4.80 score from hupso.pl for:
plaintifftriallawyertips.com



HTML Content


Titleplaintiff trial lawyer tips

Length: 27, Words: 4
Description by paul n. luvera

Length: 17, Words: 4
Keywords luvera law firm
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title pusty
Og Meta - Description pusty
Og Meta - Site name pusty
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 3007
Text/HTML 48.04 %
Headings H1 1
H2 3
H3 4
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
plaintiff trial lawyer tips
H2
the psychology of targeting the unconscious
ten rules for improving jury verdict outcomes
direct exam of a client with a brain injury
H3
subscribe
feeds
recent posts
categories
H4
H5
H6
strong
 
b
i
 
em
Bolds strong 1
b 0
i 1
em 0
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 4
Pliki CSS 2
Pliki javascript 2
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 97
Linki wewnętrzne 1
Linki zewnętrzne 96
Linki bez atrybutu Title 79
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content

Linki zewnętrzne

plaintiff trial lawyer tips http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/
home http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/
contact http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/contact
older posts http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/page/2
the psychology of targeting the unconscious http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/the-psychology-of-targeting-the-unconscious
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/the-psychology-of-targeting-the-unconscious
paul luvera http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/author/paul-luvera
advocacy http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/advocacy
leave a comment http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/the-psychology-of-targeting-the-unconscious#respond
ten rules for improving jury verdict outcomes http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/ten-rules-for-improving-jury-verdict-outcomes
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/ten-rules-for-improving-jury-verdict-outcomes
paul luvera http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/author/paul-luvera
trial http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial
leave a comment http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/ten-rules-for-improving-jury-verdict-outcomes#respond
direct exam of a client with a brain injury http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/direct-exam-of-a-client-with-a-brain-injury
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/direct-exam-of-a-client-with-a-brain-injury
paul luvera http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/author/paul-luvera
direct exam http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/direct-exam
leave a comment http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/direct-exam-of-a-client-with-a-brain-injury#respond
older posts http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/page/2
feedburner http://feedburner.google.com
- http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/feed
rss feed http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/feed
- http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/feed/atom
atom feed http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/feed/atom
- http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3a%2f%2fplaintifftriallawyertips.com%2ffeed
add to google http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3a%2f%2fplaintifftriallawyertips.com%2ffeed
- http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3a%2f%2fplaintifftriallawyertips.com%2ffeed
my yahoo http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3a%2f%2fplaintifftriallawyertips.com%2ffeed
the psychology of targeting the unconscious http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/the-psychology-of-targeting-the-unconscious
ten rules for improving jury verdict outcomes http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/ten-rules-for-improving-jury-verdict-outcomes
direct exam of a client with a brain injury http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/direct-exam-of-a-client-with-a-brain-injury
principles of a great trial http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/2188-2
don’t be like the six men of indostan http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/dont-be-like-the-six-men-of-indostan
ideas about “closing the deal” in a plaintiff’s trial practice http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/ideas-about-closing-the-deal-in-a-plaintiffs-trial-practice
dealing with commonly held juror bias in jury selection http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/dealing-with-commonly-held-juror-bias-in-jury-selection
the curse of the dragon & admitting i made a mistake http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/the-curse-of-the-dragon-admitting-i-made-a-mistake
believe it or not, in weakness there is power especially when we admit our mistakes http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/believe-it-or-not-in-weakness-there-is-power-especially-when-we-admit-our-mistakes
plaintiff’s should always start by attacking the defendant http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/plaintiffs-should-always-start-by-attacking-the-defendant
advice about being a better advocate http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/advice-about-being-a-better-advocate
