The Opposition’s Playbook: How to Assess Opposing Counsel Using Legal Data

Trellis Research

How can you see where a case is headed? Start with the attorney behind it. 

Litigation strategy shows up in what attorneys do, not what they say. The theories they argue may frame the claims, but the choices they make define the record. Those choices repeat across the clients they represent, the cases they try, and the discovery they conduct. That’s their playbook. 

In this installment of Patterns in Practice, we focus on how that playbook reveals itself early, before discovery fully unfolds. The goal is simple: identify the patterns, anticipate the record, and prepare your response accordingly.

Deposition room at a law office

The case at issue

Your client stops for a red light at an intersection in Oakland Park. She switches lanes—a crash. A deputy with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office strikes her vehicle.  

You file a negligence claim on her behalf with the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. Then, three weeks later, a notice of appearance lands. Your opposing counsel has been assigned. You pull the name, Michael Rudd, and run it through Trellis. 

Who are you up against? 

Search: establish scope of practice

An attorney’s work is defined by the cases they handle and the clients they represent. 

Pattern

Attorneys who repeatedly represent the same clients develop concentrated litigation footprints, with recurring roles, consistent claims, and familiar fact patterns across disputes. 

Strategy

Measure presence. How often does this attorney appear? Who do they represent? In what types of cases? This becomes your working sample. 

Repeat claims create repeat records. Facts are gathered the same way. Details are emphasized in the same places. Testimony is shaped along familiar lines. Case advantage starts here. If you can spot a recurring practice, you can anticipate how the next record will be built. Identify what happened in the past and assume it might happen again. 

Example

A filtered search for Michael Rudd returns 55 cases spanning nearly two decades, all tied to the same defendant—the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. These are automobile tort cases, a niche specialty where the same categories of facts tend to matter. Prior injuries, medical treatments, and employment histories are almost always at play.

Example of an attorney search on Trellis

Place this sample in context by running an Attorney Analysis report on Trellis. Rudd is an experienced attorney, with a practice spanning both sides of complex civil litigation. Despite that range, his primary focus remains the defense of government agencies in automobile negligence cases. 

Snippet of an Attorney Analysis report on Trellis

This consistency turns his past cases into a guide for future ones. For Rudd, the same kinds of facts must be developed, over and over again. Expect case handling to be less ad hoc and more standardized. You’re not building a strategy from scratch. You’re responding to one that has already been tried, tested, and trusted. 

Verdicts: assess facts at trial

Most cases settle. Verdicts show what happens when they don’t. 

Pattern

It only takes a small number of verdicts to make a trial threat credible. Those few outcomes are enough to show whether an attorney can actually make a case hold up in front of a jury. 

Strategy

Isolate verdicts. Compare those verdicts to broader benchmarks. Determine whether opposing counsel performs at, above, or below baseline expectations in similar cases. You’re looking for deviations—not averages. 

Deviation creates leverage. When trial outcomes depart from the norm, they point to something unique in how the record is built, how facts are presented, and what juries respond to. This becomes the benchmark for how you revalue settlement offers, prepare for trial, or pursue early disposition. 

Example

Return to the sample of cases you pulled for Rudd. Four of those cases reached a jury. Three fell in favor of the defense, with a single plaintiff recovering $50,000. 

Michael Rudd: Verdict Record

Kane Ruiz v. Broward County Sheriff’s Office

Scott F. Sollmann v. Broward County Sheriff’s Office

Robert McMillon v. Gregory Tony

Joseph Benlolo v. Scott Israel

Verdict – Defense

Verdict – Plaintiff

Verdict – Defense

Verdict – Defense

This is interesting. Statewide, the pattern runs the other way. According to Trellis, in automobile claims against deputies, juries typically side with the plaintiff. The data shows that plaintiffs prevailed in 59 percent of these cases across Florida. Award amounts ran the gamut, carrying an average of approximately $157,000 and a median closer to $23,000. 

Example of verdict data on Trellis

With a verdict portfolio that counters prevailing trends, Rudd presents a credible trial threat—an ability to outperform the baseline. He knows how to build an effective factual record, developing liability, documenting damages, and collecting testimony in a way that juries find convincing. 

That changes the equation. Settlement posture can no longer be guided by statewide averages alone. It must be anchored in the kind of record he’s likely to build, and how you might position your client within it.

Discovery: track fact development 

Verdicts mark where cases end. Discovery shows where uniqueness is built. 

Pattern

Some attorneys use deposition questions to limit the scope of a case, confining the facts and issues in play. Others do the opposite. They develop a record that expands the range of facts available for scrutiny. 

