reptile the 2009 manual of the plaintiff’s revolution

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, authored by David Ball and Don C. Keenan, details a strategy tapping into juror instincts for success.

This approach, rooted in neuroscience, aims to revolutionize trial tactics, proving remarkably effective despite skepticism regarding its scientific foundations.

Initially conceived as a tool against tort reform, the manual instructs lawyers on leveraging the “Reptile” to benefit plaintiffs in modern litigation.

I.A. Origins and Authorship: David Ball and Don C. Keenan

David Ball and Don C. Keenan collaboratively developed the “Reptile” litigation strategy, meticulously documented in Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution. Their work stems from neuroscientific research concerning brain organization and function, specifically how basic survival instincts influence juror decision-making.

The manual isn’t merely theoretical; it provides a practical guide for trial attorneys, detailing how to activate these instincts to achieve favorable outcomes. Despite debate surrounding its scientific validity, the strategy’s documented effectiveness has garnered attention within the legal community, establishing Ball and Keenan as pivotal figures in modern trial advocacy.

I.B. Core Principles: Tapping into Juror Instincts

The core of the “Reptile” strategy, as outlined in Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, centers on appealing to jurors’ primal survival instincts. This involves framing the case not as a dispute over legal technicalities, but as a violation of fundamental safety rules and community standards.

By focusing on breaches of safety and resulting harms, attorneys aim to bypass rational thought and trigger an instinctive, emotional response, influencing jurors to side with the plaintiff and enforce perceived societal norms.

I.C. The “Reptile” Metaphor: Understanding the Brain’s Response

The “Reptile” metaphor, central to the strategy detailed in Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, references the oldest part of the human brain; This area governs basic survival instincts – fear, aggression, and the need for safety – operating largely outside conscious thought.

Ball and Keenan argue that by triggering this “reptilian” brain, attorneys can bypass logical reasoning and tap into deeply ingrained emotional responses, powerfully influencing juror decision-making.

II. The Neuroscience Behind the Reptile

Reptile: The 2009 Manual grounds its strategy in neuroscientific research, focusing on brain organization and function to understand juror responses.

It posits that appealing to primal survival instincts directly impacts decision-making processes within the courtroom setting.

II.A. Brain Organization and Function

Reptile: The 2009 Manual emphasizes understanding the triune brain model – the oldest “reptilian” brain controlling survival instincts, the limbic system governing emotion, and the neocortex responsible for rational thought.

The strategy centers on bypassing the neocortex and directly engaging the reptilian brain, triggering instinctive reactions of fear and a need for safety.

This approach assumes jurors primarily operate from these deeper, less conscious levels, making appeals to safety and community standards powerfully persuasive, even overriding logical analysis.

II.B. Survival Instincts and Juror Decision-Making

Reptile: The 2009 Manual posits that jurors, at a fundamental level, respond to perceived threats to their personal safety and community well-being.

The strategy exploits this by framing the defendant’s actions as violations of unspoken “safety rules,” triggering an instinctive negative reaction.

This taps into a primal urge for protection, influencing decision-making beyond logical assessment of facts, and ultimately driving jurors towards a plaintiff-favorable verdict.

III. Six: Safety Rules and the Reptile

Reptile emphasizes establishing safety as a central theme, arguing jurors instinctively assess actions against unwritten rules protecting themselves and their communities.

III.A. Establishing Safety as a Central Theme

Reptile litigation centers on portraying the defendant’s actions as violations of fundamental safety rules, appealing to the juror’s innate sense of self-preservation and community protection.

This strategy doesn’t focus on traditional legal arguments, but instead frames the case around the defendant’s disregard for basic safety, triggering a visceral, emotional response.

By consistently highlighting the breach of these unwritten “safety rules,” plaintiffs aim to activate the juror’s “reptilian brain,” fostering a strong sense of outrage and a desire for retribution.

