Data Science
Econometrics, sampling and machine learning applied to litigation and business questions — with the method kept transparent enough to survive challenge.
What we do with data
- Econometric analysis — regression and causal inference where the question is whether an effect is real and how large.
- Statistical sampling — defensible samples where the full population cannot be examined, and the error bounds that come with them.
- Machine learning methods — applied where they add accuracy, and explained in terms a court or a board can follow.
- Forecasting and modeling — revenue, demand and financial models under stated scenarios.
- Visualisation — turning a large dataset into an exhibit a jury can read.
Where it gets used
- Class certification — whether damages are computable on common proof
- Wage-and-hour analysis across large timekeeping datasets
- Pay equity, hiring and promotion disparity studies
- Market and pricing analysis in antitrust and IP
- Business analytics and strategy outside litigation
In litigation the constraint is not what a model can do — it is whether the method survives challenge. We favor the transparent method over the clever one, and say when the data will not carry the question.
What we need to start
A description of the data — what it covers, how it was collected, and roughly how large. A short look at structure and completeness usually tells us whether the question is answerable before anyone commits to a scope.
Frequently asked questions
Can you tell whether our data supports the claim before we engage?
Usually, from a description and a sample. That short assessment is worth doing first — it is the cheapest step and it changes the strategy most.
Do you work outside litigation?
Yes. Forecasting, analytics and modeling for businesses and agencies are a normal part of the practice.
What are your rates?
We send the rate schedule and a full CV with the proposal after the scoping call.
Who leads this work
The expert you retain leads the work: the same person builds the model, signs the report and gives the testimony.
Roman Garagulagian, Ph.D.Economist · PrincipalOptions and derivatives in securities litigation · Wildfire and mass disaster damages · Employment and wage-and-hour · Stock options and RSUs in employment cases
Full profile and credentials →
Data screen
Tell us what the data is and what you need it to show.
What the work looks like
The exposure range known before the mediation, not after
183,429 shifts, one dataset, and an exposure figure that moved by a factor of fifty-four depending on which meal-period threshold applied. The data did not decide the case. It showed precisely what the case turned on.
Read the analysis →Scope set by the data, before the motion
Certification did not turn on the legal theory. It turned on whether the timekeeping data could produce a class-wide number without individualized inquiry — an empirical question, answerable before anyone moved.
Read the analysis →Send the party names. We check conflicts the same business day.
Then a free 20-minute call on what is provable from the data you have.