Strategy

Pick one case from your sample. Review the discovery materials—depositions, interrogatories. Look for patterns in how questions are asked, repeated, and abandoned. 

Some depositions are built for trial, expanding the record through open-ended, repeatable questions. Others lock in precise, unambiguous facts for summary judgment. 

A single deposition transcript can determine the fate of a case long before it ever reaches a courtroom. Case advantage comes from how quickly you can recognize—and respond—to the deposition goals of your opposing counsel. 

Example

Start with a deposition from a previous case. Here, Rudd questions a plaintiff in a negligence claim against the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. Watch what he does at the interview table. Pay attention to how his questions build a story over time.

Rudd spends dozens of pages on prior injuries, treatment gaps, and work histories before ever turning to the incident itself. This tells you his primary focus is damages rather than duty of care. He’s building a record for a jury—not a judge. 

Snippet from a deposition transcript found on Trellis

Cindy Levine v. Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

Motion for summary judgment.

Page 8.

Notice what happens next. He returns to the same topics, sometimes multiple pages later. 

Snippet from a deposition transcript found on Trellis

Cindy Levine v. Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

Motion for summary judgment.

Page 25.

Each time, the witness gives a slightly different answer. Instead of a single account, the record contains multiple versions of the same events. There’s no single, dispositive narrative that can be resolved through summary judgment. This is a record built for comparison and impeachment at trial. 

That’s his deposition style. Rudd discovers for trial. Across all the cases sampled, he never once filed a motion for summary judgment, a tactic that nearly half of all other defense attorneys relied on in similar cases. 

You now know what to expect in the deposition room. If you’re sitting across from Rudd, you won’t need to defend against a single answer. You’ll need to defend against every version of it. Prepare accordingly. Before the deposition, focus witness preparation on consistency across repeated lines of questioning. And, once the deposition begins, reinforce prior answers on the record. 

Closing thoughts

A case unfolds through a series of decisions about what to ask, what to emphasize, and what to build. 

Those choices leave a record. Patterns within that record show how a case is likely to develop next. If you can recognize them early, you can prepare for them before they take shape.

In Part 4 of Patterns in Practice, we’ll turn to the bench, where those decisions meet judicial review and patterns in summary judgment begin to emerge. 

FAQ

Start with their case history. Look at who they represent, the types of claims they handle, and how often they appear. Patterns across those cases show how they build records and approach litigation. You can do this quickly in Trellis by searching the attorney’s name and reviewing their prior matters.

Focus on filings, motions, verdicts, and discovery materials. These show how an attorney develops facts, what arguments they prioritize, and how cases are positioned for resolution. Pay attention to patterns across multiple cases, not just one. Trellis brings this trial court data together so you can analyze it in one place.

Search trial court records by attorney name, then narrow to similar case types. From there, isolate matters that reached a verdict to understand how their cases perform when fully tested. Trellis allows you to pull and filter this data in one place.

Deposition style reflects intent. Narrow, controlled questioning often supports summary judgment. Repetitive, open-ended questioning usually builds a record for trial, especially for impeachment. Over time, these patterns show whether an attorney is shaping a clean legal issue or a fact-heavy narrative.

Look at motion practice and discovery behavior. Frequent dispositive motions suggest a summary judgment strategy. Limited motion practice combined with expansive discovery often signals preparation for trial. This becomes clearer when you review patterns across prior cases in Trellis.

Statewide data provides a baseline, but outcomes vary by venue and attorney. In many automobile cases, plaintiffs prevail more often, though individual attorney performance can deviate from that trend. Trellis aggregates verdict data so you can compare both jurisdictional trends and attorney-level results.

Look for repeat representation of the same agency, recurring defenses, and consistent fact development. These cases often follow standardized approaches shaped by institutional clients. Those patterns are easier to spot when you review multiple cases tied to the same attorney in Trellis.

Compare opposing counsel’s verdict outcomes to broader benchmarks. If their results consistently differ from the norm, that should influence how you assess risk and value settlement. Trellis helps surface those comparisons across similar cases.

An Attorney Analysis report compiles an attorney’s case history, clients, motion practice, and outcomes into a single view. It’s used to identify patterns and anticipate how they will approach a case. In Trellis, this report is generated directly from trial court data.

Review prior deposition transcripts and discovery filings. Look for how questions are structured, repeated, and revisited. Attorneys tend to reuse what works, especially in similar case types. Trellis makes it easier to find and compare those materials across cases.

