Who needs to think about this, how much computation it requires, and how much institutional machinery counsel will need. Three questions, usually answered as one.
Start a conversation with Cournot, the Institute’s damages concierge, already scoped to expert architecture & right-sizing. Pick a starting point, or describe the dispute directly.
The request that reaches an expert search is almost always "we need a damages economist". It is rarely the right specification. Separating the requirement into three independent questions produces a much better match. The intellectual question asks which discipline owns the problem — an industrial-organization economist for a distribution or market-structure dispute, a labour economist for earnings and worklife, a finance academic for valuation or event studies, a forensic accountant for reconstructing books, a statistician for sampling and extrapolation. The analytical question asks how much computational and data capacity the analysis needs, which is a function of the records rather than the claim size. The litigation-support question asks how much responsiveness, exhibit production and surge capacity counsel will require, which is a function of the trial team and the schedule. A matter can be demanding on one axis and undemanding on the others, and that combination is what should determine the shape of the engagement.
A matter can be heavy on one and light on the others. Collapsing them is what produces the mismatch.
Which discipline owns the problem. Frequently not the one named in the original request.
Data scale and modelling load. Driven by the records, not by the size of the claim.
Responsiveness, exhibits, rebuttal, deposition and trial load. Driven by the trial team and the calendar.
Normal, accelerated, or emergency. Compression converts a manageable analysis into a staffing problem.
Whether one expert can carry it or whether the problem genuinely spans fields.
What the dispute is worth against what the analysis will cost. Rarely calculated explicitly.
How the Institute assesses the requirement.
The cost of the engagement, and whether it can keep up.
Over-staffing shows up on an invoice, so somebody eventually asks. Under-staffing shows up as an expert falling behind a discovery schedule, which reads as bad luck rather than a procurement error.
It names a job title rather than a problem. "We need a damages economist" specifies neither the field nor the scale, so the market answers with whoever is nearest to hand. The more useful specification describes the economic question — reconstructing what a dealer network would have sold under different territorial restrictions, say — because that immediately implies an industrial-organization economist with distribution experience rather than a general damages practitioner. Firms that describe the problem instead of the role get materially better matches, and often discover the right person sits in a field they would not have searched.
By looking at the records rather than the claim. A large claim can rest on a modest dataset — a few years of financials for one business — and a modest claim can rest on an enormous one, as with transaction-level data across a purported class. The practical markers of a heavy analysis are transaction-level records at scale, multiple data sources that must be reconciled, data requiring substantial cleaning before it can be used, and multiple modelling workstreams running in parallel. Where those are present, infrastructure matters independently of how good the economist is. Where they are absent, adding analysts adds cost rather than capability.
Usually not, and the instinct toward one is about convenience rather than quality. A single witness with genuine depth in two fields is rare, and a witness who claims breadth across several invites the cross-examination that they are expert in none of them to the required standard. Two experts, each unimpeachable in their own field, with a clearly divided scope and a coherent account of how their analyses connect, is generally more robust. The cost is coordination and the risk is inconsistency between them, both of which are manageable with an explicit division agreed at the outset.
Yes, and it does when the assessment points there — the analysis would be worth nothing otherwise. If the matter involves the data scale, parallel workstreams, compressed schedule and trial-support intensity that institutional platforms exist to handle, that is the recommendation, and the Institute will help identify the right individual within such a firm rather than leaving counsel to call whoever they used last. Where the Institute has a relationship bearing on a recommendation, it is disclosed at the point the recommendation is made.
Describe the economic question. The Institute will help you see which discipline and what scale it needs.