We Built the Data-Fueled Crystal Ball.
See the verdict before the trial begins.
Trial law is often described as a game of chance. We disagree.
While no one can predict the future with 100% certainty, we can model it with unparalleled clarity. We strip away the guesswork to reveal the most likely outcomes.
Guessing at value, trusting your gut to decide which theories to pursue, or rolling the dice with make-or-break strategy decisions is dangerous. And it is unnecessary.
We live by a simple rule: Don’t guess.
Clients deserve data-informed decision-making.
Contact us to talk about how we can help.
The Methodology
Phase 1: The Foundation (The Database) “The World’s Deepest Well of Juror Data.” We possess the largest repository of juror behavior ever accumulated. This is a library of human psychology that informs all we do. Often, we before we ever run a study, we have information about how it can be improved, based on a decade of studying cases.
Phase 2: “Simulation, Not Speculation.” We test your specific case against reality. By recruiting large panels of mock jurors and showing them your best case and your opponent’s – we turn over every stone.
We often say, “After three or four-hundred jurors, there are no more secrets.” Lawyers know what is working. They know what isn’t. Then good lawyers can make great decisions, based on rock-solid data.
Phase 3: The Report: We provide the data in a precise, powerful, and complete report. This is information the other side doesn’t have and can’t buy.
Case Studies
CASE 1: Glenwood Springs, Colorado
We studied a case in Glenwood Spring, Colorado, a city of a little less than 10,000 people. Glenwood Springs has two claims to fame: hot springs and an amusement park. The amusement park is the biggest employer, and the county skews conservative.
There had never been a seven-figure verdict.
The amusement park failed to ensure a little girl was properly belted into a ride. She fell over 100 feet and died.
The defense contested liability and punitive damages, but there was another “defense” they relied on even more. They reasoned that even if they lost, in a venue like this, the verdict would not be very high.
We studied the case multiple times. The attorneys did workdays with Sean Claggett and Geordan Logan. Those days were rooted in the data.
The data suggested the appropriate damage request. The attorney was understandably worried it was too high. He was tempted not to mention it in voir dire or ask for it in closing. We all encouraged him to trust the data.
And he did.
He asked the jury for $300 million.
The data predicted a total verdict of $150 million. We must admit, the data was off. The real verdict was $205 million.
What would this case have been worth without data? How many lawyers would have settled it for $5-10 million? How many more would have received $15 million and bragged about it?
Good lawyering. Workdays. Big data. That was the winning combination.
CASE 2: New Mexico
This case was tried in one of the poorest counties in the United States. This was not a venue for big verdicts.
A large company in charge of vetting foster homes let a little girl be placed in a foster home with a history of abuse. She was sexually abused. The company lied to the State, tried to influence the outcomes of investigations, and destroyed documents.
The defense said the little girl had been abused before and after the foster home. They argued that she was recovering and doing better. And they argued that even if they lost, a verdict in this county couldn’t be too big.
But the data told a different story. The data taught that a low verdict – one from the bottom 25% of jurors – was still over $50 million. It taught that the jurors most prevalent in this venue, far from decreasing value, maintained it or even increased it.
The data predicted a verdict of just over $500 million. The verdict: $485 million.
What would this case have settled for without data? How much would most attorneys have suggested to a jury?
CASE 3: Medical Malpractice in Rural Pennsylvania
This was a medical malpractice case in rural Pennsylvania. It was during COVID in 2020. It was in a very conservative venue. Liability was far from given. The county had never yielded a big verdict.
We studied the case. The data told some interesting stories. For example, it taught that focusing on the doctor, even though he made some egregious mistakes, wasn’t the right path. Instead, it was better to focus on the hospital’s deficiencies, and to explain the doctor was another victim of a poor system.
The data also suggested that the venue, far from being bad because it contained conservative, Trump jurors, was better than average. Trump jurors are often believed to be bad for plaintiffs. But stereotypes like that aren’t true, and relying on them is a dangerous shortcut.
So, we told the attorney the case was worth $10.89 million. He tried it. The verdict was $10.8 million.
Data answers questions. It avoids our gut, our intuition, or just plain guessing.
