Presenters sometimes ask “Should I give the audience handouts? A simple question deserves a simple answer:

Yes, nearly always.

There are many reasons for this.  The simplest is that at least a few audience members, perhaps many, will consider the failure to provide some written accompaniment to be evidence of apathy and/or laziness.  Apathetic slacker is not the image most of us want to project.

However, handouts are not merely an appearance issue.  Well-done handouts enhance audience understanding and increase the chance they will retain your message.  They are also a basic courtesy for the audience, freeing them from the frantic scramble to write down every important thing you say.  (You will be saying important things, right?).

Excuses for Lack of Handouts

Excuse 1: I want the audience to be paying attention to me while I’m speaking, not a handout.

I call this the narcissist excuse.  Few presenters are capable of constructing such enthralling handouts, but even if you are one of this talented group, is it really so bad if people learn the material from your handout instead of your eloquent voice? 

In any event, if you think your handouts are really that extraordinary, why not distribute them after your talk instead of at the beginning?  If you take this approach, be sure to let the audience know at the beginning of your remarks so they won’t feel a need to take duplicative notes.

Excuse 2: Handouts will dilute the value of my jokes or other surprises. 

This excuse has a silver lining of sorts: At least the presenter is trying to keep the audience engaged and believes their material is good enough to deserve protection.

However, in this situation, it is possible to have the best of both worlds:

Again, there’s no law against distributing your handouts at the end of your talk.  Be sure to alert the audience when you begin speaking that you will have handouts so they don’t feel obligated to write down every word you say.

Another approach is to distribute an edited version of the material at the beginning. Good slideshow software facilitates preparing a redacted version of your remarks.  You can create a separate version of your slide show that omits the surprise-killing slides.  This still requires a little extra work, but it’s worth it if you have high-quality jokes or other surprises.

Excuse 3: Distributing handouts will make the audience remember the presentation better, so I can’t use the same material next year.

Wow!  This is my absolute favorite excuse.  There’s so much wrong with it that I don’t know where to start. 

Isn’t helping the audience remember what you are saying the point?  This excuse tacitly admits that handouts increase audience retention of the material.  Isn’t that a good thing, instead of a bad thing?

Our audiences should not have to suffer the same canned presentation every year.  This approach is no more attractive by delivering the material in a quasi-stealth manner, withholding handouts that might help the audiences remember the material. 

Carolyn Elefant is tired of talking about whether AI will change the legal profession’s practice of time-based billing. She has a better list of questions. My answers, FWIW:

  • AI will not lead to shorter work weeks.
  • AI has already changed the way I (& most likely any other lawyers who have actually used AI) analyze cases.
  • AI will help expand access to justice by making marginal cases more economic–or at least let’s hope so.
  • AI will not expand older lawyers’ careers.

Have you observed trainers doing things like this?

Before beginning her presentation, a trainer tells the audience, “I had planned to show you this wonderful video with actors from The Office singing this song “Let’s Get Ethical,” to the tune of “Let’s Get Physical.”  Unfortunately, I can’t get the DVD to work, so I can’t show it, but let me tell you, it would be really funny if you could see it.”

The example brings to mind the “Never complain, never explain” rule.  I’ve seen this pithy saying variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Henry Ford and Katherine Hepburn.  Regardless of the originator, it always struck me as a little dubious.  “Never?”  Isn’t that a recipe for being a jerk?

However, with a little adjustment for rhetorical excess, this saying does describe a sound principle for instructors.  It’s nearly always a mistake to apologize to the audience.  In the example described, the trainer was smart to try to use an audiovisual training aid but when that did not pan out, she unwisely demonstrated to the audience not just her incompetence with technology, but her poor judgment. If she had never apologized for failing to get the DVD to work, the audience would never have known of her failure.  Experienced presenters understand that in many cases the audience will never know if the speaker made a mistake unless he or she draws attention to the error by apologizing.

