Qualitative advice is a competitive disadvantage.
Am Law and mid-market firms are increasingly asked to provide quantified risk assessments, predict settlement ranges, and justify litigation strategy against statistical benchmarks. Sophisticated institutional clients including litigation funders, insurers, and public companies do not accept "it depends" when they are making decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars.
The firms that can answer outcome questions with calibrated, jurisdiction-specific data will win mandates. The firms that cannot will lose them. Criterica gives litigation practices the data infrastructure to compete on precision, across every practice area, every judge, and every venue where their clients operate.
Behavioral modeling across verified federal and state judges.
How does this judge rule on motions to dismiss in securities cases? What is the summary judgment grant rate in this venue compared to the circuit average? What is the typical time from filing to decision? Know the bench before you appear.
Quantify the value of forum selection before you file.
Outcome probability differentials across filing jurisdictions for the same case type. Where you file changes what happens. Criterica makes that difference a number, not a professional opinion.
Statistical distribution of outcomes in similar case profiles.
Give clients a calibrated settlement range grounded in the actual outcome distribution of cases with matching characteristics: jurisdiction, case type, case age, and procedural posture. A number, not a range bounded by "it depends."
Pre-filing risk assessment. Post-filing probability updates.
Assess case risk before you file. Track how probability shifts as the case develops through motions, discovery, and pre-trial proceedings. Give clients a data-supported view at every stage of the matter.
Jurisdiction-specific models trained on real court data. Verified judges with behavioral models calibrated on actual rulings across federal districts, circuits, and state appellate courts.