The Psychology of Persuasion with Rogge Dunn

Rogge Dunn knows a thing or two about getting people to see things his way. He’s been a trial attorney for over 35 years, where the art of persuasion is a large part of the equation. Dunn uses every tool in his vast toolbox to convince judges and juries that his version of events is the rightful one. His deep passion for psychology has kept him at the forefront of the field for all of these years.

A self-described, “self-taught psychologist,” Dunn believes that understanding the science of human behavior is the most powerful tool he has on hand. Every month, Dunn researches and writes an article about the psychology of persuasion in D CEO Magazine. An exercise that ensures he keeps up on the latest research in the field, a routine that keeps Dunn sharp in the art himself.

Dunn founded The Rogge Dunn Group and has achieved deep success in building his own firm, a boutique of trial lawyers in Dallas who primarily handle financial, business and employment related disputes.

In addition to his psychological acumen and finely honed courtroom skills, Dunn loves the stage of a courtroom and excels at the art of storytelling – the pauses, the gestures, the art of approaching the bench – and techniques like “accidentally” leaving a blow-up in front of the podium for longer than it needs to be there. But in the end, Dunn maintains that the true secret to his success is a love of helping people.

“If you care about helping people,” Dunn says, “if you take care of your clients and you care – everything else is going to take care of itself.”

Dunn has earned a spot on both The Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers and The Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers guides.

Lawdragon: Could you describe your mix of practice for our readers?

Rogge Dunn: I have a varied practice and I specialize in trial law. I represent individuals in the financial industry space – both financial advisors and firms. Everything from transitioning teams, to regulatory issues, interfacing with the FINRA authorities and assisting FAs who have been accused of regulatory violations, to non-competes, promissory notes, suing for wrongfully forfeited deferred compensation and wrongful discharge. I handle breach of partnership agreements, fiduciary duty and a variety of other business disputes. I've handled more than 40 death cases.

LD: Truly runs the gamut.

RD: What has helped me be successful is I'm not a specialist, but I've worked on a variety of cases in more than 30 states nationwide. I learn one perspective from a New York lawyer and a different perspective from a Mississippi lawyer. I'm able to take those lessons and put them in my toolkit and pull them out and use them as appropriate for a particular jury.  I'm a bit of an odd duck in that I do both plaintiff and defense work. So while my primary work is on the plaintiffs’ side, I grew up doing defense work and I still do some. The lawyers who are all plaintiffs’ lawyers or all defense lawyers tend to wear blinders. When you do both sides, you know how the other side thinks because you've been there. That gives me a unique education and experience.

LD: Was that strategic on your part, to understand both sides like that?

RD: No, it happened organically. I truly believe that being an attorney is an incredibly wonderful position to be in because you can really make an impact on people's lives. I started with Thompson & Knight (now Holland & Knight), a traditional corporate defense firm. About five years into my practice, one of my students' wives was employed by the city of Greenville and they called and said, "We have a discrimination case against the city of Greenville, and the city offered a very low settlement. We don't think it’s enough money.” I told them I had never handled an employment case, I didn't even take employment law in law school, but based on what they had told me – the city of Greenville was wrong. So I said I’d do it on contingent fee. So I took over the case. One of my clients was African American and in this case, you had to prove intentional discrimination – and that's hard to do. Well, I stumbled across an old postcard with a picture of a sign from the city of Greenville. “This sign was proudly displayed at city hall until 1985 – Welcome to Greenville, the blackest land, the whitest people.”

The lawyers who are all plaintiffs’ lawyers or all defense lawyers tend to wear blinders. When you do both sides, you know how the other side thinks because you've been there.

LD: Oh wow.

RD: This was back in the ‘80s. It was literally taped into my legal brief, it wasn't an electronic image. I got them four times what had been offered without ever taking a deposition. As they say, the rest is history. I truly enjoyed helping those individuals. I also prosecuted a case for a licensed vocational nurse making $40,000. Her boss was a black belt in karate, and he was bullying her. I won her over $1M and we were both crying after the verdict. She said, "Rogge, you keep all the money. I just wanted vindication." I said, "No, Patty, this is your money." You don't get that level of satisfaction from representing corporations – it's just money to them.

So that was the genesis of my gravitation to the plaintiff side, and I've never looked back. I still have some Fortune 500 corporate clients. Probably 20 percent of my practice is still for corporate defendants, but they’ve got to be good corporate citizens. I'm at the stage of my career where I could retire, so I've got to like them. I'm able to pick and choose my clients.

LD: Can you tell us about some big wins you’ve had that stand out?

RD: I won $58M in New Orleans involving the New Orleans Fairgrounds racetrack fire – that is the highest products liability verdict ever in Louisiana. Then I won $7.9M against Goldman Sachs in Los Angeles, which broke my record for the largest wrongful discharge verdict against Goldman Sachs. I helped a West Point graduate win under USERRA – which is that law that protects military men and women if they serve in the military, the reserve or the guard if they are discriminated against. That case was extremely rewarding to help one of our veterans vindicate his rights.

LD: What made you first decide to become a lawyer?

