ArticleNature computational science2025
Data-driven law firm rankings to reduce information asymmetry in legal disputes.
Article in Nature computational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Data-driven law firm rankings to reduce information asymmetry in legal disputes.Nature computational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting capable counsel can shape the outcome of litigation, yet evaluating law firm performance remains challenging. Widely used rankings prioritize prestige, size and revenue over empirical litigation outcomes, offering little practical guidance. Here, to address this gap, we build on the Bradley-Terry model and introduce a new ranking framework that treats each lawsuit as a competitive game between plaintiff and defendant law firms. Leveraging a newly constructed dataset of 60,540 US civil lawsuits involving 54,541 law firms, our findings show that existing reputation-based rankings correlate poorly with actual litigation success, while our outcome-based ranking substantially improves predictive accuracy. These findings establish a foundation for more transparent, data-driven assessments of legal performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.