IV. Seven: Codes

Reptile strategy utilizes community standards and expectations – unspoken “codes” – to demonstrate the defendant’s actions as unacceptable and a breach of trust.

These codes define acceptable behavior, and violations trigger the juror’s sense of outrage and a demand for accountability.

IV.A. Utilizing Community Standards and Expectations

Reptile litigation, as detailed in The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, emphasizes establishing what the community deems as safe and reasonable conduct.

This isn’t about legal statutes, but rather the unwritten rules jurors inherently understand – expectations regarding care and responsibility towards others.

By highlighting deviations from these standards, the strategy aims to evoke a visceral reaction, framing the defendant’s actions as a fundamental violation of community values and safety.

Presenting evidence that demonstrates a disregard for these “codes” is crucial for triggering the juror’s “reptilian” brain and securing a favorable verdict.

V. Eight: The Reptile as Law-Enforcer: Harms and Losses Only

Reptile, from The 2009 Manual, focuses solely on the safety breach and resulting harms, avoiding legal arguments; jurors act as protectors.

The strategy emphasizes the concrete losses suffered due to the defendant’s actions, appealing to the jury’s innate sense of justice.

V.A. Focusing on the Breach of Safety and Resulting Harm

Reptile, as detailed in The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, dictates a relentless focus on the defendant’s disregard for community safety standards.

This isn’t about complex legal theories; it’s about demonstrating a fundamental violation of the social contract – a failure to protect others from foreseeable harm.

The strategy instructs attorneys to meticulously present the specific harms suffered by the plaintiff, emphasizing the direct link to the defendant’s negligent actions and the broken safety rules.

By consistently highlighting this breach and its consequences, the “Reptile” aims to trigger the jury’s instinctive desire to punish the offender and restore safety.

VI. Ten: Jury Selection

Reptile’s manual emphasizes identifying jurors susceptible to safety concerns, seeking individuals likely to react strongly to perceived violations of community standards.

Careful questioning aims to reveal those who prioritize safety and accountability, aligning with the strategy’s core principles.

VI.A. Identifying Jurors Susceptible to the Reptile Strategy

Reptile methodology, as detailed in the 2009 manual, prioritizes discerning jurors who demonstrate a strong sense of community safety and adherence to established norms.

Attorneys should seek individuals exhibiting a natural inclination to protect others and a heightened sensitivity to negligence or disregard for well-being.

Questions during voir dire should subtly probe for these traits, avoiding direct inquiries about the “Reptile” itself, but focusing on values related to safety and responsibility.

Identifying those predisposed to prioritize safety is crucial for maximizing the strategy’s impact.

VII. Eleven: Opening for the Reptile

Reptile strategy dictates framing the case around a breach of community safety and the defendant’s responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm to others.

Emphasize the violation of unspoken rules and the resulting consequences from the very beginning of the trial.

VII.A. Framing the Case Around Safety and Responsibility

Reptile litigation, as detailed in The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, centers on establishing the defendant’s disregard for community safety standards.

The opening statement should not focus on legal arguments, but instead, vividly portray the defendant’s actions as a direct threat to the jurors’ own sense of security.

Highlight the defendant’s failure to uphold basic safety rules, framing it as a conscious choice to prioritize profit or convenience over the well-being of others, triggering the juror’s “reptilian” brain.

VIII. Twelve: Expert Testimony

Reptile strategy, from The 2009 Manual, utilizes experts to reinforce safety concerns, not technical details, emphasizing the defendant’s breach of community standards.

VIII.A. Utilizing Experts to Reinforce Safety Concerns

Reptile litigation, as detailed in The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, strategically employs expert testimony not to establish complex causation, but to underscore the fundamental breach of community safety.

Experts should articulate how the defendant’s actions violated reasonable safety expectations, appealing directly to the jurors’ ingrained survival instincts and sense of right versus wrong.

Avoid technical jargon; focus on clear, impactful statements regarding the defendant’s disregard for public well-being, effectively activating the “Reptile” brain response within the jury.