RD: I took a speech class my sophomore year of high school, and the last module of that class was debate – and I loved debate. If there was a professional debating circuit, I'd do that for a living. That was when I decided I wanted to be a trial lawyer. I buckled down and started making really good grades.

My dad was an alcoholic, so there was no money to go to college. I had to work through high school and college, and I was able to get an academic scholarship and a work study at SMU, and then I worked while going to school, and that's how I got through school.

LD: Do you remember what kind of jobs you had back then?

RD: Hell yeah. I started sacking groceries the day I turned 16 at Kroger. Then I had a courier job where school got out at 4:00 PM and I drove a courier route from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM Monday through Friday, and then Saturday mornings 8:00 to noon. So that was pretty intense. I had my own lawn business in college.

LD: No kidding. When did you decide to start your own firm?

RD: I was a senior partner at Cozen & O'Connor. Too many conflicts prevented me from helping people I wanted to represent. I wanted the freedom of a boutique firm. 

LD: What do you like about being a generalist?

Being an attorney is an incredibly wonderful position to be in because you can really make an impact on people's lives.

RD: My job is to take something that's complex and broad-based and boil it down so the jury, judge or arbitrator can understand it. To communicate it in an effective manner. A good trial lawyer will tell you, you don't need more than 10 or 15 documents to win a case. I know how to avoid information overload. Every month I write on psychological persuasion techniques. Have you ever heard of The Jam Experiment?

LD: I don't think so.

RD: This great professor out in California did a study. They went to an Epicurean market – it had mustards from Germany and jams from England and all these overpriced specialty items. They did an experiment over two days where they set up two tables. One table had four different jars of jam, and the other table had 24 different jams. Which table do you think sold more?

LD: Tell me.

RD: Table one! The one with 24 bottles of jam attracted more attention, but table one, the one with fewer jams, made more in sales. When you give people too many choices, they become overwhelmed. It's called information overload – they say forget it, that's too complicated and walk away.

That's a mistake lawyers make – they give 10 reasons why their clients should win. No! Boil it down to four key essential reasons or the jury will likely quit listening. That's how you're going to persuade them. That's an example of what I bring to the table – the thoughtfulness, and the psychological aspect. I've participated in more than 40 mock trials around the country. I've learned from some of the best PhD jury consultants. When you're negotiating with a lawyer who has a lot of heads on the wall and experience going to trial, your client gets a better deal because they know you're not afraid to go to trial.

LD: Could you describe your style in the courtroom?

RD: I try to keep it dynamic. Jurors are used to watching these shows on TV where a two-week trial is shown in 30 minutes of airtime, and there's a lot of surprises and quirks. So I try to keep things exciting. A lot of lawyers now are foolishly using only one-dimensional PowerPoints. I think that's a huge mistake – I like three dimensional exhibits. I prefer things that you can hold in your hand and you can keep with you and show the jury throughout the trial.

I try to interact with the jury. The worst thing you can do is stand there with your hands locked onto the podium. I keep it active, make eye contact, and I use some PowerPoint, but I prefer to have a good mix of multimedia with three-dimensional exhibits. I once used a blowup and I put it in front of my podium when I finished speaking. The other side didn't take it down. It was sitting there staring the judge and the jury in the face for the first hour and a half. Little things like that can make a difference.

LD: Do you know how your interest in these psychological aspects of jury engagement came about? Can you pinpoint that?

RD: It started when I began working with jury consultants. I regret majoring in English and economics. If I had to do it all over again, it would've been pure psychology. So I'm a self-taught psychologist. The PhDs got me interested in the psychology of persuasion.

LD: You and your wife are very involved in charitable causes. Is there one or two that you find especially meaningful?

RD: I bought the maquette from the first Jurassic Park movie, it's one ninth size. It was the very first T-Rex used in the very first Jurassic Park, and I donated that to the Perot Museum, which is one of our favorite charities. Also Frontiers of Flight Museum – my wife and I donated money for a tower and they display part of my poster collection.

That's a mistake lawyers make – they give 10 reasons why their clients should win. No! Boil it down to four key essential reasons or the jury will likely quit listening.

LD: What inspires you about museums in particular?

RD: The Perot Museum is focused on education for children. I've always thought it was a wonderful museum and I used to be on the legal committee there. And then, I love airplanes and they do a lot of STEM work for kids at the Frontiers of Flight Museum, where I am on the board. So that's certainly something that I enjoy. They also do a lot to honor veterans, which is a cause near and dear to our hearts. My wife's dad saw combat duty in Korea and my dad was a Korean War vet as well.

LD: Wow. And your kids – are any of them lawyers now?

RD: No lawyers, thank goodness. I would discourage anybody from taking this path. It's very time intensive and certainly litigation is stressful.

LD: Kind of takes over your life, doesn't it?

RD: It does. There is a phrase from the 1600s, “The law is a jealous mistress.” And it's true, if you're good, and you give a shit.

LD: Right. You really have to love it.

RD: You have to. Or you're going to turn to alcohol or depression or whatever. If you don't love litigation, I don't know how you could handle it.

LD: So you clearly love it. Is that the key to your success?

RD: Probably the biggest key to my success is that I care about helping people. You've got to be client focused. If you have a different agenda, maybe you're not right for this business.