By some metrics, fewer than 1% of all civil cases filed in the federal courts in the United States go to trial. Thus, even the most seasoned civil litigators may not actually bring cases to trial with any frequency. Even for those litigators who appear before juries and benches more often, there can sometimes be tricks of the trade that are overlooked in the midst of a busy schedule.

Most civil litigators know the parameters of the rules of evidence and rules of civil procedure, even if they do not regularly take cases to trial. But focusing only on those rules may hamstring a lawyer preparing for a big trial. Here are some insider tips for things that lawyers may not know about taking cases to trial.

What are the Court Policies?

Lawyers taking a case to trial should seek out any specific rules of the judge or the court that are unique to trial. Many judges or courts have guidelines for trial preparation and appearance, such as deadlines prior to the trial for lawyers to submit hard copies of all their exhibits or to set up all technical assistance.

If lawyers don’t review those rules, they may not be aware of the deadlines—and may experience the judge’s wrath.

Some courts also have specific policies about whether the lawyers or parties are permitted to speak to the media during trial. The rules of professional conduct also often address speaking to the media. For example, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, called Trial Publicity, restricts lawyers from making statements about litigation matters “that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know… will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” However, lawyers are permitted by the rules of professional conduct to respond to publicity, where not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client, in order to protect a client.

But, if a judge imposes a gag order or has other restrictions on whether the lawyers may speak to the press, the exceptions in the rules of professional conduct may not provide sufficient cover. The better step is to follow the rules of the court regarding media publicity.

Screening Jurors

A significant step in trial preparation is selecting a jury. Each courtroom may have different rules about how to screen jurors. Some judges will conduct the voir dire themselves, using questions submitted by the parties. Others will set a limit for how long lawyers will be permitted to question the potential jurors or will only permit the parties to submit written questions for the jurors’ review. One helpful tip can be for lawyers new to a jurisdiction (or new to trial) to observe the court’s juror selection preferences in person.

Some litigators rely on jury consultants to conduct research into a specific jurisdiction to help put together a jury, but lawyers can use their own systems, too. It helps to be organized. Some courts will release the juror rolls ahead of the voir dire process, which allows lawyers to analyze the pool and make decisions about which jurors might be a good fit.

TV or movies may suggest that voir dire is the opportunity to ask difficult or “gotcha” questions of the jury pool. But it’s helpful to remember that for courts where lawyers conduct the voir dire directly, it is also the first opportunity for the jurors to observe the lawyers up close. A lawyer who is rude or aggressive in voir dire may turn off jurors, impacting the whole case.

Another tip is for lawyers to determine whether they are permitted to talk to the jurors after the verdict. Some jurisdictions allow lawyers to approach jurors after the case and ask them questions about what led them to their verdict. This can be extremely helpful feedback on things like witness credibility, the jurors’ view of the facts and which legal strategies paid off. It can also sometimes be hard to hear a juror say that they didn’t view as important a piece of evidence that the lawyer viewed as the most critical to the case.

Lawyers may not be aware that this is an option to get real-time direct feedback on their case. But if the jurisdiction does not permit lawyers to speak to or approach jurors, even after the case, lawyers can get in trouble. Check the rules.

Professional Judgment Rule

Trial lawyers often have their own styles in taking a case to trial. Each day in the courtroom presents many opportunities to make judgment calls about strategy, such as whether to object to evidence, whether the lawyer’s arguments are irritating the judge or whether to call certain witnesses to testify.

Much of this comes down to the specific circumstances of the case, the goals of the representation and the lawyer’s judgment. Many states recognize the professional judgment rule (also known as the judgmental immunity rule). This provides that lawyers will generally not be liable for legal malpractice arising from the reasonable exercise of their professional judgment—even if that judgment turns out in hindsight to be the wrong step.

This is not a rule that protects against actual errors or breaches of the standard of care, but recognizes that reasonable lawyers could disagree over the “best” strategy. This issue is apparent at trial, when lawyers may need to react in the moment to certain developments or make gut decisions on how best to present evidence in light of the shifting dynamics of the case. To help rebut later allegations that the lawyer’s judgment in trial was not exercised reasonably, it can be beneficial for lawyers to try to document their trial plan or explain certain strategies to the client (and why the lawyer recommends them).

However, this rule isn’t a substitute for running big strategic issues past the client to ensure that they agree on decisions being made. Even for lawyers who do not regularly engage in trial practice, these tips can help bridge the gap.