In this episode of Foster Your Voice, we're tackling one of the most common and costly habits smart attorneys fall into: speaking from expertise instead of to understanding. When you forget where your jurors are starting from, you risk losing them before your best material even lands. This episode breaks down how to translate legalese into language that sticks—so your words reach real people, not just legal minds.

LISTEN HERE...

In this episode, you’ll learn:

1. Why “knowing too much” is a communication trap

2. How to speak to jurors using their own words—not yours

3. The difference between showcasing and inviting

4. How to reframe opening statements as acts of hospitality

5. Simple ways to use AI (and your team) to uncover juror-friendly phrasing

6. Why silence in court may be the most powerful move you make

Key Takeaway:

If you want jurors to adopt your case theory, you first have to meet them in their language. You’re not dumbing it down—you’re welcoming them in.

Favorite moment:

“Your opening statement is not a showcase. You’re not just explaining. You’re inviting. It’s a hospitality moment.”

Links & Resources:

1. Get weekly vocal tips delivered to your inbox: https://www.fostervoicestudio.com/contact

2. Love the show? Leave a star-rating and a review

Connect with Me:

1. IG: www.instagram.com/fostervoicestudio

2. FB: www.facebook.com/fostervoicestudio

3. LI: www.linkedin/in/fosterthought

4. Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/fostervoicestudio/

Want more?

Subscribe to Foster Your Voice for weekly episodes on vocal strategy, nonverbal communication, and courtroom connection techniques for civil plaintiff trial attorneys. And if this episode helped you? Share it with a colleague. You might just save a juror’s brain.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hellooooo! Hello, Foster Fam! Gosh, I know i was just with you a week ago, but it seems like so much has been packed into the week that it feels like it's been ages since I made an episode. haha! I'm in a little bit of a time warp, I guess.

So, let me just briefly remind you that adding a star-rating and a review are super easy to do on your podcast app and they have a HUGE impact. So, take just a second to do those for me, pretty-please.

I think I've been in a bit of a time warp because i was traveling last week. Amazing how just going across the country can just throw off your system for a bit and make all your days jumbled. ha!

But last week, I had the immense privilege of speaking at the Class of Our Own Women's Summit — the third annual gathering for plaintiff class action women from across the country. It was held in Nashville, which is an AWESOME city.

The conference was exquisite. The hotel. The programming. The activities. And, most notably, the women I got to know. Heroes. Warriors. Passionate. Committed. Oh...and FUN!

HUGE thanks for Jean Martin, Kelly Hyman, and Dawn McPherson for the invitation to do the featured presentation at the conference. I spoke on "Maximizing Engagement: the WHO and the HOW of Legal Communication." And it was such a joy to see the lightbulbs going on while I was teaching on nonverbal communication throughout legal advocacy, AND so fun to hear the women test out new parts of their vocal range during the rest of the days together.

So fun! And so validating.

And how about those severe thunderstorms!? We had a couple of fun close encounters with tornado warnings. I mean, they rolled in within minutes and caused a bit of kerfuffle. But...never underestimate the ingenuity and flexibility of a group of women attorneys. Inclement weather couldn't hold a candle to them.

So, thank you Class of Our Own for a fabulous conference! Be really proud of yourselves and...keep fostering your voice.

Alright. Let’s talk about a sneaky, frustrating, very human habit that keeps brilliant attorneys from connecting with jurors.

You know too much.

I know, I know—that sounds like a compliment. But it’s a trap. Because when you know too much, you forget what it feels like not to know. You forget where your jurors are starting from.

And if you start your case at your level of expertise, they’ll get lost before you ever get to the good stuff.

So today, we’re going to talk about how to speak so jurors can hear you—how to make your words land where THEY LIVE, instead of where YOU WORK.

Let’s dig in.

First, Your words aren’t wrong. They’re just unreachable.

You might be using the right words—technically. But if they’re not the words your jurors use, they’re not going to stick.

Let’s take an example. One of my clients recently said to me, completely deadpan:

“During discovery, we serve interrogatories—which are written questions the other side must answer under oath—and requests for production of documents. If they fail to respond, or claim their prior submissions are sufficient when they aren’t, we may have to file a motion to compel. And if they still don’t comply, we can ask the court to impose sanctions to force compliance.”