IX. Thirteen: Closing Arguments

Reptile strategy, from The 2009 Manual, demands closing arguments re-emphasize the defendant’s violation of safety and the resulting harm to the plaintiff.

Focus on accountability and the community’s expectations, triggering the jury’s instinctive need to punish the safety breach.

IX.A. Re-emphasizing the Breach of Safety and its Consequences

Reptile, as detailed in The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution, centers closing arguments on the defendant’s disregard for community safety standards.

Avoid complex legal jargon; instead, powerfully reiterate how the defendant’s actions directly violated basic safety rules, causing foreseeable harm.

Connect the breach to the jury’s own sense of security and responsibility, framing the verdict as an enforcement of community expectations and a deterrent for future negligence.

The goal is to activate the jury’s “reptilian” brain, prompting a visceral response to the defendant’s unacceptable behavior and its devastating consequences.

X. Fourteen: Scripture and the Reptile

Reptile: The 2009 Manual acknowledges the ethical considerations of emotional appeals, urging lawyers to use them responsibly and avoid manipulative tactics.

Focus remains on demonstrable harms and safety breaches, ensuring arguments align with legal and ethical boundaries during trial proceedings.

X.A. Ethical Considerations and the Use of Emotional Appeals

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution stresses a careful balance when employing emotional appeals, acknowledging the potential for crossing ethical lines.

The strategy isn’t about fabricating feelings, but rather skillfully directing jurors’ inherent survival instincts towards recognizing breaches of community safety standards.

Ball and Keenan caution against hypocrisy, emphasizing that appeals must genuinely reflect the harm suffered and the defendant’s disregard for reasonable care.

Maintaining credibility and avoiding manipulative tactics are paramount, ensuring the focus remains firmly on demonstrable safety violations and their consequences.

XI. Fifteen: Case Selection and the Reptile

Reptile: The 2009 Manual highlights selecting cases where a clear breach of community safety exists, triggering juror’s inherent protective instincts for maximum impact.

XI.A. Identifying Cases Suitable for the Reptile Approach

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution emphasizes focusing on cases demonstrating a defendant’s disregard for obvious safety rules and community expectations.

Ideal scenarios involve clear violations of unwritten, universally understood safety standards – the “codes” – that directly led to harm. Cases lacking a demonstrable safety breach are unsuitable.

The manual stresses that the strategy thrives when the defendant’s actions are perceived as a direct threat to the community’s well-being, activating the juror’s “reptilian” brain.

XII. Sixteen: Mediation and the Reptile

Reptile: The 2009 Manual advises approaching mediation mindful of the strategy; avoid concessions suggesting the client’s safety was not paramount.

Maintain focus on the defendant’s breach of community safety standards throughout negotiations, reinforcing the core “Reptile” principles.

XII.A. Navigating Mediation with the Reptile Strategy in Mind

Reptile: The 2009 Manual stresses that mediation presents unique challenges when employing this strategy. Avoid any language or concessions that could be interpreted as diminishing the importance of safety concerns.

The mediator should be subtly guided to understand the case revolves around a fundamental breach of community safety, not merely financial loss. Resist pressure to compromise on issues relating to the defendant’s disregard for established safety protocols.

Present a narrative consistently emphasizing the harm caused by the defendant’s actions, framing settlement demands as necessary to deter future safety violations and protect the community.

XIII. Seventeen: Client Preparation for Deposition and Trial Testimony

Reptile instructs preparing clients to articulate safety concerns clearly and emotionally, focusing on the defendant’s disregard for community standards and resulting harm.

Emphasize conveying the feeling of vulnerability and the breach of trust caused by the defendant’s actions during both deposition and trial.

XIII.A. Preparing Clients to Convey Safety Concerns Effectively

Reptile: The 2009 Manual emphasizes clients must articulate how the defendant violated community safety expectations, not just legal duties. Preparation involves focusing testimony on the feeling of insecurity created by the defendant’s actions.

