These processes aren’t about avoiding resolution—they’re about improving it. They help parties and attorneys make smarter decisions, assess risk more accurately, and sometimes, come to resolution after seeing their case in a whole new light.

Let me explain what mock trials and mini trials are, how they differ, and when they make sense as part of a dispute resolution strategy.

What Is a Mock Trial?

A mock trial is a simulation of a real trial—complete with opening statements, witness examinations, exhibits, and closing arguments—but conducted in a controlled and confidential environment. It can be structured as a bench trial or a jury trial, depending on the nature of the case and what the parties want to evaluate.

I’ve conducted mock trials in a variety of formats, each tailored to the specific needs of the case. Some are single-day summaries focused on argument only. Others involve live witnesses, multiple juries, or extensive video playback for internal review. Whether the goal is to test a theory, prepare witnesses, or explore how different jurors perceive the same facts, mock trials allow attorneys and clients to move beyond speculation.

Here’s what a typical mock trial might include:

• A judge (real or simulated) – That may be me, or someone else selected by the parties.

• A jury panel – Often composed of demographically relevant individuals who are screened and retained for the simulation.

• Live or scripted witness testimony – Sometimes attorneys use real witnesses; sometimes they use stand-ins or actors reading prepared statements.

• Opening and closing arguments – Counsel present abbreviated or full versions of their arguments, as they would at trial.

• Jury deliberations – These are often observed via one-way mirror or video feed and followed by debriefing sessions.

• Post-trial juror feedback – Jurors complete questionnaires, discuss their impressions, and provide direct insight into how the evidence and advocacy were received.

Mock trials are particularly useful in large commercial, tort, or employment cases where a jury will ultimately decide liability or damages. They help attorneys test not just their legal theories, but also their storytelling, witness performance, and emotional impact.

And most importantly—they generate data. I’ve seen cases turn entirely based on what a mock jury said. Clients rethink settlement positions. Lawyers adjust themes. Mock trials offer perspective that is often impossible to gain inside your own case team.

When Should You Consider a Mock Trial?

Mock trials make sense in several scenarios:

• High-dollar or high-risk litigation

• Uncertain liability or damages exposure

• Multiple legal theories or fact patterns at play

• Cases involving emotional or controversial issues

• Before mediation or settlement negotiations

• To prepare witnesses for the rigors of cross-examination

• To compare strategies between co-defendants or co-counsel

In short, mock trials aren’t just about persuasion—they’re about calibration. They help align strategy with reality.

As a neutral, I work closely with counsel to design the format and schedule, whether that means structuring it over a single day or stretching it into multiple sessions. I also facilitate post-mock-trial analysis, either by delivering insights directly or coordinating with jury consultants. This isn’t theater—it’s strategy.

What Is a Mini Trial?

A mini trial is something quite different. While a mock trial is about testing your case, a mini trial is about resolving it—especially when the case is complex, entrenched, or headed toward protracted litigation.

In a mini trial, each party presents a condensed version of its case to a panel composed of settlement-authorized decision-makers—often executives, in-house counsel, or other senior representatives—in my presence as a neutral. It’s not a formal hearing, and it’s not binding. But it is serious. The presentations are structured, strategic, and typically supported by key documents, visuals, and witnesses or summaries.

At the conclusion of the mini trial, I do not render a decision. Instead, the parties use the experience—and what they’ve heard from the other side—to negotiate a resolution. Sometimes I remain involved to facilitate that negotiation. Sometimes the parties choose to meet privately. Either way, the process tends to unlock conversations that were previously stalled.

Here’s what a typical mini trial involves:

• Opening presentations by each side (often timed and limited)

• Fact and expert summaries

• Focus on key legal arguments and damages models

• Presentation to decision-makers with authority to settle

• Optional Q&A or clarification between sides

• Private negotiation session afterward (with or without the neutral present)

Mini trials work because they move the conversation away from litigation posturing and toward real-world consequences. They’re especially useful in cases where the parties are both sophisticated and entrenched—cases where mediation alone hasn’t been productive, or where executive-level buy-in is needed to reach settlement.

When Should You Consider a Mini Trial?

Mini trials are best suited for:

• Complex commercial disputes involving multiple stakeholders

• Cases where legal and business issues are intertwined

• Litigation with significant discovery and legal cost exposure

• Disputes where prior negotiation or mediation has failed

• Situations requiring executive or board-level involvement

What makes mini trials powerful is that they force parties to simplify, prioritize, and own their positions. When business leaders hear the case—clearly and without filters—it often reframes the risk and cost-benefit analysis in a way that litigation alone cannot.

Comparing Mock Trials and Mini Trials

Purpose
• Mock Trial: To test case theory, witness presentation, and overall persuasive impact.
• Mini Trial: To facilitate settlement by presenting a condensed version of the case to decision-makers.

Audience
• Mock Trial: Simulated jury or judge.
• Mini Trial: Party representatives with full settlement authority (e.g., executives or general counsel).

Outcome
• Mock Trial: Non-binding feedback and analysis—no settlement expected, but may influence strategy.
• Mini Trial: Non-binding but often leads to negotiation and resolution following the presentation.

Neutral’s Role
• Mock Trial: Acts as judge, manages structure, facilitates juror feedback and post-trial insights.
• Mini Trial: Oversees the process, may assist in post-hearing negotiation if requested.

Best Used For
• Mock Trial: Gaining strategic insight into how a real jury or judge may perceive the case.
• Mini Trial: Breaking through impasse in complex cases, especially when prior negotiation or mediation has stalled.

Expressed simply: Mock trials are diagnostic. Mini trials are strategic. And both are valuable under the right circumstances.

My Role as Neutral in These Processes

As a neutral, my job in both mock and mini trials is to create structure, instill focus, and extract insight. I don’t just observe—I help parties shape the experience so it delivers value.

In mock trials, I often serve as the judge, provide post-trial feedback, and facilitate discussion around the results. I help counsel understand what worked, what didn’t, and what adjustments may be needed. If a jury is used, I help extract qualitative and quantitative data that the parties can take back to their trial teams or negotiation tables.

In mini trials, I help design the schedule, refine presentations, and coach parties on effective communication. After the presentations, I can serve as mediator to help guide the negotiation—or simply stand by as a neutral observer, depending on what the parties prefer.

In both formats, my goal is to bring clarity, focus, and practicality to cases that may otherwise be lost in their own complexity.

A Smart Investment in the Right Cases

Mock trials and mini trials are not for every case. They require preparation, coordination, and investment. But in the right matters—especially those with high stakes, legal uncertainty, or business complexity—they can be game-changers.

They don’t replace trials. They make trials smarter. They don’t replace negotiation. They make negotiation more informed.

And above all, they help parties take control of their disputes—before those disputes take control of them.

If you’re considering a mock or mini trial, or wondering whether these tools might help your client or organization, I’d be happy to talk through the options. When thoughtfully designed and professionally run, these processes can unlock resolution, improve advocacy, and save enormous time and cost.

Let’s think ahead—before the courtroom.