“timid salespeople have skinny kids” – learn how to ask for the verdict http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/timid-salespeople-have-skinny-kids-learn-how-to-ask-for-the-verdict
we forgive mistakes but punish sinful conduct http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/we-forgive-mistakes-but-punish-sinful-conduct
consider a settlement checklist to avoid mistakes http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/consider-a-settlement-checklist-to-avoid-mistakes
are you a “whack a mole” trial lawyer? http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/are-you-a-whack-a-mole-trial-lawyer
“in the spring of 1971, i met a girl” lessons of great story telling http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/in-the-spring-of-1971-i-met-a-girl-lessons-of-great-story-telling
lessons from one of america’s greatest trial lawyers – earl rogers http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/lessons-from-one-of-americas-greatest-trial-lawyers-earl-rogers
two books about communications with ideas you should consider http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/two-books-about-communications-with-ideas-you-should-consider
advocacy http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/advocacy
anger http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/anger
argument http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/argument
checklist http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/checklist
checklists http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/checklists
communication http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/communication
court http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/court
cross http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/cross
cross examination http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/cross-examination
damages http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/damages
death http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/death
defenses http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/defenses
direct exam http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/direct-exam
direct examination http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/direct-examination
discovery http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/discovery
focus groups http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/focus-groups
general http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/general
jury http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/jury
jury selection http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/jury-selection
law http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/law
law practice http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/law-practice
learning http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/learning
legal history http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/legal-history
malpractice http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/malpractice
media http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/media
miscellaneous http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/miscellaneous
motivation http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/motivation
negotiation http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/negotiation
office procedures http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/office-procedures
opening statement http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/opening-statement
orders in limine http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/orders-in-limine
premption http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/premption
products http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/products
products liability http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/products-liability
random thoughts http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/random-thoughts
settlement http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/settlement
tactics http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/tactics
tort http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/tort
trial http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial
trial direct exam http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial-direct-exam
trial lawyers http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial-lawyers
trial management http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial-management
trial tactics http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/trial-tactics
uncategorized http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/uncategorized
voir dire http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/voir-dire
website http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/website
writing http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/category/writing
plaintiff trial lawyer tips http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/
proudly powered by wordpress. http://wordpress.org/

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 5
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 1
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 5
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cropped-fonda-jury.jpg
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-sidebar/feed.png
