The object of the lawyer when he addresses the jury is to make the convincing impression that the testimony in favor of his client far outweighs the evidence on the other side. He adjures the twelve men before him to "weigh the evidence carefully." He declares the judge will instruct them that in a lawsuit the verdict should be given to the party who has a "preponderance" or greater weight of proof on his side. At this closing stage of the case the lawyer acts as a weighmaster. He wants to make the jurors feel that he has handled the scales fairly, that he has taken into consideration the evidence against him as well as the facts in his favor; and that the preponderance of weight is as he has shown it—so that they will accept his view and gave him the verdict. If he feels a sincere conviction that he is right in asking for a decision on his side, he makes his closing address with the ring of confidence. He looks the jurors in the eye and asks for the verdict in his favor as a matter of right. He does not beg, but claims what the weight of the evidence entitles him to receive.
Treat Your Prospects As Jurors
The jury that will decide on your application when you apply for a position will usually consist of but one man, or will be composed of a committee or board of directors. Treat him or them as a jury. Remember that your capabilities and your deficiencies are on trial. Close your case with the same process the skillful lawyer uses when he sums up the evidence and weighs it before the minds of the jurors. Do what he does as a weighmaster. Avoid making any impression that you are not weighing your demerits fairly, though you minimize their importance; also miss no chance to impress the full weight of your qualifications. The essence of good salesmanship at this stage of the process is skillful, but honest weighing. That means using both sides of the scale, to convince the prospect that the balance tips in your favor. He will not believe in the correctness of the "Yes" weight unless you show the lesser weight of "No" in contrast. Then he cannot help seeing which is the heavier. Decision on the respective weights is only a process of perception.
The Process Of Perception
Let us suppose the employer has asserted the objections that you are not sufficiently experienced to earn the salary you want, and that you don't know enough yet to fill the job. It would be poor salesmanship to try to convince him that you have had a good deal of experience. If you exaggerate the importance of the things you have learned, he almost surely will judge you to be an unfair weighman of yourself. So you should tacitly admit your inexperience and treat the value of experience lightly by reminding him that his business is unlike any other. Then bear down hard on your eagerness to learn his ways and to work for him. Thus you can make him perceive the two sides of the scale as you view them.
Tipping the Balances Your Way
It is possible for you so to tip the balances in your favor, though previously the mind's eye of your prospective employer may have been seeing the greater weight on the unfavorable side. It is legitimate salesmanship to influence the decision of the other man in this way. Your weighing is entirely honest; though you sharply reverse the balances. Certainly you have the right to estimate the full worth of your services, to depreciate the significance of points against you, and to picture your desirability to the prospect as you see it, however that view may differ from his previous conception. If your picture of the respective weights is attractive and convincing, the other man will adopt it as his own and discard his former opinions about you. Not only will he accept the idea of your capabilities that you make him perceive; he also will see that your deficiencies are much less important than he had before considered them.
Beware of a mistake commonly made by applicants for positions who do not understand the art of successfully closing the sale of one's services. When they try to clinch the final decision, they just repeat strongly all their best points. They make no mention of their shortcomings. For dessert, in other words, they serve a hash of the best dishes of previous courses. Is it any wonder that such a close takes away any appetite the prospect may have had?
What would you think of a lawyer who had closed his case by simply reading to the jury all the testimony that had been given on his side, but who had made no reference to the opposing evidence? If you were a juror, would you vote for a verdict in favor of the side so summed up? Of course you would have heard the testimony of both parties to the case, but you would not feel that the lawyer who ignored the evidence against his client had helped you to arrive at the conclusion that he had the preponderance of proof on his side. On the contrary, you probably would be inclined to attach to the opposing evidence greater weight than the facts justified, and would discount whatever the lawyer claimed for his client. You, yourself, would act as weighmaster; and would give the other party to the suit the benefit of any doubt in your mind as to the contrasting weights of the testimony pro and con. The lawyer's failure to weigh all the evidence before your eyes would make the impression on you that his view of the case was unfair to his opponent. If you felt at all doubtful, you would be likely to vote against him in order to make sure that the other side received a square deal.