Everyone knows about St. Clair County and South Florida. But the defense teams actually winning in these jurisdictions aren't avoiding them — they're outpreparing the plaintiff bar with data most legal departments don't even collect.
Not on purpose. But when you're getting a narrative summary 90 days after the fact, you're making decisions on stale information. Here's what real-time case intelligence actually looks like — and why the difference matters more than most CLOs realize.
The gap between initial reserves and actual outcomes widened to 340% last year. Verdict data alone doesn't predict exposure — you need performance data, venue data, and attorney outcome data working together. Most companies have one of the three.
The best implementations layer intelligence on top of what you already have. Here's the architecture that actually works — and the one mistake that derails the whole thing.
They picked their ten hardest cases. Ran real data through real dashboards. Within two weeks, they found three cases that should have settled months ago and two attorneys who were consistently underperforming. The math was hard to argue with.
Most companies track spend. A few track cycle time. The ones winning track outcome quality calibrated by case difficulty, venue, and opposing counsel. Here's their scorecard.
The plaintiff bar has gotten scary good at pattern recognition. They know which venues favor them, which adjusters settle fast, and which defense firms fold under pressure. The question is whether you know the same things about your own portfolio.
Weekly intelligence for litigation leaders. Strategy, technology, and the data that matters.