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-sidebar/feed.png
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-sidebar/google.png
http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-sidebar/yahoo.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cropped-fonda-jury.jpg

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

plaintiff trial lawyer tips by paul n. luvera (biography see: www. paulluvera.net. see also: www.paulluverajournal.com) skip to content homecontact ← older posts the psychology of targeting the unconscious posted on december 8, 2016 by paul luvera several years ago i came across a book with the unusual title “unfair secrets of winning in the law with nlp” by franz mesmer. as a long time  student of neuro linguistic programming i bought the book and studied it carefully. it was an excellent summary of basic concepts of this approach to communication  with practical advice and suggestions. i learned that franz mesmer was merely a name adopted by the author for the book and other books as well. mark d swendsen sr. is the actual name of the author. it turns out mark is a california trial lawyer in healdsburg with a background in the areas he has written about. when the president of the inner circle of advocates suggested that i might give a talk on this general subject, i recommended that instead she invite mark to give the talk.she did invite him and he gave an excellent discussion to this group of some of the best plaintiffs lawyers in the country. mark and i exchanged communications through email about the subject before he spoke and  it turned out he was writing a new book. i, of course,  was very interested because of his background, knowledge and skills in this general area. he was nice enough to send me a draft of the book he was working on and we communicated about it.  mark asked me if i would write an introduction to it and i felt privileged to do so because it is an excellent book. i am pleased to have provided a small contribution to this book which is entitled target the unconscious! the modern psychology of rhetoric for the plaintiff’s lawyer.” let me hasten to add that i have no financial interest in this book whatsoever which is available from amazon. i recommend it to you only because the content is an excellent collection of an important aspect of communication. perhaps the best way of explaining why i think this is an important book for plaintiff lawyers is to refer to what i said about the book: “the information in this book about neuro linguistic programming will benefit plaintiff trial lawyers in representing their clients, but will also provide concrete lessons and improving ourselves… you’ll be told how to trigger the primitive brain’s unconscious will to survive in order to motivate a verdict in your clients favor…this book explains patterns for influencing the unconscious mind, concepts of hypnotic oratory and waking trance suggestions, and patterns of persuasion addressed to the unconscious mind. this and much more are reasons why this book should be required reading for every plaintiff lawyer who wants to be the best he or she can be as an advocate.” if you have any interest in this area of communication, this paperback book is a virtual encyclopedia of information. posted in advocacy | leave a comment ten rules for improving jury verdict outcomes posted on november 28, 2016 by paul luvera screen all new cases objectively and not emotionally. there are cases where the inherent issues are so negatively compelling and your odds of prevailing so slight it is a disservice to the client and the system to accept the case. your decision of whether to carry the case forward should be objective and not emotional based upon evaluation of the liability, the extent of damages and the ability to collect damages. identify the controlling issues. you must objectively identify all of the strong issues in the case, good and bad. your role is to initially analyze the affirmative and negative issues objectively, not subjectively. the benefit of an issue focus study is this identification. the most accurate identification of significant case issues is done by focus studies, but only when done correctly. they must be issue conducted focus studies and rather than a form of mock trial studies. on major damage cases more than one study may be necessary. determine the priority of importance of the issues. you arrange the issues by priority of significance. once the issues are arranged by importance, the next step is to decide the best way of framing the issues for trial. framing these issues is critical to determine if the negative issues can be overcome and how difficult they will be in trial with a jury. this is a critical step – to identify all issues that have significance with people and what framing is best. focus studies are helpful in this regard. objectively analyze your client impression. in many cases client impression with the jury will determine the outcome of the case. your gut reaction to client impression at the initial meeting is probably accurate. over time you are more accepting of bad traits and finally you lose sight of the accurate impression your client makes with others. most client impressions can be improved by spending quality time with them over issues in the case but this requires dedicated work. accept that there are some people whose impression is so unfavorable you should decline the