Expert designation or trial date inside 21 days? Call (213) 245-1232 — we triage rush matters first.
Pay an invoice
(213) 245-1232 Rush / 21-day Check Conflicts & Availability →
Home/Attorney resources

Attorney resources

Tools you can use on a case today, whether or not you ever retain us. Nothing here is gated — no email, no form, no download wall.

Open the exposure estimator → Ten questions for your expert
Exposure estimator Ten questions for your expert Cross-examining the economist Before you call Retain →
Interactive

Wage & hour class exposure estimator

An order-of-magnitude range for evaluation and mediation planning. Runs entirely in your browser — nothing is transmitted, nothing is stored, no email required.

Estimate class exposure

Adjust the assumptions. The range updates live.

1.20 /wk
0.80 /wk
0.50 hrs/wk

25%

What this is not. A screening tool, not an opinion. It assumes every violation shown is established, that the employer is liable, and that penalties attach — none of which the tool can know. Real exposure depends on the governing state law, which pay components belong in the regular rate, the derivative-claim structure, whether the PAGA amendments apply, and what the punch data actually shows. Use it to decide whether a matter is worth a call — nothing more.

Indicative total
$0
Wages and premiums only: $0
With penalties, as assumed: $0
Meal period premiums$0
Rest period premiums$0
Unpaid overtime$0
Waiting time § 203$0
PAGA — post-reform$0

Get a defensible number →

Nothing entered above is transmitted or stored.

How each line is calculated. Meal and rest premiums: one hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation per violation, capped at one meal and one rest premium per workday — Lab. Code § 226.7(c), Ferra v. Loews (2021). Unpaid overtime: the incremental half-time owed where straight time was already paid, or the full one-and-one-half times where the hours were entirely off the clock — § 510(a). Waiting time: the daily wage × 30 days, applied only to the share of the class shown as separated — § 203(a), which requires a willful failure the tool cannot assess. PAGA: $100 per aggrieved employee per pay period under § 2699(f)(2), assuming the post-19-June-2024 regime governs; 65% of any recovery goes to the LWDA under § 2699(m). The PAGA period is a choice, not a fact. “One year” reflects the § 2699 limitations period and is the conservative figure; “full class period” runs the penalty across every workweek entered, which is what a claimant would assert where tolling, a longer notice period or continuing violations are argued. The two can differ by a multiple — check which one you are looking at before quoting the number.

For retaining counsel

Ten questions your damages expert should answer cold

If your own expert hesitates on any of these in preparation, opposing counsel will find it at the deposition. Ask them before the other side does.

1. What is your opinion, in one sentence, and what is the number?
An expert who cannot state the conclusion in a sentence has not finished thinking. The answer should name the damages figure, the date it is stated as of, and the single assumption it is most sensitive to. Everything else is support.
2. Which assumptions came from counsel rather than from your own analysis?
The correct answer is a specific list, given without defensiveness. Assumptions supplied by counsel are entirely proper and routine — failing to identify them as such is what causes trouble. Rule 26 reports should flag them in the text, not bury them in a footnote.
3. What would change your number the most, and by how much?
Every damages model has one or two dominant sensitivities — a growth rate, a discount rate, a work-life assumption, a violation frequency. An expert should know which, and should be able to say what the number becomes if the assumption moves. If a sensitivity analysis was not run, the answer to the next cross-examination question is being invented on the spot.
4. What data did you ask for and not receive?
Absence of data is a normal feature of litigation and a dangerous one to be surprised by. The expert should have a written record of what was requested, what arrived, what did not, and what they did about the gap.
5. Did you consider the alternatives, and why did you reject them?
Where more than one accepted method exists — measured mile versus total cost, market versus income approach, several worklife tables — the expert should be able to name the alternatives and give a methodological reason for the choice. "It is what I always use" is not a reason.
6. Is your method generally accepted, and where is it published?
The expert should be able to point to the literature, the practice standard, or the agency methodology their approach rests on. Under Rule 702 as amended in 2023, the proponent must show the opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the facts — not merely that the method exists.
7. What drafts exist, and who has seen them?
Draft-report discoverability varies by jurisdiction and by whether the expert is testifying or consulting. Counsel and expert should agree the protocol at engagement, not discover it at the deposition.
8. Have you ever taken a contrary position on this issue?
Prior reports, testimony, publications and CLE materials are all findable. An expert should know their own record and be able to explain any apparent inconsistency — usually the facts differed, which is a complete answer if given before it is extracted.
9. What are you not opining on?
The boundary of the opinion should be stated affirmatively. A damages expert who has not disclaimed liability, causation, or medical and engineering questions invites the argument that they wandered outside their expertise.
10. What errors did you find and correct in your own analysis?
The honest answer is never "none." An expert who describes a correction they caught themselves demonstrates a process. One who claims a flawless first pass is either not checking or not telling.

Two traps worth naming separately. Communications: assume anything written to or from a testifying expert may be produced, and keep substantive instruction in the report rather than in email. Compensation: the expert should know their own total billing on the matter and the firm's history with your office, because both will be asked and a vague answer sounds evasive when it is only unprepared.

