WITNESS PREPARATION
Case 3: Mr. H.C.

Foreign-born, Mr. H.C. was sent to us because his attorney was frustrated with him. His performance at deposition had gone very poorly; inconsistent, defensive, quirky, and riddled with old-world cultural references and nuances that were inaccessible and occasionally offensive. The lawyer gave up, thinking his client was an arrogant liar.

The lawyer was in a box. The potential exposure on the lawsuit was $1 million. Mr. H.C.'s company had no intention of settling for so much. But the lawyer was sure he had a losing case because of the uncontrollable performance of the chief corporate witness and wanted to avoid a trial.

We began our work with Mr. H.C. by scrutinizing the facts of the case, defining and ironing out inconsistencies, and shaping the client's story into a cogent, positive whole. We also worked on Mr. H.C.'s accent and his attitude so that he was easier to understand and seemed friendlier and less defensive.

After several intensive sessions, we were able to determine that most of the inconsistencies were due to his comprehension of English used at deposition.

English in the work place had been no problem for him for 20 years. The listening skills in a legal context, however, are very different. In the hands of the artful opposing counsel at deposition, Mr. H.C. could not follow the nuances but pretended that he could - a habit he had developed over the years. For example, when the attorney would ask, "Mr. H.C., you were baffled by this development?" He would reply "Yes, baffled!"

During a mock exam, the lawyer saw the extent of the problem and realized his client was not lying, just overcompensating. We focused the witness on how to listen and analyze questions, and we suggested having an interpreter at trial.

With Mr. H.C.'s newfound confidence, they went to trial. Mr. H.C. took the stand; he performed credibly and likably. Three days into the trial, the attorney was able to settle the case for less than $250,000—a huge success for all.

REVIEW CASE 1