It often signals a trial-oriented strategy. The attorney may rely on building a fact-heavy record for a jury rather than seeking early dismissal through legal arguments. You can confirm this by reviewing their motion history across cases in Trellis.

Look at how often their cases reach trial and how those cases resolve. Even a small number of verdicts can show whether they consistently secure favorable outcomes before a jury. Trellis makes it easy to isolate and review those verdicts.

Focus on deposition transcripts, motion filings, and case outcomes. Look for repeated lines of questioning and areas of emphasis, especially around liability or damages. These materials can be reviewed across cases in Trellis.

Repeat Litigants: How Party Patterns Change Case Strategy

Trellis Research

Patterns in Practice follows cases from first filing through resolution, showing how the right information, at the right time, turns uncertainty into strategy. With analysis grounded in state trial court data at Trellis, each installment focuses on a different stage of the litigation lifecycle, revealing how everyday disputes actually move through the legal system. 

The first installment opened with the first 15 minutes of a case, offering a three-step guide to getting oriented quickly, forming an initial strategy, and developing a first impression of opposing counsel. 

Now, we turn to one of the most important—and most overlooked—inputs in early case strategy: the party.

The Case at Issue

A violation notice arrives from the Brookfield Owners Association. Attached is a photograph—an overgrown lawn, tall grass, weeds. Notices continue. Fines follow. Then come the liens and the risk of a lost home. That’s when your client calls. 

The immediate facts matter, but they aren’t the starting point for strategy. Start by asking: Who is the Brookfield Owners Association? With Trellis, that question resolves into a set of measurable patterns about scope, volume, and cadence. Each pattern gives you something to act on. 

Scope: expand the case beyond the dispute

A single dispute rarely stands alone. Scope captures the size and reach of a party’s litigation footprint. 

Pattern

Repeat litigants, especially institutional players, create a trackable history across cases. They pursue claims consistently, often following the same enforcement patterns across dozens, or even hundreds, of cases. 

Strategy

Before focusing on the facts of your case, zoom out. Identify the party and map their litigation history. The goal is to understand how they behave across cases—not just what they’re alleging in this one. 

If the party appears only a handful of times, you can treat the case as fact-specific. But, if the party appears consistently, especially in the same role, the case becomes one instance of a larger story. 

A repeat litigant’s prior cases reveal how they pursue disputes. What claims do they bring? How do they file them? How far do they tend to push them? Those details will make the next layer of analysis possible. 

Example

Search for the Brookfield Owners Association on Smart Search. Trellis returns 193 cases, with 114 filed in the last ten years. 

What started as an isolated dispute reveals a repeat player with a trackable litigation history. You’re no longer reacting to a clerical error. You’re analyzing a system. 

To analyze that system, generate a Corporate Litigation Insights report, which will allow you to export those cases into an Excel spreadsheet for flexible sorting and analysis. 

Scroll through the results. The association appears as the plaintiff in every single case. This tells you that the association doesn’t react to lawsuits. It initiates them. 

Volume: measure how often they litigate

Once you know the scope of litigation, the next question is its volume. Volume is a signal for how aggressively a party uses the courts to resolve disputes. 

Pattern

Frequent filers treat litigation as an operational tool, not an escalation. Cases are initiated consistently, often with similar claims, counsel, and timelines. 

Strategy

Quantify how often the party files, then put that number in context. Compare it to similarly situated entities in the same jurisdiction to see whether that volume is routine or exceptional. 

Volume changes how cases are handled. 

With a low-volume filer, prepare for closer scrutiny of your specific case, as you may encounter more bespoke handling and a willingness to litigate deeply. For a high-volume filer, expect standardized workflows and less case-by-case attention. Use friction strategically to disrupt an efficiency-driven litigation practice. 

Example

The Brookfield Owners Association filed 114 cases over ten years. That’s roughly 11 cases per year. For a community this size, the litigation rate is markedly higher than peer associations in the same county. 

The association doesn’t hesitate. It files cases as a matter of course. This means there’s a deep court record from which to study, one filled with dozens of similar complaints, motions, and outcomes. You’re not building a strategy from scratch. You’re reverse-engineering theirs. 

Cadence: track when cases are filed

Volume tells you how often a party litigates. Cadence shows you how those filings land. Timing is a signal of the attention available for each individual filing.  

Pattern

High-volume filers often initiate cases in waves. Multiple filings appear on the same day or within short windows, reflecting coordinated enforcement efforts rather than isolated disputes. 