Avoid legal jargon; instead, encourage clients to describe the situation as a breach of basic safety rules, appealing to the jury’s inherent “reptilian” instincts. Practice conveying vulnerability and the emotional impact of the harm suffered, reinforcing the defendant’s disregard for well-being.

This approach aims to trigger the jury’s protective instincts, aligning them with the plaintiff’s narrative.

XIV. Eighteen: The Reptile Takes Defense Depositions

Reptile strategy utilizes depositions to expose the defendant’s disregard for safety, highlighting failures to uphold community standards and prioritize well-being.

Questions focus on safety protocols and training, revealing negligence and reinforcing the plaintiff’s narrative of a safety breach.

XIV.A. Utilizing Depositions to Highlight Defendant’s Neglect of Safety

Reptile deposition techniques, as outlined in the 2009 Manual, center on forcing defendants to acknowledge breaches of community safety expectations.

The goal isn’t simply to uncover facts, but to elicit admissions regarding disregard for reasonable safety measures and the potential for harm.

Questions are crafted to emphasize the defendant’s awareness of risks and their failure to adequately protect others, appealing to the juror’s “reptilian” instincts.

This approach aims to establish a clear narrative of negligence and a violation of fundamental safety rules, bolstering the plaintiff’s case.

XV. Twenty: Stipulated Cases

Reptile strategy extends to settlements; stipulated cases should emphasize the defendant’s acknowledgment of safety breaches and resulting harm, per the 2009 Manual.

XV.A. Applying the Reptile Strategy in Settlement Negotiations

Reptile methodology profoundly impacts settlement talks, demanding a focus on the defendant’s disregard for community safety standards, as detailed in the 2009 Manual. Negotiations aren’t about legal technicalities, but about the violation of unspoken rules protecting individuals.

Presenting the case as a breach of these fundamental safety expectations—a failure to protect—increases settlement value. Emphasize the harm caused by neglecting these “codes,” framing the offer around restoring community safety and accountability, not merely compensating for damages.

XVI. Twenty-Two: Post-Script

Reptile’s long-term impact continues to evolve, influencing litigation and challenging traditional defense strategies, as outlined in the 2009 Manual’s final reflections.

XVI.A. Long-Term Implications and Future Developments of the Reptile Strategy

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution sparked considerable debate, prompting ongoing analysis of its ethical boundaries and practical applications within the legal field.

Future developments likely involve refining techniques to counter the strategy, alongside continued exploration of the neuroscience underpinning juror decision-making.

The strategy’s effectiveness ensures its continued relevance, demanding that legal professionals remain informed and adapt their approaches to navigate this evolving landscape of trial advocacy.

XVII. Appendices: Resources for Reptile Litigation

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution provides essential reading, alongside resources detailing Golden Rule Law by venue and community safety boundaries.

Visit reptilekeenanball.com for further information and access to supplemental materials supporting this impactful litigation approach.

XVII.A. Reading Materials for Understanding the Reptile

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution by David Ball and Don C. Keenan is the foundational text for grasping this litigation strategy.

The manual details how to tap into juror’s primal instincts, focusing on safety and responsibility, and is considered a “must-read” for trial lawyers.

Understanding the neuroscience behind the “Reptile” – how it influences decision-making – is crucial, even for those skeptical of its scientific basis. Downloadable PDFs are available online.

XVII.B; Golden Rule Law by Venue and Community Safety Boundaries

Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiffs Revolution emphasizes tailoring arguments to specific community standards and expectations – the “Golden Rule” principle.

Understanding local safety boundaries is vital; what a jury deems acceptable conduct varies significantly by venue, impacting the “Reptile” strategy’s effectiveness.

Resources, like those found at reptilekeenanball.com, detail these nuances, helping lawyers frame cases around perceived violations of community safety norms.