case no matter how compelling the case. control the complexity & length of trial. cases with difficult issues call for shorter trials with a short simple one theme approach. the longer you take to try a case with negative issues, the more obvious the problems in the case become. cases with difficult issues are not helped by adding layers of evidence and lengthening the trial. the longer you take, the more you add, the more complex you make it, the worse your case. simplify the case into a strong affirmative issue and make the trial short. your goal should be to shorten the trial. there are good reasons why we should be making every effort to shorten our jury trials. first, people today want sound bites and headlines rather than the story. that’s how they get the news and use their digital devices. they get bored easily and a bored jury is not a generous jury. second, the more days your trial will take the less the quality of available jurors. jurors are not willing to serve in trials last two or more weeks because they have their own lives and most lose salary. the ones who are willing are not jurors you want. unhappy jurors are angry people who are not likely to help others. if you have jurors who do not want to be there because of the length of the trial you can be sure they are defense jurors.  the longer your trial the more unwilling and unqualified juror you end up with. third, the longer the trial the greater the chance something bad will happen to your case: a witness becomes unavailable, damaging unexpected evidence etc. since impressions are formed early, you should strive for shorter trials. eliminate the unnecessary expert and the unnecessary evidence, shorten your direct and be relentless in making your cross on really big issues only. be the first lawyer to talk to the jury about difficult issues. there are two fundamental reasons for this. the first is that it inoculates the jury for the issue so when the defense brings it up, the impact is greatly reduced. the more they hear about negative issues, the less significant they become. this also gives you the opportunity to frame the issue in the best possible light. the second reason is that it gives you credibility for being honest about negative issues. our credibility is increased by acknowledging problems in our case. it is not enough to bring it up once in voir dire and never mention it again. i am talking about facing the negative issues in jury selection and carrying it forward throughout the trial. jury selection should be an open discussion and not an interrogation you don’t have time for both demographic questions and open discussion. you are after significant values and past life experiences that relate to the key issues you have identified. jury selection must be an open discussion and not a closed question inquiry. talk about the issues openly and really listen to the answers. let other jurors respond to the negative juror responses, not you. recognize the trial is about jury impression of the case and not primarily about you. jury impressions are made early and are lasting. once made all evidence is filtered through the existing impression unless something very dramatic occurs to change impression. trials are not about the skill of the lawyer. they are about the overall impressions the jurors form. they do not weigh evidence logically. they decide largely on an emotional, unconscious level and use rational reasons they make up to justify decisions. therefore, at all times during trial, the lawyer’s focus must not be on himself or herself – “how am i doing?” – but rather on the jury, “what is the jury thinking right now?” focus on the jury not on yourself. continually look at the trial as if you were an observer. you aren’t there to perform for the jury. they are forming broad impressions of who should win based upon the big picture and the issues. they aren’t there to admire the lawyers. that’s why “bad” trial lawyers win cases against “good” trial lawyers. be an authentic person. while the trial is not about jurors evaluating the trial skills of lawyers, they form impressions about lawyer’s honesty, credibility and trustworthiness. being real and being truthful results in the jury being willing to rely upon your representations and recommendations. jurors trust you not to mislead them if their impression is you are truthful and trustworthy. this impression has very little to do with lawyer skills and techniques but everything to do with deciding the lawyer is not pretending to be someone they aren’t. good looks, trial skills and oratory aren’t nearly as significant as someone who is seen as truthful and trustworthy. don’t pretend to be someone you aren’t or act like someone else. involve the jury. from voir dire on, the lawyer must involve the jury continuously. too many lawyers, from opening statement to argument, ignore the jury. great ones continually throughout the trial involve the jury. they maintain eye contact from time to time with all of the jurors but not in an uncomfortable way. during questioning of witnesses they take the time to take a look at the jury. they use “we” and not “i.” they find reasons to talk about the jurors “i think the jury would like to know…” and they let the jury know they are trying the case to them and not as spectators at the lawyer’s big performance. posted in trial | leave a comment direct exam of a client with a brain injury posted on november 19, 2016 by paul luvera when we represent people with brain injury it  takes a lot of time, factual inquiry and thought in deciding how to present the damage evidence at trial. the most difficult  question is what to ask a client who is capable of testifying. in general, my belief was that with major injury cases “less was more” because major injuries generally speak for themselves  and don’t need a lot of detail which might make jurors feel you are playing for their sympathy. once jurors understood the seriousness of the injury they fill in the rest of the damage story themselves.  