Attorneys prepare to adapt as Gen Z shakes up the courtroom 

By Kallie Cox

Some attorneys remain divided on how a new generation will impact the jury pool, but many agree that Generation Z, the first generation to have nearly ubiquitous access to technology, will make an unprecedented impact on jury trials.

Attorneys across the Carolinas shared their views on how the latest generation of jurors will affect their practice, and what they plan to do about it.

Some of the experts Lawyers Weekly spoke with believe Gen Z is cynical, with short attention spans and an unflinching desire to hold companies accountable to the tune of massive judgements.

Others argue that the generation maintains a higher level of civic responsibility and engagement than their parents and those who came before them, making them more likely to show up and engage in jury duty.

But many agree that growing up with unfettered access to emerging technologies such as social media and artificial intelligence has made Gen Zers skeptical, wary of authority, visual learners, and has resulted in shortened attention spans.

Attention in the jury box

Gone are the days when a lawyer could shuffle before a jury with a stack of files and speech laced with legalese, spending hours trying to prove a point.

Jody McKnight of the McKnight Law Firm in Mount Pleasant said that Gen Zers— those born between 1997 and 2012—are influenced by social media and have developed lower attention spans after being raised on screens where information is rapidly presented.

“Kids don’t read like they used to,” he said. “They process data quickly. They don’t waste time. They’re very quick to look at something.”

Geri Fischman, founding partner and senior trial consultant with Florida-based Focus Litigation Consulting, agrees that a different approach is necessary to connect with Gen Z jurors. Focus Litigation frequently holds focus groups and mock trials to conduct jury research.

While Fischman said it is important not to stereotype entire generations, the company’s research suggests that Gen Zers expect to be presented with information differently than older jurors.

“A lot of the changes that we’re seeing with this particular generation have less to do with like, their values, beliefs and attitudes (…) It’s not so much about those types of value beliefs,” she said. “What we’re seeing is vast differences in the way they expect trial procedure to happen.”

This is less about the actual evidentiary procedures, and more about the way they expect attorneys and witnesses to present the case to them, Fischman said, adding that unlike their older counterparts who tend to favor slow, steady narrative, younger jurors absorb information quickly and prefer the information to be straightforward and easily digestible.

“It means if the attorney gets up there in their opening statement and it’s overly long, or repetitive, or didactic, and they’re like preaching to jurors, or it’s convoluted, these Gen Zers will not respond well,” she said. “They’ll either tune out, or they will discredit the attorney, and then start discrediting the evidence that the attorney is presenting.”

Kristi Harrington, senior trial consultant with legal strategies company First Court, said shifts in the way Gen Z is absorbing the news are directly connected to how they process evidence in the jury box. There isn’t a set time that the generation sits down to watch the news or read the paper. Instead, they are more likely to obtain their news from a trusted individual they have personally vetted on social media.

“I think that (how) that is translating to a juror sitting in a jury box, is they’re trying to make sense of what’s happening in a limited context,” Harrington said. “So, they’re trying to filter out some of the noise that they’re able to automatically filter out through their social media platforms.”

Gen Z also responds well to visual evidence, Fischman said, based on the company’s mock trials. This doesn’t mean award-winning presentations or elaborate reconstruction videos, but infographics that are straightforward and easy to digest.

“They don’t want all these bells and whistles that look like the lawyers are trying to overcompensate for something else,” she added. “It makes them feel a little bit suspect of the team, and thereby the case.”

Based on scenarios she has seen in mock trials, Harrington said Gen Z is also more likely to trust video evidence than an eye-witness account. If there is no video evidence in a case, they assume somebody is hiding something.

“Gen Z has grown up seeing not just one video of an event, but multiple perspectives,” she said. “It’s just beyond comprehension not having video when video cameras are ubiquitous.”

Shifts in the jury box are not necessarily tied to specific generations, but rather to advancing technology, according to Kearns Davis, a partner with Brooks Pierce in Greensboro and Raleigh, North Carolina. He noted that those who are now becoming eligible from an age standpoint for jury duty were born after the invention of the iPhone.