Now—I’m a communication coach, so I’ve heard worse. But I still had to stop him and say, “Look, I know what all that means. But a juror? Their brain is going to check out halfway through ‘interrogatories.’”

So, he tried it again. "During the information-gathering phase of a lawsuit, we send the other side written questions they have to answer truthfully, and we also ask for documents that are important to the case.

If they don’t respond—or they say what they’ve already sent is ‘good enough’ when it’s not—we can ask the judge to step in and require them to cooperate.

And if they still refuse, we can ask the judge to penalize them until they do."

Much better.

Here’s the deal: You have to use the words they would naturally think first.

Not because they’re dumb. But because they’re human.

And humans don’t learn when they’re overwhelmed.

Let me say this gently: This is not the time to show off how smart you are. And that's a hard temptation to fight off, because you've got pompous, high-faluttin' opposing counsel who you would like to show up, and you've got a judge that you'd like to impress, and a team that you'd like to garner respect from.

So, it is REALLY tempting to live in your smarts and use them to let folks know you're in control.

But your opening statement is not a showcase. You’re not just explaining. You’re inviting. It’s a hospitality moment.

Your job is to welcome jurors into this unfamiliar landscape, give them a map, and help them feel smart, capable, and equipped enough to navigate the terrain with you.

That means your first task is not to sound brilliant—it’s to sound clear.

To do that, you need to meet them where they are. Not where you are. Not where your law school brain lives. And definitely not where your case outline starts.

Start with their language. Their concerns. Their curiosities. Their “What does that mean?” faces in voir dire.

And then build from there.

Here’s the beautiful part.

Once someone begins to learn from you, they’ll start to use your words.

That’s what you want, right? Jurors using your terms in deliberations?

That doesn’t happen by dropping those terms on them in the first five minutes. It happens by bringing them into understanding first.

When they trust you—when they feel like you’ve built this bridge with them—they want to use your language. It feels empowering. Like they’ve joined the inner circle.

But you can’t start there. You have to earn it. And that starts with curiosity and careful word choice.

This is one of the most underused tools in your opening. Think back to jury selection. What did your jurors actually say in voir dire? What phrases did they use to describe fairness, responsibility, greed, or truth?

Use those phrases. Not your carefully polished ones. Not your brainstormed list of “themes.”

Use theirs.

This takes humility. It means setting aside some of your premeditated cleverness.

But it’s a form of generosity. It’s hospitality again—letting the juror feel smart, safe, and seen. That’s where buy-in begins.

Let’s be honest: It’s hard to track juror language in real time.

You’re managing witness prep, courtroom dynamics, opposing counsel antics, and maybe the sandwich you forgot to eat.

So don’t be afraid to get help. Use your team, but also, don't be afraid to ask AI. This is a really practical, easy use of AI in a lawsuit.

You can use ChatGPT, for example, to translate legalese into plain language. Or ask it to suggest analogies for complex processes using juror-friendly terms.

You can also build a living document from focus groups. Or better yet—work with a coach like me who’s trained to spot the learning blocks and reframe them for maximum clarity.

One final tip: fight the urge to fill the silence.

Sometimes, when you ask a question or make a statement in court, your brain panics when the jurors don’t respond right away.

But here’s what’s really happening: they’re thinking.

Processing.

Don’t interrupt that.

Embrace the pause.

Trust that they’ll jump back in when they’re ready.

And when they do? They’ll often give you the exact language you can use to make your case resonate even deeper.

So here’s your wrap up, cheat sheet from today:

1. Start where they are—not where you are.

2. Use their language, not your expert terms—at first.

3. Mirror back their words from voir dire.

4. Teach first. Then introduce your “real” terms.

5. Offer hospitality in your phrasing.

6. Use AI, coaching, or focus group feedback to mine great juror-speak.

7. And don’t forget to pause. Silence can be your ally.

That’s it for today.

If this episode made you rethink your opening strategy—or gave you a new way to prep for voir dire—do me a favor: share it with a colleague. Forward the link. Text it to someone mid-trial. Be the reason they don’t say “interrogatories” in opening. You could save a juror’s brain today.

I’ll see you next time.

And remember: Your voice is not a tool of performance—it’s a tool of connection. Use it well.