their story would be real to them and have a greater impact than if you are providing the details. in addition, there is the wisdom from shakespeare in king john “to gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet, to smooth the ice, or add another hue unto the rainbow, or with taper-light to seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” you can easily overdue proof of a major injury damage story. for that reason, it was my practice,  in the major injury cases, to not have the  client attend trial except during jury selection, sometimes during opening statements and only when they were called to testify. i prepared the jury for their absence in voir dire by telling the truth that it had been decided that it would not be mentally healthy for them to go  through the events again during a lengthy trial. i always offered testimony, usually by a family member and treating doctor, to support the concern. i  decided what to ask and how much to ask the client when they testified based upon their ability and the impression they would  make on the jury. each outline was crafted for that client and it was always brief. the exams rarely would involve the injury event at all. my goal was to demonstrate injury.  in some cases i might only ask a few questions, given the client’s abilities, with a goal of simply having the jury see and  hear them talk.  i’ve had clients with serious head injuries on the stand less then ten minutes for direct. the general rule was the defense rarely asked any questions. i had several cases and jury trials involving injuries to children from key pharmacuticals drug theo-dur, a theophylline medication, for resulting seizures and brain damage. none of the clients, old enough to testify,  were on the stand long. for example, in 1994 an oregon jury awarded $44 million dollars for brain injuries from the use of the drug by a twenty year old client. during an eight week jury trial i  had him on the stand for no more than ten minutes.  in the example that follows mike was a young man from seattle injured from using the same product. he was  about fifteen years old when he testified. he had limited mental capacity but lacked full awareness of his mental limitations. he had uncertainty about his exact birth date, or exactly who the president was, but he also wasn’t embarrassed about it because he wasn’t fully aware of his situation. he was involved in activities including  school, but in a special needs limited way. his mental limitations had already been explained to the jury during trial when he was not there and before he testified late in the seven or eight week trial in seattle. each of these questions were crafted based on a lot of time spent learning the effect of the injuries  and what would best illustrate them in a way that would not be embarrassing or harmful to him. of course, this isn’t a outline that can or should be used in a general way involving brain injured children. it is only offered as an example of how one examination was crafted for a particular client.  it may help illustrate how you can prepare an examination for your brain injured client. introduction 1.how feeling right now? (1)  don’t be nervous – jurors nice people .information  why don’t you tell us something about yourself mike: a. are going to school? – where b. what you like to do during the day c. your favorite things you like doing. d. are you working? (information?) evaluation questions  what’s your birth date?  who’s  the president of the  united states?  are you in the boy scouts? tell us about it.  tell us about your piano lessons who’s your best friend do you have a girl friend mike (1) go on dates (2) where/what (3) what do (4) how often 7. do you want to go to college mike? explain 8. do you go to the movies mike? (1 )favorite movie 9. do you read books? (1)  tell us about your favorite book 10. read the newspaper? (1)what part do you read first (2)what part do you like the best 11.watch television? (1)  tell us about your favorite tv program mike 12.  tell us about riding the bus to work mike – 13.  do you like listening to music mike? (1) which one 14.d o you go to church? (1)  tell us about what you do there 15.  what do you do on weekends mike? 16. do you have any pets? tell us about them conclusion mike, would you  tell us what’s it like when  you walk into a room and you don’t know the people there very well?  (why)  what’s would you like to do in the future? (why?) posted in direct exam | leave a comment ← older posts subscribe delivered by feedburner feeds rss feed atom feed add to google my yahoo recent posts the psychology of targeting the unconscious ten rules for improving jury verdict outcomes direct exam of a client with a brain injury principles of a great trial don’t be like the six men of indostan ideas about “closing the deal” in a plaintiff’s trial practice dealing with commonly held juror bias in jury selection the curse of the dragon & admitting i made a mistake believe it or not, in weakness there is power especially when we admit our mistakes plaintiff’s should always start by attacking the defendant advice about being a better advocate “timid salespeople have skinny kids” – learn how to ask for the verdict we forgive mistakes but punish sinful conduct consider a settlement checklist to avoid mistakes are you a “whack a mole” trial lawyer? “in the spring of 1971, i met a girl” lessons of great story telling lessons from one of america’s greatest trial lawyers – earl rogers two books about communications with ideas you should consider categories advocacy (76) anger (1) argument (9) checklist (1) checklists (3) communication (31) court (1) cross (13) cross examination (16) damages (10) death (1) defenses (5) direct exam (4) direct examination (2) discovery (6) focus groups (2) general (2) jury (19) jury selection (11) law (3) law practice (7) learning (1) legal history (1) malpractice (2) media (1) miscellaneous (5) motivation (11) negotiation (1) office procedures (2) opening statement (4) orders in limine (1) premption (1) products (2) products liability (2) random thoughts (1) settlement (12) tactics (4) tort (3) trial (60) trial direct exam (1) trial lawyers (4) trial management (1) trial tactics (5) uncategorized (182) voir dire (1) website (1) writing (1) plaintiff trial lawyer tips proudly powered by wordpress.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 3042

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 9.01% (274)
you - 2.63% (80)
and - 2.4% (73)
for - 1.61% (49)
are - 1.55% (47)
trial - 1.55% (47)
jury - 1.51% (46)
out - 1.35% (41)
our - 1.08% (33)
about - 1.02% (31)
not - 1.02% (31)
issue - 0.95% (29)
case - 0.89% (27)
law - 0.89% (27)
his - 0.89% (27)
they - 0.85% (26)
with - 0.85% (26)
lawyer - 0.79% (24)
your - 0.79% (24)
issues - 0.79% (24)
all - 0.76% (23)
(1) - 0.76% (23)
was - 0.72% (22)
men - 0.69% (21)
this - 0.69% (21)
client - 0.66% (20)
that - 0.62% (19)
ten - 0.59% (18)
juror - 0.59% (18)
act - 0.59% (18)
book - 0.59% (18)
what - 0.56% (17)
impression - 0.56% (17)
one - 0.53% (16)
jurors - 0.49% (15)
end - 0.46% (14)
have - 0.43% (13)
there - 0.43% (13)
exam - 0.43% (13)
can - 0.43% (13)
more - 0.39% (12)
dire - 0.39% (12)
use - 0.39% (12)
how - 0.39% (12)
some - 0.36% (11)
who - 0.36% (11)
them - 0.36% (11)
tell - 0.36% (11)
cases - 0.36% (11)
should - 0.36% (11)
time - 0.36% (11)
but - 0.36% (11)
form - 0.36% (11)
will - 0.36% (11)
mike - 0.33% (10)
lawyers - 0.33% (10)
take - 0.33% (10)
would - 0.33% (10)
less - 0.33% (10)
like - 0.33% (10)
from - 0.33% (10)
when - 0.33% (10)
way - 0.3% (9)
plaintiff - 0.3% (9)
best - 0.3% (9)
(2) - 0.3% (9)
king - 0.3% (9)
injury - 0.3% (9)
jury. - 0.3% (9)
very - 0.26% (8)
their - 0.26% (8)
brain - 0.26% (8)
during - 0.26% (8)
negative - 0.26% (8)
question - 0.26% (8)
direct - 0.26% (8)
– - 0.26% (8)
damage - 0.26% (8)
people - 0.26% (8)
open - 0.23% (7)
don’t - 0.23% (7)
reason - 0.23% (7)
great - 0.23% (7)
trial. - 0.23% (7)
once - 0.23% (7)
ask - 0.23% (7)
had - 0.23% (7)
old - 0.23% (7)
why - 0.23% (7)
focus - 0.23% (7)
only - 0.23% (7)
short - 0.23% (7)
because - 0.23% (7)
add - 0.23% (7)
unconscious - 0.23% (7)
general - 0.23% (7)
talk - 0.23% (7)
 tell - 0.2% (6)
story - 0.2% (6)
long - 0.2% (6)
paul - 0.2% (6)
give - 0.2% (6)
evidence - 0.2% (6)
luvera - 0.2% (6)
on, - 0.2% (6)
communication - 0.2% (6)
over - 0.2% (6)
impressions - 0.2% (6)
trials - 0.2% (6)
make - 0.2% (6)
two - 0.2% (6)
selection - 0.2% (6)
posted - 0.2% (6)
case. - 0.16% (5)
major - 0.16% (5)
than - 0.16% (5)
skill - 0.16% (5)
through - 0.16% (5)
read - 0.16% (5)
objective - 0.16% (5)
(4) - 0.16% (5)
questions - 0.16% (5)
difficult - 0.16% (5)
mark - 0.16% (5)
were - 0.16% (5)
aren’t - 0.16% (5)
being - 0.16% (5)
other - 0.16% (5)
any - 0.16% (5)
see - 0.16% (5)
mental - 0.16% (5)
must - 0.16% (5)
issues. - 0.16% (5)
met - 0.16% (5)
man - 0.16% (5)
want - 0.16% (5)
know - 0.16% (5)
injuries - 0.16% (5)
reasons - 0.16% (5)
get - 0.16% (5)
involve - 0.16% (5)
most - 0.13% (4)
studies - 0.13% (4)
significant - 0.13% (4)
first - 0.13% (4)
voir - 0.13% (4)
lessons - 0.13% (4)
help - 0.13% (4)
cross - 0.13% (4)
examination - 0.13% (4)
longer - 0.13% (4)
let - 0.13% (4)
length - 0.13% (4)
bad - 0.13% (4)
which - 0.13% (4)
week - 0.13% (4)
willing - 0.13% (4)
information - 0.13% (4)
present - 0.13% (4)
ones - 0.13% (4)
defense - 0.13% (4)
decide - 0.13% (4)
favorite - 0.13% (4)
excellent - 0.13% (4)
(3) - 0.13% (4)
earl - 0.13% (4)
good - 0.13% (4)
learn - 0.13% (4)
practice - 0.13% (4)
new - 0.13% (4)
rest - 0.13% (4)
mike? - 0.13% (4)
feed - 0.13% (4)
truth - 0.13% (4)
objectively - 0.13% (4)
 what - 0.13% (4)
real - 0.13% (4)
skills - 0.13% (4)
work - 0.13% (4)
discussion - 0.13% (4)
also - 0.13% (4)
rely - 0.13% (4)
trust - 0.13% (4)
clients - 0.13% (4)
explain - 0.13% (4)
ability - 0.13% (4)
verdict - 0.13% (4)
someone - 0.13% (4)
upon - 0.13% (4)
him - 0.13% (4)
based - 0.13% (4)
mistake - 0.13% (4)
shorten - 0.1% (3)
“i - 0.1% (3)
truthful - 0.1% (3)
example - 0.1% (3)
goal - 0.1% (3)
injured - 0.1% (3)
psychology - 0.1% (3)
2016 - 0.1% (3)
win - 0.1% (3)
 in - 0.1% (3)
client. - 0.1% (3)
again - 0.1% (3)
opening - 0.1% (3)
crafted - 0.1% (3)
full - 0.1% (3)
testified - 0.1% (3)
credibility - 0.1% (3)
available - 0.1% (3)
statement - 0.1% (3)