Strategy

Look for clustering in filing dates. Batch filings indicate a system built for throughput—standard notices, uniform procedures, repeat legal theories. 

Audit notice compliance across cases. Look for shortcuts taken to maintain speed, such as improper service, incomplete records, inconsistent application of rules. Expect template pleadings. Compare multiple complaints side-by-side to identify any omissions or inconsistencies you can challenge. 

Large dockets create pressure to resolve cases quickly. Errors scale when filings are systematized. 

Example

Sort the spreadsheet by filing date. Most of the cases filed by the Brookfield Owners Association are not initiated one at a time. They come in groups—multiple lawsuits filed on the same day against many different homeowners.

This pattern suggests waves of large enforcement campaigns. The flow of litigation is optimized for speed and settlement, not trial. Instead of assuming precision, you assume repetition—and test where that repetition introduces errors. 

Closing thoughts 

A single party search on Trellis can turn a one-off dispute into a mapped pattern. Strategy follows from there. The question is where to press. In the next installment, we’ll turn to the attorneys in a case in order to answer that question, uncovering who they represent, how their cases resolve, and the paths they take to trial. 

FAQ

How do I research a company’s litigation history?

Start by searching the party and reviewing all cases they’ve been involved in across jurisdictions and time. The goal is to understand how they behave across matters, not just in a single dispute.

With Trellis, you can pull a complete view of a company’s litigation history across state trial courts, including filings, roles, and outcomes. This makes it easy to identify patterns in how they initiate or defend cases.

How do I find all cases involving a specific party?

Search by party name, then refine by jurisdiction, case type, or time frame to isolate the most relevant set of cases.

Trellis returns all matching cases and allows you to filter, sort, and export results. This makes it easy to build a working dataset and analyze a party’s litigation activity at scale.

What is a repeat litigant and why does it matter?

A repeat litigant is a party that appears frequently in litigation, often in the same role. This matters because repeat activity creates patterns in how cases are filed, managed, and resolved.

Trellis surfaces these patterns across state trial courts, allowing you to move beyond a single case and understand how that party typically operates, which directly informs strategy.

How do I analyze a party’s litigation patterns?

Focus on three areas: scope, volume, and cadence. Scope shows how broad their litigation footprint is. Volume shows how often they file. Cadence reveals how those filings are timed.

With Trellis, you can analyze all three by reviewing a party’s full case history, identifying repeat filings, and comparing timelines and outcomes across cases.

How do I tell if a party files lawsuits frequently?

Look at how many cases they’ve filed over a defined period and compare that activity to similar entities in the same jurisdiction.

Trellis aggregates case counts and timelines across state trial courts, making it easy to quantify filing frequency and determine whether a party is a routine or high-volume filer.

What can a party’s litigation history tell you?

A party’s litigation history reveals how they approach disputes, including the types of claims they bring, how consistently they file, and how their cases tend to resolve.

Trellis organizes this information across filings, motions, and outcomes, helping you anticipate behavior and identify strategic pressure points early.

How do I use prior cases to build a defense strategy?

Review similar cases to understand how comparable disputes have been handled, including which defenses were raised and how those cases resolved.

With Trellis, you can analyze prior cases across state trial courts and connect them to your current matter, giving you a data-backed starting point for building your strategy.

How do I know if a case is part of a broader enforcement pattern?

Look for repetition in filings, especially similar claims brought by the same party within a short time frame.

Trellis allows you to view cases side by side and identify clusters of filings, making it easier to determine whether a case is part of a coordinated enforcement effort rather than an isolated dispute.

What does filing volume say about a party’s strategy?

Filing volume reflects how a party uses litigation. Low-volume parties tend to handle cases individually, while high-volume filers often rely on standardized processes and efficiency.

With Trellis, you can quantify filing volume over time and compare it across similar entities, helping you understand whether a party’s strategy is routine, aggressive, or system-driven.

How do I identify patterns in a party’s filings?

Compare multiple cases filed by the same party and look for similarities in claims, language, timing, and supporting documents.

Trellis makes this easier by organizing filings across state trial courts and allowing you to analyze cases collectively, helping surface patterns that are difficult to see in isolation.

How do I analyze high-volume filers?

Focus on consistency and scale. High-volume filers often follow repeatable workflows, which can make their cases more predictable.

With Trellis, you can review a party’s full litigation history, including filing patterns, timelines, and outcomes, to understand how their system operates and where it may introduce weaknesses.

How do I find similar cases to mine?

Search by legal issue, fact pattern, or party, then refine by jurisdiction and case type to identify the most relevant cases.