The same principle applies to other mistakes made during your presentation, explains speech expert Richard Zeoli:

When you make a mistake, no one cares but you:  Even the most accomplished public speaker will make mistakes. Yet it is important to remember that the only one who cares about any given mistake is the one doing the speaking.

People’s attention spans constantly wander.  In fact, most people only absorb about 20 percent of a speaker’s message.  The other 80 percent is internalized visually.  This ratio is true in nearly everything: a football game, a favorite television show, and even a heart-to-heart conversation.  The point is that when you make a mistake, the audience rarely even notices.  The most important thing a speaker can do after making a mistake is to keep going.  Don’t stop and – unless the mistake was truly earth shattering – never apologize to the audience for a minor slip.  Unless they are reading the speech during your delivery, the audience won’t know if you left out a word, said the wrong name, or skipped a page.

“Never” apologize?  Probably a mistake.  “Almost never” apologize?  Sounds about right.

Oh, would some Power the gift give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!

Robert Burns, “To A Louse” (1786)

Robert Burns understood the value of seeing yourself as others see you. Self-searching on internet search engines has been a sometimes-humbleness-inducing place to start for many years.

The temptation to see what AI thinks about you is pretty much irresistible, so I ran the names of friends Kevin O’Keefe, Sabrina Pacifici, and Tom Mighell through ChatGPT 4o. The results pretty much matched my high impressions of their achievements, so I tried my own name. Its assessment seems pretty generous, but I’m not going to argue.

What does AI have to say about you?


Who is Jerry Lawson in the context of the legal profession?

ChatGPT said:

In the context of the legal profession, Jerry Lawson is a notable figure primarily recognized for his contributions to the intersection of law and technology. He is particularly known for his work in legal technology and his pioneering efforts in using the internet and other digital tools to enhance legal practice.

Key Contributions:

  • Legal Technology Expert: Jerry Lawson has been at the forefront of legal technology, advocating for the use of online resources, digital tools, and web-based services to improve legal practice. His work has often focused on helping lawyers and law firms adapt to the digital age.
  • Author and Speaker: Lawson has written extensively on topics related to legal technology, including books, articles, and blog posts. His insights have been influential in shaping how legal professionals think about and utilize technology in their work.
  • Educational Initiatives: He has also been involved in educational initiatives aimed at teaching lawyers and law students about the importance and utility of technology in the legal field. This includes offering guidance on how to effectively use online tools for research, case management, and client interaction.
  • Advocate for Internet Use in Law: Lawson was an early advocate for the use of the internet in legal practice, helping to establish standards and best practices for online legal services and communication.

His contributions have had a lasting impact on how legal professionals integrate technology into their practice, making him a respected and influential figure in the field of legal technology.

State bars drafting new ethics rules to regulate AI? A fool’s errand.

State bars issuing guidance on how AI use fits into the existing regulatory framework? Sublime wisdom.

The Virginia State Bar leads the way:

Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence

By now it’s well known that lawyers must pay attention to “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Comment [6] to Rule 1.1. In the case of generative AI, those benefits and risks seem to be evolving by the day as the technology, and our skills to use it, rapidly develop. Nonetheless, a lawyer’s basic ethical responsibilities have not changed, and many ethics issues involving generative AI are fundamentally similar to issues lawyers face when working with other technology or other people (both lawyers and nonlawyers). These resources attempt to provide some specific guidance on how to evaluate the benefits and risks of particular uses of generative AI and how to apply ethics rules and standards to generative AI applications.

Did law librarians lead the way to internet adoption by lawyers? I can’t think of any group that provided more valuable help.

Will law librarians lead the way in law firm adoption of AI? Yes, if leaders like Sarah Gotschall have anything to say about it.

Check out her “Legal Research Prompting Guide and Generative AI System Comparison Exercise” on the AI Law Librarians blog:

Would Fred Astaire’s scintillating dance moves have looked as good if he had abandoned his usual suave wardrobe in favor of clothes that made him look like one of the irredeemable low-life characters represented in A Hillbilly Elegy?

