Who Are My Competitors?

You might be thinking, “Ok, great credentials, but we’ve already got this covered.”

Maybe you do. But here’s the reality: in the economic expert battle, the alternatives to hiring me are not what you need.

Competitor 1: You, the potential buyer

You’ve gotten through past engagements without my help. You’ve built a career navigating big cases. You have your own set of unique experiences.

But here’s the difference: my sole focus is winning the economic expert fight. You’re managing the whole matter. You don’t have the bandwidth to do what I do—reverse-engineer opposing models, pressure-test your own expert’s work, and anticipate Daubert angles before the other side does.

Bringing me in doesn’t replace your judgment — it gives you a specialist whose only job is to make the economic side of your case more bulletproof.

Competitor 2: Consultants at large economic firms (Compass Lexecon, Analysis Group, Cornerstone, etc.)

You’ve probably used them before. Some have delivered, some haven’t.

The problem?

Most of their “executive consultants” are not lawyers and have rarely been expert witnesses themselves. Many operate in a gray zone between legal strategy and economic consulting without the legal training to understand where that line should be.

I’m a licensed lawyer with deep trial experience and a PhD in finance. I can ensure your economic consultants stay in their lane, work efficiently, and deliver evidence that will actually hold up in court—not just look good in a report.

Competitor 3: Other partners or senior associates on your trial team

They’re smart, driven, and they’ll work all night. But making sense of economic evidence is not their specialty.

When they’re left to interpret complex damages models, valuation reports, or solvency analyses without the training to do it, it’s a recipe for missed weaknesses, unchallenged assumptions, and avoidable surprises at deposition or trial.

I bridge that gap immediately—no learning curve, no wheel-spinning.

Competitor 4: No one at all

Sometimes the assumption is: The expert will handle it.

This is the absolute worst option.

Here’s the problem: most experts don’t see the case the way you do. You went to law school. You’ve lived in litigation. You understand the mosaic of evidence. Most experts see only their piece, and that piece can be flawed, overcomplicated, or misaligned with the theory of the case.

Without someone to integrate and pressure-test the economic evidence within the broader litigation strategy, you’re hoping it all works out. That’s not a plan.