Final answer:
While Carissa's negative experience with a jury consultant led her to decide against using one again, within the wider legal industry, hiring jury consultants is considered an ordinary practice, especially in complex cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
When it comes to the expenses involved in legal proceedings, the term ordinary is often referred to within the context of what is typical or customary for a given profession. Carissa, being a lawyer, made the decision to hire a jury consultant, which for her was a first-time experience, but it didn't yield the desired outcome. Despite her personal disappointment with the outcome, the use of jury consultants is quite common in complex legal cases, especially those involving significant sums of money or property where the perceptions and biases of the jury can greatly influence the outcome.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury in civil cases, reinforcing the fact that jury trials are a central part of the American legal system. Lawyers utilize jury consultants to understand how jurors may view the case and to shape their arguments accordingly. While Carissa's single experience with a jury consultant resulted in a loss, and hence she personally may not see it as an ordinary expense in the future, within the legal industry at large, such consultants are indeed an ordinary and often necessary expense to help navigate the complexities of jury trials.
Given the high stakes in significant civil or criminal cases, employing the expertise of a jury consultant can be considered an ordinary aspect of legal practice, even though individuals like Carissa may decide based on their experiences whether to use such services again. Because of the frequency of their usage and the recognition of their role in assisting lawyers to effectively communicate with juries and understand biases, the cost of hiring a jury consultant is generally seen as an ordinary business expense for many legal practitioners.