Personality Type and the Law: Judges and Jurors and Lawyers, Oh My!

“The jury’s back.”

Three words that get every trial attorney’s blood pumping. While only a small fraction of cases ever go to trial, the moment of truth for those that do comes when the clerk knocks on the door and makes this announcement.

As a jury consultant for 30 years, enlisted to bring the learnings of personality science to the courtroom, I helped select hundreds of jurors, conducted numerous mock trials, prepped countless witnesses, and survived working for dozens of trial attorneys (which could be its own blog series). In the process, I got to experience the American Justice System up close and personal in a way that few non-attorneys ever do. I’d like to share some of what I learned.     

In a previous blog I talked about how jurors are predisposed by their personality type and temperament to vote for one side or the other – often before they’ve heard any evidence. 

Here, I’ll take a broader look at jurors – what contributions they make, what roles they play in deliberations – before saying a few words about the most important person in any trial: the judge.  

 “When you go to court, you are putting your fate into the hands of 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.” – Norm Crosby.

Funny?...yes? True?...sometimes. Over the years I’ve been asked by friends too many times to recall how to get out of jury duty. Of course, I could tell them, but I never would. The reason? I believe this country asks very little of us…pay your taxes, don’t commit a felony, and show up for a few days every couple of years to perform your civic duty. OK, end of lecture.

But who does end up sitting as a juror? In my experience, the composition of most juries is not representative of the general population and is often heavily influenced by the personality types and temperaments of the people in the pool of prospective jurors.

About 46% of people are Sensing-Judgers – a temperament group I call Traditionalists (ESTJs, ISTJs, ESFJs and ISFJs). 

These folks are typically responsible, dependable, organized, hard-working, productive and detail oriented. I estimate they comprise about 75% of all juries. Why? Because they are extremely responsible and take their civic duties seriously, so they don’t try to get out of serving. 

A jury that is this heavily weighted with Traditionalists has consequences: It is likely to be strongly pro-prosecution in criminal cases, and pro-defendant in civil cases. As with everything else in their lives, Traditionalists approach jury duty conscientiously. They try their level best to follow all the instructions given by the judge and obey all the rules, such as not discussing the case with anyone – including other jurors – until they start deliberating. A Traditionalist may very well be chosen to be the foreperson by the other jurors because he or she is rightly perceived to be solid and steady. If they do become foreperson, you can count on them to run a tight ship: following all the protocols, not wasting time, insisting that all the evidence is carefully reviewed, and making sure the judge’s instructions for deciding the case are “followed to a T.”

The second temperament group is Experiencers (ESTPs, ISTPs, ESFPs and ISFPs) 

These types tend to be fun-loving, playful, casual, adaptable, realistic people who like to live in the moment. Not enamored of or impressed by authority, they cherish freedom and chafe at rules that constrain their actions. While Experiencers make up about 27% of the population, they may or may not represent that proportion on a jury – depending on the case. If the trial looks like it’s going to be a snoozer with a lot of dry testimony that will require jurors to sit for hours paying careful attention to boring testimony, they’re likely to try to get themselves excused. This is especially true if they have something more enjoyable to do. However, if the case promises to be exciting – perhaps a murder trial, or a case where one of the parties is a celebrity – they’re much more likely to decide this would be a good time to fulfil their civic duty.

Experiencers are true to their type deliberating in the jury room. While it does make a difference if they’re an Extravert or Introvert, a Thinker or Feeler, they usually want to get things going, enjoy the experience as best they can and even “stir the pot” if the conversation gets too tedious or complex.

Conceptualizers are the group comprising ENTJs, INTJs, ENTPs and INTPs

They tend to be logical, confident, competent, assertive, intellectual, strategic, and competitive. Only about 10% of the U.S. population, Conceptualizers dominate leadership positions in every field, and may represent as many as 80% of all executives. If they are not the foreperson on a jury, they are certainly always influential. Conceptualizers often make a unique connection with expert witnesses because many of them are also Conceptualizers. When testimony comes down to a battle of the experts, other jurors may unconsciously defer to their Conceptualizer colleagues. 

Conceptualizers learn by debating, so one of their key functions on a jury is to “play the devil’s advocate.” They like and are good at analyzing situations logically, free of emotions. By nature, Conceptualizers value competence and exude confidence. So, they can be very persuasive. We’ve all heard the term “hung jury.”.A jury hangs when it is deadlocked, and the jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict – something they are almost always required to do. Although there is no data to support this, if I were to bet on the temperament of a juror most likely to be the “hold out,” it would be the independent-minded Conceptualizer.