Trellis allows you to quickly surface similar cases across state trial courts, including filings and outcomes, so you can benchmark your strategy against real-world examples.

How do I prepare for a case in an unfamiliar jurisdiction?

Start by understanding how cases are handled in that jurisdiction, including filing patterns, outcomes, and procedural tendencies.

Trellis provides jurisdiction-specific data across state trial courts, helping you see how similar cases have played out so you can make more informed decisions from the outset.

How do law firms use data in litigation?

Law firms use data to move faster and make more informed decisions, from evaluating risk to shaping case strategy.

Trellis brings together filings, motions, and outcomes across state trial courts, allowing attorneys to base decisions on real patterns instead of anecdotal research.

The First 15 Minutes: Why Early Case Research Changes Everything

Trellis Research

When a new case lands, the first 15 minutes matter more than most attorneys realize. Before formal assignment, before strategy sessions, before anyone has read the full complaint, there’s a window. The party that uses it well enters the case with structure. Everyone else is catching up.

Patterns in Practice is a series that follows a case from first filing through trial, drawing on the largest collection of state trial court data to show how the right information, at the right time, turns uncertainty into strategy. Each installment focuses on a different stage of the litigation lifecycle—and what the data reveals about how to approach it.

We start at the beginning. Here’s how to use the first 15 minutes.

Trellis Strategic Legal Research

Step 1: Understand the filing with Chat

A complaint is a version of events—selective, directional, and optimized for leverage. 

Pattern

New complaints surface through alerts days before formal assignment, creating a short window where information moves faster than internal processes. 

Strategy

The first task isn’t to read every word. It’s to quickly understand what you’re dealing with — the parties, the claim, the exposure, and who is driving it. The sooner that picture comes into focus, the sooner strategy can begin.

Example

A panel attorney for an insurance carrier in New York receives an alert. A lawsuit has been filed against an insured. 

Open the case directly from the alert, pull up the docket, and rather than reading the complaint line by line, use Trellis’ Chat feature to extract what matters — ask for a structured summary, or ask specific questions about the claims, the parties, or the exposure. In minutes, you have enough to understand what you’re dealing with and start thinking strategically.

Step 2: Build your initial strategy with Case Strategy Report

Understanding the case is just the starting point. The next task is turning it into a strategy.

Pattern

Early case strategy is usually built manually — pulling analogous cases, identifying defenses, researching the jurisdiction. It takes hours, sometimes days. By then, the case is already moving.

Strategy

The goal at this stage is to get ahead of the case before it develops inertia. That means having a structured, defensible strategy in hand on day one — something you can act on internally and share directly with the client.

Example

The Case Strategy Report generates directly from the docket. Trellis analyzes the complaint, matches it against similar cases in the largest collection of state trial court records, and produces a structured briefing covering defenses, procedural considerations, judge insights, and recommended next steps.

In the Betancourt case, the report surfaces contributory negligence and assumption of risk as viable defenses, flags a response deadline of March 12, 2026, and notes that Kings County juries tend to be plaintiff-friendly in personal injury cases, context that shapes settlement posture from day one.

Share it internally or use it to brief the client before anyone else has had a chance to assess the case.

Step 3: Know who you’re up against with Attorney Analysis

The attorney on the other side shapes how a case moves. Understanding their patterns before the first motion is filed gives you a real advantage.

Pattern

With Trellis, opposing counsel’s litigation history is visible in detail. How many cases are they handling? What types of claims do they typically pursue? How do they approach motions and discovery? That history tells you a lot about what to expect.

Strategy

High-volume practices tend to be predictable. When an attorney is managing hundreds of cases at once, they lean on systems — standardized motions, familiar discovery paths, templated arguments. That consistency is useful information. The more you know about how they operate, the better positioned you are to force the case out of their pattern and into territory that requires real, case-specific attention.

Example

Run an Attorney Analysis Report on opposing counsel directly from the docket. In the Betancourt case, the report on Cornelius Redmond reveals a plaintiff-focused practice concentrated in personal injury and tort litigation. A few things stand out immediately: he files dense, detail-oriented complaints across multiple causes of action, moves aggressively on discovery early, and his cases tend to run long — some projected three to five years. That profile shapes how you prepare. Expect comprehensive discovery demands from the start, plan your expert strategy early, and look for opportunities to press on case-specific facts before the matter gets absorbed into his standard playbook.

