to tell my former self to just breath and slow down. 

If you have ever seen and heard Papa Don speak, you have witnessed someone who is 

completely s*ll, thoughûl and deliberate in his speech. You never have to think to yourself, 

“wait, what did he say?” His cadence counts, and he leaves valuable pauses when the audience 

needs to reflect, and his body language is calm, never taking away from his message. 

The only true way to learn to slow down is prac*ce. Very deliberate prac*ce. Ways I am 

aHemp*ng to train myself are: 1. sieng in silence; 2. medita*ng; and 3. reading book passages 

aloud, so slowly I think it is ridiculous. This is an evolving lesson, but I know that for an audience 

to truly hear and feel what I am saying, it’s a lesson that has to s*ck. 

Three GiOs I Have Been Given:

I o>en hear sen*ments like the following about running focus groups: 

“I really need to start doing focus groups.” 

“I don’t have the *me.” 

“I don’t know how.” 

In addi*on to what I am learning, I wanted to share the gi>s I have been given through this 

process. In the hopes it makes the above complaints or hurdles standing in the way of focus 

groups, less overwhelming. 

1. Thankfulness: 

In the process of forming connec*ons among others, you yourself cannot help but be given the 

gi> of thankfulness. The more people I am able to meet the more I recognize the resilience of 

the human spirit and our journey together; and for that I am thankful. 

In what other profession do you get to sit down with a group of strangers and hear the deepest 

and most meaningful thoughts and experiences they have endured? In three short months, I 

have met a woman who in her teens watched her brother drown, and was in a focus group on a 

drowning case we had; met both men and women whose families were plagued with addic*on 

that sat to hear about an opioid case; and spoke with a woman in the process of losing her 

husband to chronic illness who gave us insight on losing loved ones in a wrongful death case. 

I like to think it wasn’t just coincidence. That their life experiences were just what our cases 

needed, and the cathar*c nature of talking about their pain, was just what they needed. 

It has raised my awareness of the community I live in, takes me out of the daily stresses that 

surround us, and most importantly outside of ourselves. So, for that, I am thankful.

2. The Removal of Doubt: 

In doing focus groups, one of the greatest gi>s it can give is the removal of doubt as to how 

people will view our cases. Think for a second how remarkable that is. If that alone doesn’t 

make you want to set one up right now, I don’t know what will! 

With prac*ce and work, we all have the ability to remove the doubt of “what is the jury going to 

think about 

.” Instead, we can focus group that “blank,” and know for sure 

what they do think about it, and frame the case in a way that o>en makes a nega*ve into a 

posi*ve. 

Our brains, as lawyers, just aren’t wired like most of the popula*on, and no maHer how much 

we think we know what the jury is going to do with a fact of our cases, we will never truly know 

un*l we ask them through focus groups, removing all doubt. 

3. Confidence: 

There is no subs*tute for geeng familiarity with simply standing up and talking to people and 

rela*ng to them, just like we have to do with our juries. The more prepara*on and the more 

experience we have doing it, the more natural it feels, and the more we can focus on what we 

are hearing. 

So in three short months, I feel more confidant and eager to stand up and talk to focus groups, 

and I’m sure that the next *me I stand up in court, that confidence will be with me. 

BoVom Line: Do the work to prepare yourself. Read the Focus Group book, and watch the 

Focus Group DVD. The Focus Group book was created to be easy to follow, and short to 

include only the most essenCal informaCon to get us started, or serve as a refresher. The 

Focus Group DVD of over 20 hours of footage, is a giO that does not have to seem as 

overwhelming as first glance. Watch the first hour where you get the intro by Papa Don, then 

take it in pieces and jump around. The index is extremely easy to follow, and you can jump to 

each topical focus group secCon to see examples and quesCon formats. Take it slow, and 

know it doesn’t all have to be watched in a weekend. 

Lastly, be yourself, albeit in my circumstance, a slower speaking self. And above all, have some 

fun ge]ng to know people who have been brought into your pracCce to help you, help your 

client.

FOCUS GROUPS BOOK

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?