The fourth temperament group is Idealists (ENFJs, INFJs, ENFPs and INFPs) 

They are typically empathetic, perceptive, sensitive, idealistic, compassionate and communicative people. Idealists represent about 17% of the population, but in my experience, it's rare to find them on juries. Why? Because they are usually easy to read – even for attorneys not schooled in psychology and who tend to discount the importance of personality characteristics in jurors. Idealists tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves and often have strong opinions, based on their deeply held values. Since being authentic is a key value of Idealists, they feel compelled to be honest about their beliefs, even if that results in their not being selected to be a juror. Skilled attorneys can often get such jurors excused by the judge “for cause” (they can’t be impartial), or by using one of their limited “peremptory” challenges – which allows attorneys to excuse any juror, for any reason.

Idealists who are selected often play a predictable role in the jury room. They bring humanity into the process, emphasizing the human dynamics of the parties and circumstances. And their intrinsic need for harmony motivates them to try and build consensus and avoid conflict among jurors.

“A jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.”                                       

                                                                                      – Robert Frost.

This statement is also sometimes true. Like every profession, there is a wide disparity in talent. I’ve been privileged to have worked with some truly gifted attorneys and others I wouldn’t be surprised to learn took four tries to pass the Bar exam.

One of my biggest takeaways is how much the lawyers’ personality type influences their performance and success. One of my favorite clients reminded me of Jimmy Stewart. A tall, lean, angular man who appeared much older than his years, Frank (not his real name) frequently shuffled around the courtroom in his rumpled suit in search of one document or another. To describe his appearance as “disheveled” would be a compliment. He sort of stammered like Jimmy Stewart as well, often with several false starts before reaching his destination – a complete sentence. One might suspect that especially Judging type jurors might find this off-putting, since in my experience, everyone wants others to be like them. Organized, Frank was not! 

But he had other qualities. He was kind to witnesses, even those he was cross examining, and respectful and deferential to judges (which they love). And despite his “aw shucks” demeanor – he was sharp as a tack! Jurors rightly perceived Frank’s genuine concern and affection for his clients and they loved him for that. By the way, Frank is an ISFJ.

Tom (also an alias) couldn’t have been more different. Whip smart, always impeccably dressed in crisp, custom-made suits and handmade shirts with monogrammed cuffs, Tom exuded confidence and success. There is no question that Tom was brilliant. But he was a little too brilliant. Because he was so invested in being the smartest guy in the room, he often spoke over jurors’ and others’ heads. As a result, his confidence came across more as arrogance. Tom’s specialty was representing plaintiffs in complex medical malpractice cases. Every new case meant he had to become an expert in yet another subject – the most satisfying aspect of his job as an INTJ.

Initially, Tom resisted my suggestions about how he could communicate more effectively. That changed when he realized that being able to speak others’ language and be more persuasive with different types of people was an important core competency that could help him be even more successful.

 A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.

This is usually true, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the lawyer knows the judge personally, but at least by reputation. Most judges do have a certain reputation and surprise! – it usually reflects their personality type. After all, judges are people before they’re judges with a preferred way of processing information, making decisions, and relating to the world. 

While judges are expected to be impartial, I have been involved in too many trials where this was clearly not the case. Also not surprising: like jurors, judges have predispositions which are influenced by their type. One judge I appeared before years ago in Rhode Island had the nickname “the Ayatollah.” That should tell you all you need to know about how he ran his courtroom.  

As I titled this section, good lawyers do get to know judges as best they can. During my career, I spent countless hours teaching lawyers to “SpeedRead” (understand the motivations of) judges, jurors, opposing counsel and witnesses and then to “SpeedReach” them: communicate on their wavelength and speak their language. It’s not hyperbolic to say that having these skills can make the difference between winning or losing a multi-million-dollar lawsuit or keeping a defendant from going to prison.

My career as a jury consultant was rewarding, but also very stressful. I felt an enormous responsibility to help my clients, many of whom had been seriously injured, or faced long prison terms. But I had absolutely no control over the outcome! Witnesses fell apart on the stand, judges kept the jury from hearing critical testimony, etc. What kept me in the game for so long was knowing that more times than not, I could make a difference. 

I still remember the best compliment I ever received from one of my client attorneys. When asked by a colleague if I was worth my fee, he said: “Paul can’t guarantee an outcome, but he can increase your odds of winning.” Of course, this was music to the ears of this Feeling (ENFP) type.