What 15 minutes can do

A single alert can turn into a working defense strategy before the case is even formally assigned. You know what you’re dealing with, you have a strategic framework in hand, and you know who you’re up against.

In the next installments, we go deeper on the players—researching the plaintiff, the judge, and expert witnesses to build on the foundation you’ve already established.

FAQ

How do I build a litigation strategy quickly?

Start by turning the complaint into a structured understanding of the case, then layer in data. Identify the parties, claims, and exposure first, then use comparable cases, judge insights, and prior outcomes to shape your approach. With Trellis, a Case Strategy Report can generate this for you directly from the docket, giving you a defensible strategy within minutes instead of days.

How do I brief a client on a new lawsuit?

Focus on clarity and speed. A strong early briefing should cover what happened, what’s at stake, likely outcomes, and recommended next steps. Using Trellis, you can pull key facts from the complaint, analyze similar cases, and generate a structured case strategy that can be shared internally or directly with the client almost immediately.

How do I research an opposing attorney?

Look at their litigation history, not just their firm bio. Key signals include case volume, types of claims, motion behavior, and how long their cases typically run. Trellis Attorney Analysis surfaces this data across state trial courts, helping you understand how opposing counsel operates and how to plan around their tendencies.

What is the best way to prepare for a new case?

Start with speed and structure. Quickly understand the complaint, assess exposure using comparable cases, and evaluate the key players involved. The earlier you can replace uncertainty with a working strategy, the better positioned you are. Tools like Trellis streamline this process by combining docket access, analytics, and case strategy in one place.

How do law firms use data in litigation?

Law firms use data to make faster, more informed decisions. This includes analyzing verdicts and settlements to assess risk, reviewing judge tendencies, and studying opposing counsel behavior. Trellis provides access to structured state trial court data, allowing attorneys to move beyond anecdotal research and ground their strategy in real outcomes.

How do I track lawsuits filed against my client?

Set up ongoing monitoring so you’re alerted as soon as a new case is filed. With Trellis Alerts, you can track cases involving specific parties, companies, or topics and receive notifications as soon as filings appear, often before formal assignment. This gives you a head start on evaluation and strategy.

What tools do litigators use for early case assessment?

Early case assessment typically involves reviewing the complaint, researching similar cases, and evaluating risk. Modern tools like Trellis bring this together by combining docket access, AI-powered document analysis, verdict data, and strategic insights into a single workflow, allowing attorneys to assess a case within minutes.

How do I know if a case is worth fighting or settling?

Start by understanding the likely range of outcomes. Review comparable cases, verdict trends, and settlement patterns in the same jurisdiction and claim type. Trellis helps quantify this by surfacing similar cases and outcome data, making it easier to determine whether early resolution or continued litigation is the better path.

How do I find similar cases to mine?

Search by legal issue, fact pattern, jurisdiction, or parties. The goal is to identify cases with comparable claims and circumstances to understand how they were handled and resolved. Trellis allows you to quickly find and analyze similar cases across state trial courts, including filings, rulings, and outcomes.

How do I prepare for a case in an unfamiliar jurisdiction?

Focus on how that jurisdiction actually operates. Review judge tendencies, local motion practices, and historical outcomes for similar cases. Trellis provides jurisdiction-specific insights drawn from state trial court data, helping you understand how cases move in that venue before you take your first step.

How do I stay on top of new lawsuits filed against my client?

Use automated alerts tied to your client’s name, affiliates, or key topics. Trellis Alerts notify you when new cases are filed, giving you immediate visibility and time to act before the case progresses.

How do I assess litigation risk early?

Early risk assessment comes down to understanding likely outcomes. Analyze verdicts, settlement rates, and similar case trajectories to define a realistic range. Trellis surfaces this data across state trial courts, allowing you to evaluate exposure and risk almost immediately after a case is filed.

What is early case assessment in litigation?

Early case assessment is the process of evaluating a case immediately after it is filed, including reviewing the complaint, estimating exposure, and identifying potential strategies. Tools like Trellis accelerate this process by combining case data, analytics, and AI-driven insights.

What is state trial court data and why does it matter?

State trial court data includes filings, motions, rulings, and outcomes from trial-level courts where most litigation actually happens. Unlike appellate decisions, this data shows how cases are handled in practice. Trellis organizes this data at scale, making it searchable and actionable for attorneys.

How can AI help with legal research and case strategy?

AI can quickly extract key information from legal documents, identify patterns across similar cases, and surface strategic insights. In Trellis, AI is used to structure complaints, generate case strategy reports, and connect attorneys to relevant data faster than traditional research methods.