“We have young jurors who are used to being shown, not just told,” he said. “They weren’t raised on radio. They were not even raised on TV. They were raised in the digital world.”

That said, Davis believes the new protocol applies to more than Gen Zers, saying that older generations are more sophisticated than they once were and that everyone consumes more visual, efficient media.

“We don’t have as long presentations of things in the media as we once did,” Davis said. “And as lawyers, we have to be aware of that. Not just with respect to a particular generation, but with respect to the entire jury pool.”

Fischman believes that the shift from Generation X to millennials was mostly about attitude, but not that it fundamentally changed how jurors processed evidence or arguments in the courtroom. She said the Gen Z transition feels more structural.

“What stands out with this group is not just what they believe; it is how they take in information, how they react to persuasion, and how they handle cognitive overload,” she said. “On some level, the change is less about the substance of the case and more about the process through which they understand it.”

Questioning authority

Davis finds that Gen Zers are more suspicious of large institutions, including the government, than their predecessors, something he believes is particularly important in criminal cases.

Fischman noted the shift millennials made from Gen X in their attitudes towards institutions as they became more skeptical of those in power. Some see similar distrust of authority figures in Gen Z.

Because of this mindset, Fischman believes that attorneys need to take a different approach when presenting unfavorable evidence. She said that authenticity and transparency are the “keys to the castle” when presenting to younger jurors, advising lawyers that before jurors decide whether they trust evidence, they decide whether they trust the lawyer.

“If there’s a weak spot in your timeline, acknowledge it and explain it,” she said. “If there’s a document or statement that does not help your side, bring it up yourself and put it in context before the other side turns it into a surprise.”

This skepticism toward authority shouldn’t be confused for cynicism, said Davis, who believes jurors are simply applying realism and critical thinking to authoritative institutions.

Harrington noted there is also tension between legal and moral reasoning with this generation. Coupled with a disconnect between the actual worth of a case and the unreal sums of money they witness on TV—between sports contracts, CEO salaries, and in the lottery—this can lead to nuclear verdicts.

McKnight agreed and said this generation is more likely to be willing to agree to punitive damages for a corporation found guilty of wrongdoing.

“Now, people aren’t anchored by their own experiences,” he said. “So, asking for $10 million today to punish a big corporation is not like it used to be, asking for that same amount years ago.”

The ‘fairness guru’ generation

Emily Coward, senior lecturing fellow and director of the Inclusive Juries Project at Duke University, said Gen Z seems to be more enthusiastic about showing up for jury duty.

“The sense I have is that it’s a pretty civically engaged generation,” she said.

Coward is also hopeful that the new generation will help decrease racial disparities that have historically been seen in juries. She believes that Gen Z has a unique perspective and hopes the socially conscious generation will help incorporate its voice into the justice system.

“My understanding is that this generation is about 49 percent people of color, and I really think that could have a tremendous impact on just broadening the perspectives of who gets to decide really important issues in our justice system,” she said.

Coward suspects Gen Zers will significantly affect the process of jury duty because they are less likely to tolerate archaic legalese and are more vocal about mental health and the impact of disturbing evidence shown in court.

“I also think that it’s an opportunity for courts to think about updating and modernizing the way that they engage with jurors and with the population, with the public as a whole,” Coward said.

Fischman is also hopeful of the generation’s approach to fairness.

“They’re sort of the self-proclaimed ‘fairness guru’ generation,” Fischman said. “I think there’s a strong push for (…) just outcomes and really digging into the details to determine what that is.”

Even as times change and the jury box evolves with it, Davis isn’t cynical. As the parent of three Gen Zers, he is optimistic about what the generation adds to society, including a love for the world they’re in.

“They want to help to steer it in a positive direction for everybody, and it’s important to them to do that,” Davis said. “It’s important to them that their work, that their lives, be in service of that. And I think they do, and will as a generation, bring that into the jury box.”