We’ll never know, but there is one thing we do know: The best substantive presentation material looks even better if packaged well. Formatting slide shows is an art. Compliance with some basic slide show formatting principles won’t make you Monet, but will put you on the road to being a passable PowerPoint artist.

Glad to see my article Slide Show Formatting Basics is available at LLRX.

Would Fred Astaire’s scintillating dance moves have looked as good if he had abandoned his usual suave wardrobe in favor of clothes that made him look like one of the irredeemable low-life characters represented in A Hillbilly Elegy

We’ll never know, but there is one thing we do know: The best substantive presentation material looks even better if packaged well. Formatting slide shows is an art. Compliance with some basic slide show formatting principles won’t make you Monet, but will put you on the road to being a passable PowerPoint artist:

Bullet Points

Bullet points have the salutary effect of improving quick comprehension. However, deploy them wisely. Squeezing too many bullet points on a slide creates a cluttered impression. No more than five bullet points per page is a pretty good rule of thumb.

Avoid having more than two levels of bullets on slides. In other words, you can have a bullet point, and one sub-level below them. If you need more sub-levels to convey complex ideas, it’s better to break them into more slides.

Templates

Good slide show software provides templates (called “slide masters” in MS PowerPoint) to provide a consistent layout. I occasionally see presenters who do not use templates. It’s nearly always a mistake. The templates are designed by pros. The defaults in a decent template will facilitate a professional appearance. A Google search on the phrase using powerpoint templates will find plenty of tutorials to get you started. 

You can:

  • Override the template for a particular slide or
  • Modify the template (surprisingly easy)

You can even create your own templates. It’s not something I’d recommend to most lawyers. In any event, using templates is an easy way help make a good impression on your audiences.

Logos

Some presenters who have just learned how to edit templates or create their own succumb to the temptation to include their organization’s logo on every slide. This is popular in businesses as a form of branding, but there is a drawback. Including a logo on every slide limits flexibility. 

The best approach is probably to include the logo on the first slide, and maybe the last. If demands of unsophisticated supervisors or an overly doctrinaire marketing department make you feel you absolutely must include the logo on every slide, make it small, except on the first slide and the last, where you can usually get away with more. 

Whatever you do, don’t follow the example of one government conference presentation I saw that included no less than four different agency seals on every single slide, one for each of the four presenters!

Blogging Godfather Kevin O’Keefe has some thoughts on using RSS feeds to promote law firms. Twenty years ago I used to tell everyone that an RSS feed was an absolutely essential part of any law firm’s web presence. I’m not as sure of this now. I agree with Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell that the environment today is different. My sense is that fewer people are using RSS feeds to locate information.

HOWEVER, there is still at some benefit to RSS feeds–and maybe a lot for some lawyers. When you can add an automatically-generated RSS feed to your website, as with any Lexblog product, it’s a no brainer. Let it work for you.

I’m working on a longer analysis of legal blogging today. Watch this space.

Thomas G. Martin has what journalists call a major “get” with his podcast interview of one of the smartest and most high-achieving people I have ever met, Carolyn Elefant. I don’t know how one person can accomplish so much.

She bills herself on Twitter/X as an “attorney, author, blogger and innovation advisor.” She’s better qualified than anyone I know (except maybe Greg Siskind or Dennis Kennedy) to be an innovation adviser for lawyers.

I used to pride myself on being able to spot promising young talent. Carolyn was one of my best finds. Her early-adopter blog caught my attention around 1998, so I invited her, sight unseen, to cohost a Maryland State Bar CLE program. It was her first legal tech speaking engagement.

Inviting her turned out very well for me. I got lost driving to the conference site in Columbia and was late. When I arrived, she had everything under control, so my embarrassment was limited. Thanks, Carolyn!