Art-Iculating the Analysis: Systemizing the Decision to Use Visuals as Legal Reasoning

Say it with Images: Drawing on Jerome Frank’s Ideas on Judicial Decision Making

“…Although there are an increasing number of studies on images in judicial opinions [e.g. 2,3,9,10,15,16,18,19] and on related, but mostly more general issues [1,5,12,17,18,[20][21][22], the subject matter still remains outside of the mainstream of legal academia. Nevertheless, the recent scholarship provides a useful tool for reconstructing the dominant ways in which the practice has been conceptualized.…”

“…Johansen and Robbins give general advice on whether or not to use "visuals as legal reasoning" [12]. To this end, they point out three criteria: "enhancing the reader's comprehension of the analysis", "the document's overall design" and "meeting professional norms".…”

“…Porter frequently uses phrases such as: "image-driven advocacy", "new digital advocacy", "visual argument", "visual persuasion", "visual tools of persuasion", and "visual advocacy" [19]. Johansen and Robbins dwell on "visual persuasion" [12] and Murray elaborates on the general category of "visual legal rhetoric" [17,18].…”

Flowcharts, Swimlanes, and Timelines

“…Visual communication is a rather novel proposition, and its possibilities have not yet been sufficiently explored empirically and theoretically. But legal scholars predict a greater use of visual elements in the future because lawyers and judges increasingly peruse legal documents on screen rather than on paper and can more easily create and include multimedia elements in documents without significant costs (Johansen & Robbins, 2015; Porter, 2014). Apart from technology, the plain language movement is also challenging the monopoly of text, as the goal is not writing per se but communicating clearly.…”

“…Legal scholars such as Murray (2015) have welcomed a greater use of visual communication in law as a way to help bridge cultural, language, and literacy gaps between legal experts and clients, jurors, and decision makers. Judge Posner (2013) and Chief Judge McKee (Johansen & Robbins, 2015) called for more lawyers to use visuals in legal briefs, and Rosman (2013) suggested at least seven ways in which visual elements can improve a brief’s clarity and factuality (e.g., by explaining a rule, showing a case procedural history, illustrating the relationships between the parties). Of course, the legal interpretation and enforceability of visual language is an open issue, but solutions have been proposed: For instance, recognizing that visuals (just like text) are rhetorical devices, courts could adopt rules for use and interpretation inspired by the ethical codes of photojournalists (Porter, 2014).…”