always - 0.1% (3)
made - 0.1% (3)
year - 0.1% (3)
big - 0.1% (3)
stand - 0.1% (3)
then - 0.1% (3)
something - 0.1% (3)
rule - 0.1% (3)
early - 0.1% (3)
posts - 0.1% (3)
lawyer’s - 0.1% (3)
look - 0.1% (3)
interest - 0.1% (3)
lose - 0.1% (3)
represent - 0.1% (3)
 it - 0.1% (3)
might - 0.1% (3)
rather - 0.1% (3)
accurate - 0.1% (3)
she - 0.1% (3)
identify - 0.1% (3)
emotional - 0.1% (3)
part - 0.1% (3)
program - 0.1% (3)
accept - 0.1% (3)
 do - 0.1% (3)
where - 0.1% (3)
subject - 0.1% (3)
comment - 0.1% (3)
determine - 0.1% (3)
leave - 0.1% (3)
area - 0.1% (3)
every - 0.1% (3)
mistakes - 0.1% (3)
advocate - 0.1% (3)
enough - 0.1% (3)
improving - 0.1% (3)
checklist - 0.1% (3)
(5) - 0.1% (3)
think - 0.1% (3)
target - 0.1% (3)
plaintiff’s - 0.1% (3)
recommend - 0.1% (3)
president - 0.1% (3)
damages - 0.1% (3)
day - 0.1% (3)
try - 0.1% (3)
 what’s - 0.1% (3)
outcome - 0.1% (3)
has - 0.1% (3)
framing - 0.1% (3)
lot - 0.1% (3)
call - 0.1% (3)
books - 0.1% (3)
late - 0.1% (3)
 the - 0.07% (2)
detail - 0.07% (2)
conduct - 0.07% (2)
limitations - 0.07% (2)
feel - 0.07% (2)
learning - 0.07% (2)
consider - 0.07% (2)
admit - 0.07% (2)
power - 0.07% (2)
 had - 0.07% (2)
need - 0.07% (2)
seattle - 0.07% (2)
 and - 0.07% (2)
themselves - 0.07% (2)
settlement - 0.07% (2)
special - 0.07% (2)
argument - 0.07% (2)
aware - 0.07% (2)
(11) - 0.07% (2)
products - 0.07% (2)
fully - 0.07% (2)
thought - 0.07% (2)
limited - 0.07% (2)
liability - 0.07% (2)
wasn’t - 0.07% (2)
inquiry - 0.07% (2)
illustrate - 0.07% (2)
ideas - 0.07% (2)
older - 0.07% (2)
birth - 0.07% (2)
 are - 0.07% (2)
involving - 0.07% (2)
head - 0.07% (2)
serious - 0.07% (2)
who’s - 0.07% (2)
talk. - 0.07% (2)
event - 0.07% (2)
rarely - 0.07% (2)
friend - 0.07% (2)
girl - 0.07% (2)
outline - 0.07% (2)
yourself - 0.07% (2)
www. - 0.07% (2)
each - 0.07% (2)
ice, - 0.07% (2)
movie - 0.07% (2)
offered - 0.07% (2)
children - 0.07% (2)
drug - 0.07% (2)
now? - 0.07% (2)
decided - 0.07% (2)
been - 0.07% (2)
content - 0.07% (2)
← - 0.07% (2)
prepare - 0.07% (2)
eight - 0.07% (2)
telling - 0.07% (2)
tips - 0.07% (2)
minutes - 0.07% (2)
exact - 0.07% (2)
hear - 0.07% (2)
targeting - 0.07% (2)
arrange - 0.07% (2)
collect - 0.07% (2)
strong - 0.07% (2)
analyze - 0.07% (2)
affirmative - 0.07% (2)
invite - 0.07% (2)
study - 0.07% (2)
identification - 0.07% (2)
done - 0.07% (2)
may - 0.07% (2)
priority - 0.07% (2)
importance - 0.07% (2)
step - 0.07% (2)
forward - 0.07% (2)
background - 0.07% (2)
these - 0.07% (2)
critical - 0.07% (2)
actual - 0.07% (2)
significance - 0.07% (2)
impression. - 0.07% (2)
many - 0.07% (2)
initial - 0.07% (2)
others. - 0.07% (2)
quality - 0.07% (2)
author - 0.07% (2)
evaluation - 0.07% (2)
carry - 0.07% (2)
shorter - 0.07% (2)
oratory - 0.07% (2)
important - 0.07% (2)
introduction - 0.07% (2)
asked - 0.07% (2)
benefit - 0.07% (2)
it. - 0.07% (2)
clients, - 0.07% (2)
working - 0.07% (2)
provide - 0.07% (2)
order - 0.07% (2)
nice - 0.07% (2)
patterns - 0.07% (2)
much - 0.07% (2)
decision - 0.07% (2)
course, - 0.07% (2)
book. - 0.07% (2)
advocacy - 0.07% (2)
writing - 0.07% (2)
rules - 0.07% (2)
outcomes - 0.07% (2)
november - 0.07% (2)
before - 0.07% (2)
communications - 0.07% (2)
group - 0.07% (2)
compelling - 0.07% (2)
control - 0.07% (2)
name - 0.07% (2)
way. - 0.07% (2)
years - 0.07% (2)
bring - 0.07% (2)
throughout - 0.07% (2)
franz - 0.07% (2)
title - 0.07% (2)
key - 0.07% (2)
ago - 0.07% (2)
listen - 0.07% (2)
you. - 0.07% (2)
change - 0.07% (2)
lawyer. - 0.07% (2)
times - 0.07% (2)
right - 0.07% (2)
neuro - 0.07% (2)
continually - 0.07% (2)
perform - 0.07% (2)
lawyers. - 0.07% (2)
lawyers, - 0.07% (2)
trustworthy. - 0.07% (2)
deciding - 0.07% (2)
pretend - 0.07% (2)
several - 0.07% (2)
too - 0.07% (2)
eye - 0.07% (2)
contact - 0.07% (2)
honest - 0.07% (2)
second - 0.07% (2)
mesmer - 0.07% (2)
bored - 0.07% (2)
issues, - 0.07% (2)
problems - 0.07% (2)
become. - 0.07% (2)
complex - 0.07% (2)
into - 0.07% (2)
making - 0.07% (2)
advice - 0.07% (2)
trials. - 0.07% (2)
story. - 0.07% (2)
that’s - 0.07% (2)
news - 0.07% (2)
easily - 0.07% (2)
gives - 0.07% (2)
approach - 0.07% (2)
jurors. - 0.07% (2)
concepts - 0.07% (2)
serve - 0.07% (2)
last - 0.07% (2)
programming - 0.07% (2)
greater - 0.07% (2)
witness - 0.07% (2)
unnecessary - 0.07% (2)
linguistic - 0.07% (2)
really - 0.07% (2)
impact - 0.07% (2)
tactics - 0.07% (2)
of the - 0.72% (22)
the jury - 0.62% (19)
in the - 0.49% (15)
on the - 0.36% (11)
to the - 0.36% (11)
the case - 0.36% (11)
the trial - 0.36% (11)
tell us - 0.3% (9)
trial lawyer - 0.3% (9)
do you - 0.3% (9)
for the - 0.3% (9)
the issue - 0.26% (8)
about the - 0.23% (7)
with a - 0.23% (7)
he was - 0.23% (7)
that i - 0.23% (7)
and not - 0.23% (7)
us about - 0.23% (7)
you are - 0.23% (7)
jury selection - 0.2% (6)
the best - 0.2% (6)
direct exam - 0.2% (6)
the lawyer - 0.2% (6)
the jury. - 0.2% (6)
the more - 0.2% (6)
the issues - 0.2% (6)
should be - 0.2% (6)
they are - 0.2% (6)
negative issues - 0.2% (6)
 tell us - 0.2% (6)
and the - 0.2% (6)
this book - 0.16% (5)
the unconscious - 0.16% (5)
you have - 0.16% (5)
you like - 0.16% (5)
at the - 0.16% (5)
are not - 0.16% (5)
trial lawyers - 0.16% (5)
in this - 0.16% (5)
is not - 0.13% (4)
voir dire - 0.13% (4)
if you - 0.13% (4)
there are - 0.13% (4)
the longer - 0.13% (4)
involve the - 0.13% (4)
that it - 0.13% (4)
can be - 0.13% (4)
to ask - 0.13% (4)
by paul - 0.13% (4)
about your - 0.13% (4)
when the - 0.13% (4)
on and - 0.13% (4)
have a - 0.13% (4)
