Corporate Legal

A company's active litigation docket is a portfolio, whether or not it is managed like one. Outside counsel spend, reserve accuracy, and the decision to pursue or settle a claim all depend on how similar matters have resolved and how long they took, information most legal departments estimate from outside counsel's own judgment on a matter-by-matter basis rather than from a shared evidentiary base.

Criterica's outcome layer gives corporate legal teams the same class of calibrated distributions used across the platform, applied to the company's own docket: settlement and duration bands by claim type and jurisdiction, useful for reserve-setting, budget forecasting, and evaluating whether outside counsel's assessment of a given matter is in line with how comparable matters actually resolve.

Where a company holds claims it could monetize, an affirmative claims portfolio, a judgment awaiting collection, a receivable tied to litigation, the same intelligence informs whether Criterica Capital's acquisition process is a fit.

This differs from a legal-spend management tool, which tracks invoices, or outside counsel's own case assessment, which is necessarily matter-specific. Criterica's layer sits above both: a portfolio-level, model-based view a legal department and finance can share.

This is particularly relevant where legal and finance have historically relied on different sources for the same underlying question, legal on outside counsel's read of a matter, finance on aggregate spend trends, without a shared, model-based number connecting the two.

The same distributions are useful outside the docket itself. A company evaluating a proposed settlement, a merger partner's litigation exposure, or a vendor's claims history can apply the same case-level analysis to a decision that touches litigation risk without being, itself, a piece of active litigation.

Applies the model fleet to a company's docket to produce reserve-relevant distributions by claim type and jurisdiction, not case-specific legal advice.

Supports budget forecasting by giving finance and legal a shared, model-based basis for litigation spend planning rather than two departments working from different assumptions.

Routes affirmative claims or judgment monetization questions to the asset acquisition path and Criterica Capital directly.

Works from claim characteristics the legal department controls disclosing, so the engagement does not require privileged strategy or work product to move forward.

Benchmarks a company's own resolution history against the broader corpus, giving legal a sense of whether the company's matters are resolving in line with, better than, or worse than comparable matters elsewhere.

Produces distributions at whatever level of granularity a reserve or budget process actually uses where a company's docket spans multiple business units or subsidiaries, rather than a single company-wide number that obscures unit-level differences.

A description of the docket at the level of claim type, jurisdiction, and current reserve methodology, not privileged case detail.

The specific decision in view: reserve-setting, budget forecasting, outside counsel evaluation, or claims monetization.

Whether finance and legal are approaching the engagement jointly or separately, since a shared engagement produces a single set of numbers both departments can work from.

Companies with an existing legal-spend management system should be ready to describe what it already tracks, since this layer is meant to complement that system, not duplicate it.

The first call scopes the docket and the decision in view, confirms model coverage for the relevant claim types and jurisdictions, and identifies whether the engagement is intelligence-only or includes a monetization component.

For reserve or budget work, the engagement typically runs on a recurring cadence rather than a single pass, since a docket changes as matters resolve and new ones are filed.

Where finance and legal are approaching the engagement jointly, the first call typically includes both functions, so the resulting numbers are adopted by both from the outset rather than handed from one department to the other after the fact.

For a first, narrower engagement, a single practice area or business unit is a reasonable place to start, with the model extended to the rest of the docket once the initial results are reviewed.