SOLUTIONS
Analysis for Civil Litigation
Empirical analysis helps attorneys and clients evaluate how key facts, evidence, arguments, and legal instructions may affect juror decision-making, liability findings, and exposure to damages.
Civil litigation often turns on uncertainty. Attorneys and clients must make important decisions about settlement, trial strategy, risk tolerance, and resource allocation without knowing how jurors are likely to understand the evidence or respond to competing narratives.
Fair Trial Analysis brings empirical methods to those decisions. Using carefully designed surveys and randomized case simulations, we can test how potential jurors respond to alternative versions of a civil case, including different evidence, arguments, instructions, or liability theories.
The goal is not to replace legal judgment. The goal is to give attorneys and clients better information. Empirical analysis can help identify which facts matter most, how jurors understand the dispute, and whether a change in evidence or framing meaningfully affects the probability of a liability finding or damages award.
This work is especially useful when ordinary intuition is not enough—when a case involves emotionally charged facts, competing accounts of responsibility, unfamiliar legal standards, or substantial uncertainty about how a jury may evaluate risk, fault, causation, or damages.
CASE STUDY
Assessing Civil Liability for Accidental Shooting
How does the victim’s age affect the probability that a homeowner will be found liable for an accidental shooting? Read summary of the liability Analysis.
How It Works
Define the TRIAL CONDITION
Specify the trial condition based on the best available information.
Develop research materials
Prepare a neutral, accurate summary of the trial condition.
Survey jury-eligible respondents
Use a large survey to measure how respondents evaluate liability and/or damages in the case.
Estimate verdict PROBABILITIES
Determine the probability of trial outcomes and/or likely damage award based on individual juror preferences.
Report findings clearly
Present results, uncertainty, and limitations in a format attorneys and researchers can evaluate.
What the Analysis Can Show
Civil litigation analysis can be designed around the practical questions attorneys and clients face as a case develops.
It can estimate how likely jury-eligible respondents are to find a party liable under a given version of the case. It can also compare alternative trial conditions to determine whether a particular fact, document, expert opinion, jury instruction, or argument changes the probability of liability.
The analysis can also reveal how respondents explain their decisions. These comments can help attorneys understand which parts of the case are persuasive, confusing, troubling, or irrelevant to potential jurors.
Depending on the design, the analysis may help answer questions such as:
- How strong is the plaintiff’s liability theory?
- Which facts increase or decrease perceived responsibility?
- Does a disputed piece of evidence materially change juror judgments?
- How do respondents allocate fault among parties?
- Do alternative jury instructions change how respondents apply the law?
- Are damages claims perceived as reasonable, excessive, or unsupported?
- Which case themes are most likely to resonate with potential jurors?
The result is a structured picture of litigation risk: not a prediction with certainty, but an evidence-based assessment of how jurors may respond under defined case conditions.
Who This Helps
This analysis helps civil litigators who need a disciplined way to evaluate case strength, settlement posture, trial themes, and evidentiary disputes. It can support strategic decisions before mediation, summary judgment, trial preparation, or major litigation spending.
It also helps clients who must make consequential decisions under uncertainty. Businesses, insurers, public entities, and individuals often need to understand litigation exposure before deciding whether to settle, continue litigating, or prepare for trial.
For plaintiffs, empirical analysis can help assess whether the theory of liability is likely to be understood and accepted by jurors. For defendants, it can help identify where exposure is greatest and whether specific evidence or arguments materially increase the risk of an adverse verdict.
For funders and public-interest partners, civil litigation analysis demonstrates how empirical methods can improve access to high-quality legal insight. Rigorous jury research should not be limited to the largest commercial cases. A lean, research-driven model can help bring disciplined litigation analysis to matters where fairness, accountability, and informed decision-making matter.
OUR VALUES IN ACTION
Designed for Rigor, Efficiency, and Practical Use
Our values are reflected in our work. It is rigorous enough to withstand serious scrutiny, efficient enough to be used in real cases, and transparent enough for lawyers, courts, researchers, and funders to evaluate with confidence.
Lean by Design
We use a deliberately efficient model so that rigorous empirical work can be conducted without the overhead typically associated with applied survey research.
Transparent and Defensible
Our work is grounded in published research, explicit assumptions, and reproducible methods. The underlying logic and data can be reviewed, replicated, and verified.
Built for Real Cases
The methods are designed for applied use in litigation, not just academic discussion. The goal is to produce analysis that is clear, disciplined, and practically useful.