based upon - 0.1% (3)
use of - 0.1% (3)
trial. the - 0.1% (3)
in trial - 0.1% (3)
the trial. - 0.1% (3)
are you - 0.1% (3)
(1)  tell - 0.1% (3)
| leave - 0.1% (3)
not be - 0.1% (3)
the president - 0.1% (3)
you can - 0.1% (3)
of his - 0.1% (3)
jury trial - 0.1% (3)
and be - 0.1% (3)
jury. they - 0.1% (3)
longer you - 0.1% (3)
the stand - 0.1% (3)
like to - 0.1% (3)
the negative - 0.1% (3)
lot of - 0.1% (3)
open discussion - 0.1% (3)
the jurors - 0.1% (3)
major injury - 0.1% (3)
a client - 0.1% (3)
brain injury - 0.1% (3)
how to - 0.1% (3)
a comment - 0.1% (3)
plaintiff trial - 0.1% (3)
difficult issues - 0.1% (3)
your client - 0.1% (3)
posted on - 0.1% (3)
2016 by - 0.1% (3)
paul luvera - 0.1% (3)
with the - 0.1% (3)
is the - 0.1% (3)
enough to - 0.1% (3)
psychology of - 0.1% (3)
be the - 0.1% (3)
posted in - 0.1% (3)
issues are - 0.1% (3)
the case. - 0.1% (3)
this is - 0.1% (3)
focus studies - 0.1% (3)
leave a - 0.1% (3)
you should - 0.1% (3)
issues in - 0.1% (3)
the less - 0.07% (2)
have the - 0.07% (2)
 in the - 0.07% (2)
the author - 0.07% (2)
eight week - 0.07% (2)
with difficult - 0.07% (2)
ten minutes - 0.07% (2)
president of - 0.07% (2)
i might - 0.07% (2)
crafted for - 0.07% (2)
and he - 0.07% (2)
and how - 0.07% (2)
would not - 0.07% (2)
in voir - 0.07% (2)
for that - 0.07% (2)
franz mesmer - 0.07% (2)
to this - 0.07% (2)
them and - 0.07% (2)
would be - 0.07% (2)
the damage - 0.07% (2)
the injury - 0.07% (2)
because of - 0.07% (2)
this general - 0.07% (2)
impression is - 0.07% (2)
about it. - 0.07% (2)
which is - 0.07% (2)
into a - 0.07% (2)
on november - 0.07% (2)
a brain - 0.07% (2)
when he - 0.07% (2)
mental limitations - 0.07% (2)
concepts of - 0.07% (2)
like the - 0.07% (2)
older posts - 0.07% (2)
when we - 0.07% (2)
there is - 0.07% (2)
in jury - 0.07% (2)
don’t be - 0.07% (2)
targeting the - 0.07% (2)
posts the - 0.07% (2)
← older - 0.07% (2)
and you - 0.07% (2)
would you - 0.07% (2)
the psychology - 0.07% (2)
 do you - 0.07% (2)
of targeting - 0.07% (2)
you read - 0.07% (2)
to you - 0.07% (2)
you go - 0.07% (2)
what do - 0.07% (2)
cases with - 0.07% (2)
negative issues, - 0.07% (2)
 are you - 0.07% (2)
problems in - 0.07% (2)
what you - 0.07% (2)
neuro linguistic - 0.07% (2)
right now? - 0.07% (2)
was crafted - 0.07% (2)
brain injured - 0.07% (2)
book and - 0.07% (2)
of time - 0.07% (2)
he testified - 0.07% (2)
client with - 0.07% (2)
best way - 0.07% (2)
your trial - 0.07% (2)
lawyer tips - 0.07% (2)
the most - 0.07% (2)
throughout the - 0.07% (2)
only when - 0.07% (2)
rather than - 0.07% (2)
more than - 0.07% (2)
our case. - 0.07% (2)
is that - 0.07% (2)
gives you - 0.07% (2)
issues, the - 0.07% (2)
about negative - 0.07% (2)
the defense - 0.07% (2)
priority of - 0.07% (2)
jury for - 0.07% (2)
to talk - 0.07% (2)
talk about - 0.07% (2)
way of - 0.07% (2)
the unnecessary - 0.07% (2)
for shorter - 0.07% (2)
trial the - 0.07% (2)
framing the - 0.07% (2)
if the - 0.07% (2)
the news - 0.07% (2)
and use - 0.07% (2)
length of - 0.07% (2)
case. your - 0.07% (2)
people who - 0.07% (2)
who are - 0.07% (2)
willing to - 0.07% (2)
you don’t - 0.07% (2)
trial is - 0.07% (2)
linguistic programming - 0.07% (2)
do with - 0.07% (2)
lawyers in - 0.07% (2)
to them - 0.07% (2)
all of - 0.07% (2)
time to - 0.07% (2)
to shorten - 0.07% (2)
shorter trials - 0.07% (2)
you aren’t - 0.07% (2)
truthful and - 0.07% (2)
who is - 0.07% (2)
trial skills - 0.07% (2)
be someone - 0.07% (2)
rules for - 0.07% (2)
improving jury - 0.07% (2)
and trustworthy. - 0.07% (2)
impressions are - 0.07% (2)
not about - 0.07% (2)
verdict outcomes - 0.07% (2)
there to - 0.07% (2)
they aren’t - 0.07% (2)
the issues. - 0.07% (2)
time with - 0.07% (2)
client and - 0.07% (2)
aren’t there - 0.07% (2)
they get - 0.07% (2)
issues. you - 0.07% (2)
times during - 0.07% (2)
at all - 0.07% (2)
do not - 0.07% (2)
identify all - 0.07% (2)
one of - 0.07% (2)
tell us about - 0.23% (7)
 tell us about - 0.16% (5)
plaintiff trial lawyer - 0.1% (3)
the jury. they - 0.1% (3)
on the stand - 0.1% (3)
the longer you - 0.1% (3)
you have a - 0.1% (3)
2016 by paul - 0.1% (3)
| leave a - 0.1% (3)
(1)  tell us - 0.1% (3)
by paul luvera - 0.1% (3)
part do you - 0.07% (2)
would not be - 0.07% (2)
exam of a - 0.07% (2)
with a brain - 0.07% (2)
client with a - 0.07% (2)
what to ask - 0.07% (2)
the jury for - 0.07% (2)
his mental limitations - 0.07% (2)
was crafted for - 0.07% (2)
the psychology of - 0.07% (2)
of a client - 0.07% (2)
like to do - 0.07% (2)
improving jury verdict - 0.07% (2)
ten rules for - 0.07% (2)
involve the jury. - 0.07% (2)
targeting the unconscious - 0.07% (2)
about your favorite - 0.07% (2)
talk about the - 0.07% (2)
the trial is - 0.07% (2)
truthful and trustworthy. - 0.07% (2)
issues in the - 0.07% (2)
of targeting the - 0.07% (2)
neuro linguistic programming - 0.07% (2)
president of the - 0.07% (2)
is an excellent - 0.07% (2)
in this book - 0.07% (2)
best way of - 0.07% (2)
you have any - 0.07% (2)
interest in this - 0.07% (2)
for improving jury - 0.07% (2)
the case. your - 0.07% (2)
the best way - 0.07% (2)
to be someone - 0.07% (2)
cases with difficult - 0.07% (2)
negative issues, the - 0.07% (2)
with difficult issues - 0.07% (2)
to the jury - 0.07% (2)
is that it - 0.07% (2)
be an open - 0.07% (2)
discussion and not - 0.07% (2)
open discussion and - 0.07% (2)
posts the psychology - 0.07% (2)
to do with - 0.07% (2)
in jury selection - 0.07% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.