For examining counsel

Cross-examining the opposing economist

Structural attack lines by damages type. These are the questions we expect to be asked when we are on the other side of the caption — there is no advantage in pretending they do not exist.

Any damages model — the four universal lines
  • The base. What population, period and dollar figure is the calculation applied to, and what document establishes it?
  • The counterfactual. What would have happened absent the conduct, and what evidence supports that world rather than a more modest one?
  • The apportionment. What portion of the loss is attributable to the conduct rather than to the market, the industry, the plaintiff’s own decisions, or events outside the claim period?
  • The sensitivity. Move the dominant assumption to the other side’s value. Does the opinion survive, and did the report disclose the swing?
Lost earnings and earning capacity
The earnings base is usually the softest point — a short pre-injury history, an atypical year, or overtime treated as permanent. Then worklife expectancy: which table, which edition, and does it match this person’s actual attachment to the labor force? Then mitigation: what post-incident earning capacity was assumed, and on what vocational evidence? Finally the discount rate and whether the analysis is consistent about real versus nominal terms.
Class-wide wage and hour models
Extrapolation is the whole argument. How was the sample drawn, is it representative, and what is the confidence interval — is it reported at all? Then the regular rate: which pay components were included, and were bonuses and shift differentials handled correctly? Then variability: does the model assume a uniform violation rate across roles, sites and supervisors that the data does not support? Class-wide models fail on data engineering far more often than on economics.
Lost profits and commercial damages
New or unprofitable businesses attract the “new business rule” problem — is the forecast built on operating history or on a business plan? Test the yardstick: are the comparables genuinely comparable, and who chose them? Check whether avoided costs were deducted, whether growth was extrapolated past any reasonable horizon, and whether the claimed period outlasts the harm.
Securities and event studies
Ask what the estimation window was and why, whether the event window is clean of confounding disclosures, and what the statistical significance actually is. Then whether the model separates firm-specific movement from market and industry movement, and how the trading model handles in-and-out traders when aggregate damages are computed.
Business valuation
The discount rate is where most of the value is decided: is the build-up documented component by component, or asserted? Then the normalization adjustments — each one should have a reason and a document. Then discounts for lack of marketability and control: what empirical study supports the magnitude, and does it fit this company?
The expert, not the model
Engagement history and side ratio, compensation on this matter, what was reviewed and what was not, what instructions were given by counsel, and whether the expert has ever opined the other way on the same issue. Useful when the model is sound — and it is worth knowing in advance which of these your own expert cannot answer comfortably.
Questions counsel actually asks

Before you call

How fast can you turn around a report?
It depends on data condition, not on our calendar. A clean personal-injury earnings analysis is a short engagement. A class-wide wage model built from raw timekeeping exports takes considerably longer, and the time goes into reconciling the data rather than into the modeling. If you are inside a deadline, call — we triage rush matters first and we will tell you honestly if we cannot make it.
Can you give me references from other attorneys?
Most counsel decline to be named, and they are right to — identifying your damages expert reveals more about your case strategy than you want revealed. Judge us on the work instead: every practice page on this site sets out the methods we use, and the full CV and testimony record of the expert who would handle your matter comes with the proposal.
Do you work for plaintiffs or defendants?
Both, and we keep the caseload balanced between the two sides deliberately. An expert who only ever appears for one side hands opposing counsel a free line of impeachment, and over time it warps methodology: you stop noticing which assumptions you have quietly started to prefer.
What does an engagement cost?
We send the rate schedule and a full CV with the proposal after the scoping call, so you are pricing against a defined scope rather than an estimate. The scoping call itself costs nothing.
Can you consult without being designated?
Yes. A substantial part of our work is non-testifying consulting — case evaluation, deposition outlines for the opposing expert, settlement modeling. If you later want to designate, we discuss the disclosure implications before that decision is made rather than after.
We are outside California. Do you take out-of-state matters?
Yes. Economic analysis is not jurisdiction-bound, and we are retained in federal and state matters nationwide as well as in arbitration. Where state law drives a damages element — collateral source, prejudgment interest, statutory penalty structures — we work from that state’s authority and say so in the report.
What do you need from us to start?
For the conflict check, party names only: the case name, the case number if it is filed, and the parties and firms on both sides. Nothing privileged. For a preliminary range, the operative complaint, the class or claim definition, and a sample of the payroll or financial data.
Library

Downloads & playbooks

Free

U.S. Traffic Fatality Data, 2019–2024

Every U.S. county ranked by traffic fatality rate — 241,592 deaths from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2019–2024, with the deadliest hours of the week, who is killed, and what it costs.

Open → Free

Antitrust enforcement data: DOJ filings and multistate settlements

Every case the DOJ Antitrust Division has listed since 1899, set beside every multistate settlement the state attorneys general have recorded since 1983 — 2,466 filings and $287 billion, charted.

Open →
Next step

Send us the party names. We clear conflicts immediately.

No engagement, no cost, no sales process. If we're conflicted or not the right expert, we'll say so and point you somewhere useful.

Check Conflicts & Availability → (213) 245-1232
Call now Check conflicts