A mathematical record of what was taken — not an estimate, not a range of guesses, but a forensically defensible calculation with documented methodology designed to survive cross-examination.
Economic damages analysis is only as credible as its methodology. Every step in our process is documented, reproducible, and built to withstand scrutiny from opposing counsel and the bench.
The foundation of any economic damages analysis is the but-for scenario: what would the plaintiff's financial position have been absent the defendant's conduct? We build this baseline using regression analysis against pre-harm historical performance data, applying industry benchmarks where appropriate and controlling for macro factors that would have affected the business regardless of the harm.
The but-for projection is not an assertion — it is a statistically derived estimate with a documented confidence interval. We quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than presenting a single-point figure that opposing counsel can attack as arbitrary.
With the but-for world established, we measure the gap: what the plaintiff actually earned versus what the model projects they would have earned. This involves ingesting and sanitizing all available financial records — revenue ledgers, cost data, tax returns, internal management reports — and constructing a reconciled actual-performance baseline that can be traced to source documents.
Every figure in the damages calculation is tied to a specific document, transaction, or data source. Nothing is estimated without disclosure of the estimation method and its limitations.
The most contested element in economic damages is causation. Defendants routinely argue that a plaintiff's losses stem from market conditions, internal mismanagement, or pre-existing trends rather than the defendant's conduct. We address this directly — using regression and control group analysis to partition the observed performance gap into its causal components and isolating the portion attributable specifically to the alleged harm.
This analysis produces a causally clean damages figure that is defensible under the Daubert standard and separates legitimate arguments about market causation from attributions that the data does not support.
Future damages — anticipated lost earnings, ongoing business value impairment, future medical costs — require present value discounting to reflect the time value of money. We select and document discount rates using established financial methodology: risk-free rates for certain streams, risk-adjusted rates for uncertain ones, with sensitivity analysis showing the range of outcomes across reasonable rate assumptions.
Where personal injury involves lost earning capacity, we integrate actuarial life-expectancy and worklife-expectancy tables and apply wage growth projections grounded in published Bureau of Labor Statistics data rather than unsupported assumptions.
Before delivery, every damages model is subjected to adversarial testing: we run the opposing counsel's most likely challenges through the model and document what happens to the damages figure under each scenario. This produces two outputs — a refined, assumption-tested damages estimate, and a rebuttal framework for the expert witness that anticipates and addresses the most probable lines of attack.
Cases that reach trial do so because both sides believe they have a reasonable argument. The model that survives cross-examination is the one that was stress-tested before it entered the courtroom.
Economic damages analysis applies wherever a party has suffered quantifiable financial harm. Our methodology adapts to the specific evidentiary requirements and causation framework of each matter type.
Lost profits from breach of contract, including the disgorgement of defendant profits where unjust enrichment is at issue.
Revenue and profit losses attributable to operational disruptions — property damage, supply chain failure, wrongful closure.
Back pay, front pay, and lost benefits for wrongful termination, discrimination, and wage-and-hour class actions.
Reasonable royalty calculations, lost profits from infringement, and unjust enrichment models for patent, trade secret, and copyright matters.
Lost earning capacity, medical cost projections, and household services valuation using life-care plan integration and actuarial tables.
Out-of-pocket and benefit-of-the-bargain damages, disgorgement models, and event study analysis for securities fraud matters.
The but-for analysis asks: what would the plaintiff's financial position have been absent the defendant's conduct? We construct this counterfactual using regression against pre-harm performance data, controlling for market factors, and project it forward using statistically grounded growth assumptions. The gap between but-for and actual performance is the basis for the lost profits claim.
Typically: financial statements and tax returns for a sufficient pre-harm period (usually 3–5 years), transaction-level revenue data, cost records, and any available information about the industry or comparable companies. We will specify exactly what we need after an initial review of the matter and tell you where gaps in the record will create assumption risk in the model.
Our methodology is built around Daubert compliance: all techniques are established in the peer-reviewed economic and statistical literature, all assumptions are disclosed and documented, and the analysis is peer-reviewable and reproducible. We structure the damages report to anticipate Daubert challenges and address each element of the reliability standard directly.
Yes. We engage on both sides of the table. On the defense side, our work typically involves critiquing the opposing expert's methodology, identifying assumption vulnerabilities, and constructing alternative damages scenarios that the trier of fact should consider. The standard of rigor we apply is identical regardless of which side retains us.
Depending on the complexity of the matter and the completeness of the financial record, an initial damages analysis typically takes 3 to 6 weeks from receipt of materials. Expedited timelines are available for matters with trial dates or summary judgment deadlines. We are experienced working under discovery schedules and will communicate directly with lead counsel on timeline constraints.
A written damages report in a format suitable for expert disclosure, supporting Excel workbooks with full calculation transparency, an exhibit package formatted for deposition or trial use, and a methodology memorandum documenting the statistical and econometric techniques applied. All source data, intermediate calculations, and model inputs are retained and made available for production upon request.
The numbers matter. So does the methodology behind them. Reach out to discuss your matter and how our quantitative approach can strengthen your position.