Discover.
Before the firm commits.
A litigation is only as good as the cases the firm can actually retain. Discovery is the work we run when a firm or fund needs to know whether a docket is worth pursuing — before the marketing budget is committed, before the operating capital is deployed, before the partnership is formed. The question is the same in every case: are the cases out there, at what unit cost, and at what volume.
Four questions.
One capability.
Discovery is not market research. It is operational diligence on whether a specific litigation will produce the case volume a firm or fund needs at the unit economics they require. Law firms and funds come to us with four questions — each capable of making or breaking their investment in a litigation.
Validating a new docket
“Are there enough findable claimants to justify entering?”
A firm or fund evaluating a docket — sometimes a new project a partner has been thinking about, sometimes a legacy docket the firm wants to revisit. The partner does not want to commit a marketing budget to a docket that fails to produce cases at scale.
Capital ready to deploy
“How much budget can the docket absorb before the curve breaks?”
A firm or fund with capital committed and deployment pressure to put it to work. The question is how much of that capital the docket can absorb at acceptable cost per qualified retention, and where the curve breaks.
Litigation without a firm
“Who’s the right plaintiff firm to run this?”
A fund that has identified a litigation but does not have the firm. Some funds have science teams, epidemiologists on retainer, the analytical infrastructure to spot a viable tort early. What they do not always have is the right plaintiff firm to run it. Partners come to us to assess viability and, when the work supports moving forward, to introduce them to litigators we know can run the docket well.
Reactivating existing data
“Can the existing claimant database produce again?”
A partner sitting on existing claimant data. A firm or fund has run marketing on one project and wants to know whether the existing database can be reactivated for an adjacent injury type or a different product within the same audience. The diligence work is on the data — whether a reconnect campaign can sign a meaningful number of leads from what the partner already has, before any new media is committed.
Tested in market.
Real claimants, real cost.
When the question is whether a docket will produce, or how much capital it can productively absorb, we test rather than model. The work begins with sizing the addressable population — who the litigation actually impacts, where they concentrate, and how they are reachable. From there we run live media against the docket — paid search, paid social, and programmatic display — calibrated to the firm’s tier criteria, at the smallest budget that will produce a statistically defensible cost per qualified retention.
The test produces a measured cost per qualified retention against the actual docket, in market, on real claimants. The number is defensible in front of a fund’s investment committee, and predictive of what the full deployment will produce.
That number is delivered in one of two reports. A Docket Viability report answers the entry question — whether the docket is worth running at all. A Deployment Viability report answers the capacity question — how much capital the docket can absorb before unit economics deteriorate.
For the other two questions, the work runs differently. Reactivating existing data begins with the data itself: a structural review of what was captured, what is reachable, what is opted in, and what an adjacent reconnect campaign can realistically be expected to produce. Litigation without a firm runs on a parallel track: viability assessment alongside a deliberate process of identifying plaintiff firms with the docket experience, capital position, and operational discipline to run the project well.
The next step depends on the partner. Some need a detailed document for their investment committee. Others need a proposed marketing strategy and plan. Others need us to assemble more experts to help make the decision.
The empty docket.
Capital deployed, no compensable cases.
The exposure on a poorly chosen docket is not just the marketing budget. It is the operating capital that gets committed alongside it: the litigation team retained, the case management infrastructure scaled up, the partner attention diverted, the months of opportunity cost on the dockets the firm did not pursue instead. Every plaintiff firm has lived through this once. The reasonable ones do not want to live through it twice.
The forecast that initiated the project is rarely wrong on purpose. It is wrong because the model was built on dockets that looked similar but behaved differently, on audience assumptions that did not hold, on cost structures that have shifted since the comparable was run. By the time the actual numbers come in, the capital is already committed, the team is already staffed, and the firm is in the position of either continuing to feed an unproductive docket or absorbing the sunk cost.
Discovery work is what happens before that decision becomes irrecoverable. The partner spends a fraction of what the campaign would have cost, and learns whether the campaign should run at all — or, if it should, at what budget, against which tier criteria, with what realistic volume expectation. The output is a decision the partner can defend. Not a forecast they have to trust.
A working relationship.
Sized to the question.
A discovery engagement opens with a working call — the partner’s team, our discovery lead, the docket on the table. We talk through what the partner already knows, what they think they know, and what would have to be true for the litigation to work. By the end of the call we have a clear picture of the question being asked and what an answer to it would have to look like to be useful.
From there the work runs in parallel tracks. The media testing goes live within days, calibrated against the criteria the firm or fund has set. We pull in the relevant analytical work in parallel — the docket landscape, the claimant universe, the competitive position, whatever the question requires. Throughout, the partner is in the loop on what we are seeing as the data comes in, not waiting on a finished document at the end.
The engagement closes when the partner has the answer they need. For some, that is a structured report and a recommendation. For others, it is a conversation, a working session with the firm’s investment committee, or an introduction to a litigator we know. For the partner sitting on existing claimant data, it may be a live reconnect pilot before any decision about scale is made. The deliverable form is whatever lets the decision get made well.
Start a conversation.
Speak with our team.
If you are evaluating a docket, deploying capital against one, looking for the right firm to run a project you have identified, or considering reactivating an existing claimant database, the conversation starts the same way: a working call with our discovery team, your situation on the table.
Speak with our team