This webinar summary was created with assistance of AI and edited by Angela Sabarese.
Millennials, the generation of people born between 1981 and 1996, have become objects of scrutiny, stereotypes, and misunderstanding among defense counsel in relation to their role in jury trials. Making up ovef 35% of the U.S. workforce, their large demographic impacts jury verdicts and forces legal professionals to adapt their strategies.
CLM’s recent webinar, “The Millennial Effect: How Millennial Jurors are Impacting Jury Awards”—presented by speakers Sitar Bhatt, managing partner, Tyson & Mendes LLP; Jeff Annis, assistant vice president, RSUI Group Inc.; Kelley Inman, claims manager, Hudson Insurance Group; Gina Torres, senior claims attorney, Tokio Marine HCC; and Kristi Harrington, senior trial consultant, First Court—delves into the ways in which millennials think and how to reach them most effectively during trial.
Millennial Expectations
Inman says, “[Millenials have] grown up with technology, and that is something that we rely on, we’re used to using, and we expect to be used when people are talking to us.” Therefore, “bringing in technology for opening statements…[and] using it effectively at trial is important.”
Inman explains that millennial jurors expect engaging content delivery and appreciate an open dialogue. Additionally, data shows that millennial jurors are highly suspicious if something doesn't make sense or add up, largely because they've grown up with the ability to fact-check information instantly on their phones, she adds. They expect transparency and clear explanations, and they are quick to disengage when these expectations aren't met.
Furthermore, says Harrington, since many work from home since COVID, “it just takes too much effort [for Millennials to go out]…[so] jurors are expecting some technology and they want to be comfortable.
The Millennial Experience and Common Misconceptions
“A lot of events have occurred throughout the Millennial age that has affected who they are,” says Annis. “9/11, the great recession of 2007 and 2008, constant school shootings, war, and then, of course…technological advances. And that also bred, of course, Facebook and other social media apps.”
One of the most pervasive misconceptions about Millennials is that they have an anti-corporate sentiment, which “strikes fear in the defense side the most,” says Annis. However, “studies actually show that may not be true or may not be as bad as suspected. Particularly…50% of Millennials say they trust companies based on this one study…[and] to highlight even more, we…compared it to other generations when it comes to trust for companies.” The results show that 39% of Millennials indicated they don’t trust companies; however, this number was the lowest when compared to Generation Z and Baby Boomers.
Strategies for Reaching Millennial Jurors
No one wants jury duty,” notes Bhatt. “Now, more than ever, if you are working from home and…you’re forced to be on jury duty…you need to start thinking of things [like] how you are going to communicate with them…because more than ever, if we’re going to be having these Millennials come out of their homes…not wearing their sweatpants…we’ve got to start thinking about that.”
Millennials jurors would rather be taught and not told what the opinion is so that they can form their own opinion and conclusion, the presenters state. “Having an expert who can explain what’s happening instead of just offering an opinion without giving examples as to how it relates to this particular case, and maybe something that particular juror can relate to as well, [is crucial],” explains Harrington. Likewise, Inman states the importance of transparency in evidence and a focus on teaching rather than telling.
Annis further emphasizes the importance of technology, especially since the average attention span for a millennial is 12 seconds, as everything is easy to attain quickly via cellphones. “So, the last thing we want is something drawn out. It really changes the way you have to deliver…opening statements, evidence…everything throughout a trial. So, the advice is obviously, make your time count.” He also advises using quick visual aids, highlighting key points and phrases defense counsel would like the jury to remember.
If photos or video cannot be shown during the trial, there must be an explanation as to why, Bhatt emphasizes, because millennials will question why it has not been admitted to evidence and may assume something is being hidden, and the millennial generation especially does not like to feel misled.
The Rise of Nuclear Verdicts
Torres notes how plaintiffs’ attorneys play off juror fear and anger. They “stoke their anger to the point that they want to punish the corporate defendant.” The plaintiffs play upon fear by emphasizing that what occurred is a safety issue. “But you can combat this anger, and it’s the defense counsel’s job,” explains Torres. “As a claims person, it’s our job to work with the defense counsel to make sure we are combatting that anger head on.” Torres asks, “How can we…prep our insureds, the defendant, to answer questions in a way that will lessen that anger so that the jurors are putting down their pitchforks and they’re listening?”
Bhatt says millennials are more likely to connect with companies that take responsibility, which taps into their moral compass. “Liability and responsibility are two completely different things…,” he notes. “So, it’s important that you point this out to a jury and you get them to understand that. Accepting responsibility will help diffuse the anger and make you seem like you’re the reasonable party.”
Bhatt also references an Iowa Law Review study showing that “in cases where you just ignored the plaintiff’s number, the defense verdict rate was at 62%. But in cases where a counter was provided, it was up to 82%.”
When coming up with a number to counter a high anchor provided by the plaintiff, Annis notes that “trying to tie it to something tangible can be very beneficial. We’ve utilized…the cost of college attendance…particularly when you have a minor involved. Things that can really help a juror understand the value of money.” He also suggests, on a case-by-case basis, considering over-anchoring, particularly in a bad case where sympathy is an issue.
Bhatt also recommends not letting the plaintiff drive the narrative and writing a story that humanizes the corporate defendant. “Otherwise, it looks like we don’t care.”
Torres adds that defense counsel should “show that everything is nuanced. It’s not this big bad monster of a company that is purposely setting out to cut corners and harm its customers or employees. So, I think it’s very important to see where you can…let them relate. Find things where the corporation has set out to do things that are for the community or…are setting standards of care…when you can personalize the corporate defendant and give them a face, I think it is very helpful in changing the narrative that plaintiff’s counsel is trying to sell.”