TeplowCucurullo Communications | Legal Graphics

At a recent innovation workshop with UMass Boston creativity coach Michael Novak, I was introduced to cognitive style techniques that expand your ability to think creatively. One of these techniques was the “use of multiple thinking languages.” Other methods are “processing a wide variety of alternatives (even contradictory alternatives), breaking out of established problem-solving approached and preconceived ways of thinking, and retaining and recalling large amounts of detailed information.
    A “thinking language” can be statistical or mathematical. It can be conceptual. It can be visual. A “thinking language” helps you see a challenge from multiple perspectives – and using many “thinking languages” together is a proven way to solve problems.
To illustrate this point – literally – think about this: The complete works of William Shakespeare are in a four volume set, marked 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively.  They are on a bookshelf with the volumes in normal order.  Since they are hard-covered, the front and back covers are each one-eighth of an inch thick for each volume.  The pages of each volume are two inches thick.  A little worm starts on page one of volume one and each straight through to the last page of volume four.  How far did the worm travel?
    Most people come up with an answer between 8.5” and 9”. This is in no way correct.
    Now look at the drawing below. You’ll SEE that the worm won’t actually have to travel through the first and fourth volume – rather it will eat only though the front and back covers, respectively. The total distance traveled would be 4.75”.
  

 Now, another characteristic of creative people is the ability to use one type of information to solve many problems. That being said, using “multiple thinking languages” can solve more than just math problems. I immediately associated the use of “multiple thinking languages” with the development of legal graphics.
    Legal graphics are the visual interpretations of a litigator’s argument. The verbal argument, the legal graphic, and any statistical information work together to provide the decision-maker with the full spectrum of “multiple thinking language” so he or she can truly see the argument from the litigator’s perspective. In many situations, at least in the courtroom, multiple thinking languages help relinquish the possibility of an alternative solution – i.e. the opposition’s proposed solution.
    Using “multiple thinking languages” in the courtroom – as well as in other areas of life – can help people use all of their brain functions to develop concrete and cohesive solutions to complicated problems. To watch a video about looking at data from different perspectives, click here.

    Information is meaningless until the relationships that exist within it become apparent. Identifying those relationships has emerged as one of the most challenging aspects of the e-discovery process.
    The challenge arises as a consequence of various factors. First, there are only a minute percentage of electronic files that speak influentially towards the argument your litigation team is trying to make. There are millions upon millions of emails, instant messages, and miscellaneous electronic documents – not to mention a vast array of disorganized back-up tapes – that need to be reviewed and analyzed for use in litigation. FTI Consulting, a globally recognized consultancy firm, explains, “it’s much more difficult to identify and organize … information relevant to a case now than it used to be … because of the massive volume of information that’s out there.” Finding the precise information needed to defend your case against regulators or decision-makers can be time-consuming, costly and confusing.
     Beyond just the sheer volume of electronic files exists the fact that within each file lays many fragments of both pertinent and non-pertinent information. Each pertinent fragment has a direct relationship with a fragment from another electronic file. Litigation support professionals are faced, then, with the daunting task of not only identifying and finding the fragments of information they need, but also with tracing the fragmented information trail from birth to death and analyzing it so that it supports the case at hand in a compelling manner.
    Finally, after being exposed to the entire depth and breadth of information that exists within an organization, how can the litigation support team separate the useful information for the useless, or the helpful information from the harmful? It is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave at its best – once one knows the absolute truth he cannot continue to believe in a manufactured truth. And litigation can, at many times, be a manufactured truth. E-discovery then, puts the integrity of the litigators at risk, and can sacrifice the integrity of the case as a whole.  
    It is safe to assume that the 2006 amendments to the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence have posed some significant challenges for the legal and business industries to overcome.
    Of course, this is not the first time in history that new regulations have created a set of challenges for an industry. The FCC’s deregulation of the telecommunication industry in 1998 threatened the livelihood of phone service providers like Verizon and Comcast. In New York City, the Board of Health passed a legislation prohibiting restaurants from using trans fats in their foods, a legislation that challenged the city’s food and beverage industry to find more creative ways to add flavor to their dishes. In both cases, the affected industries were able to overcome these challenges with a little innovation and out-of-the-box thinking.
    The same can – and will – happen with the e-Discovery industry, and it will probably emerge in the form of a partnership with graphic design and art teams.
    Over the past few years there has been a growing dependence on graphic designers who have the capacity to provide internal and external decision-makers with visual representations of the facts that lend authenticity to their arguments. Popular visual demonstratives include timelines, interactive flash animations, process and flow charts, illustrations, word charts and strategic video editing. The benefit of these graphics is that they facilitate the decision-makers’ ability to comprehend and retain a litigator’s argument. They essentially give the decision-makers no choice but to see things – literally – from the litigator’s perspective. Additionally, studies have proven that most humans actually require graphics to retain relational information. Sometimes the relationship that needs graphic support is the relationship between two chemicals, for example in a patent infringement trial for a pharmaceutical company. Other times it is a time-activity relationship that lends itself to visuals in the form of a timeline. In any case, visuals certainly help convey case-winning messages to the right people at the right time.
    Visuals can also help litigation support teams discover the relationship between the millions and millions of electronic communications that they have to sift through for information. Michael Cucurullo of Teplow Cucurullo Communications, a Brookline, Massachusetts-based design agency, recognized the crossover from e-Discovery to graphic design and immediately started probing potential opportunities with his existing legal clients.
    “The information that comes to us is often hand-picked by the attorneys, and we strategically reassemble it into graphics that accentuate one or more points of the case. It has often occurred to me that a great deal of pertinent conclusions are lost by removing [that] information from the full-body of data,” says Cucurullo about the litigation graphic process.
    But in e-Discovery, the opposite problem exists. There is often a massive amount of information, and Cucurullo is intrigued by the prospect of restructuring that massive amount of information into clear, compelling graphics. “Once information can be translated into the graphic realm of intuitive connections, non-linear conclusions can be drawn,” says Cucurullo.

    What, then, would an e-discovery support diagram look like? Cucurullo cannot answer that question definitively. It could be a flow or process chart, word call outs, illustrations or enlargements, timelines or any of the traditional legal graphics currently used in litigation. More likely, though, a new type of graphic will emerge. Cucurullo explains, “As in other industries, emerging technologies drive new accessories and support products. The birth of the iPod led directly to sub-birth of iPod sound docks, radio transmitters, even decorative iPod cases and skins. Likewise, e-discovery will give birth to its own graphics and communication tools.” Cucurullo can say, however, that whatever graphics emerge will necessarily satisfy the following needs:

•    Remove unnecessary, confusing or irrelevant information from the full  body of data that is extracted from e-discovery information sources
•    Include any information that could or does support the case at hand
•    Visually depict the nature of the relationship that any relevant information shares
•    Help internal case builders to see and understand the relationship that exits between the full body of data in order to help them build the most compelling case possible
•    Eventually allow decision-makers to grasp the nuances of the presented information in a glance – perhaps even without supporting documents or oral presentations

e-discovery graphics, whether used in the courtroom or as a means to get to the courtroom, provide employees of the litigation and legal support industries with the opportunity to significantly simplify their jobs. The evolution of this emerging form of graphic facilitation is still in its initial, conceptual stages, but after designers like Cucurullo get their hands on it, the art form is sure to grow exponentially.