Research shows that it is better for a lawyer to be easy to understand than technically right

“A simple myth is more cognitively attractive than an over-complicate correction” (McRaney, D 2013, You Are Now Less Dumb, Penguin Group, New York, pg 149)

A key skillset for any litigator is to be able to convince people of his or her client’s version of events. Traditionally the lawyer will draw upon case law, legislation and evidence that supports their client’s position. The assumption is that,  if the argument is logically sound and sufficiently supported by law and evidence, then the lawyer’s position will be convincing and ultimately successful. Unfortunately the process of deciding who is right and who is wrong is not as logic-based as the legal community would like to believe.

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky outline in “The Debunking Handbook” one example of how other factors other than hard logic influence the perception of what is correct. Mr Cook and Mr Lewandowsky argue that humans have a natural predisposition to a line of argument which is simple and easy to understand, and often mistake what is easy to understand with what is correct.

Mr McRany refers to experiments:

“where two facts were placed side by side, subjects tended  to rate statements as more likely to be true when those statements were presented in simple, legible type than when printed in weird font with a difficult to read colour patter. Similarly, a barrage of counterarguments taking up a full page seems to be less persuasive to a naysayer than a single simple, powerful statement.” (McRaney, D 2013, You Are Now Less Dumb, Penguin Group, New York, pg 149)

It goes without saying that lawyers should be using clear, easy to read font in a Statement of Claim. Perhaps more interestingly, this research suggests that it is critical for a lawyer to be able to communicate their client’s position in a way that is simple and easy to understand.

In fact, it may be more important for a lawyer to be easy to understand than technically right.