Best Practices for Evaluating and Selecting Outside Counsel Using Litigation Data

Selecting outside counsel is one of the most important decisions an in-house legal department makes. The right law firm can influence litigation outcomes, costs, and overall risk exposure, making outside counsel selection a critical component of legal strategy.  

Amid rising litigation activity and escalating costs, corporate legal departments face increasing pressure to control budgets, manage risk, and achieve favorable outcomes. As a result, many legal leaders are asking a critical question: How should companies evaluate and select outside counsel? 

The most effective legal departments combine traditional qualitative assessments with objective litigation data. Rather than relying solely on referrals, reputation, or existing relationships, legal teams increasingly use litigation analytics to assess whether a law firm has demonstrated experience handling matters like their own. 

3 Factors to Consider When Selecting Outside Counsel

Selecting outside counsel requires more than evaluating a firm's reputation or relying on past relationships. As litigation grows increasingly complex and costly, corporate legal departments need a structured approach to assessing whether a law firm has the experience, resources, and track record to handle a particular matter effectively. By combining qualitative judgment with litigation analytics and objective performance data, legal teams can make more informed outside counsel selection decisions. The following factors can help legal departments evaluate prospective counsel and identify firms whose experience aligns with the unique demands of their case. 

Examine Relevant Litigation Experience

Not all litigation experience is equally relevant. A law firm may have an excellent overall reputation while lacking meaningful experience in the specific jurisdiction, before the assigned judge, or with the nuanced legal issues at the center of a dispute. 

When significant financial exposure is at stake, legal departments need confidence that prospective counsel has successfully managed comparable disputes.

When evaluating litigation experience, legal departments should focus on three key indicators:

• Experience before the assigned judge
• Track record in relevant trial and appellate venues 
• History handling claims with comparable complexity and exposure 

Generally, the objective is to identify counsel whose experience aligns with the unique legal, procedural, and strategic considerations of the matter. Litigation analytics can help legal teams move beyond assumptions and evaluate firms based on demonstrable experience. 

Look Beyond Anecdotal Successes

Client recommendations, industry rankings, and headline-grabbing victories can provide useful context, but they rarely tell the full story. Legal departments increasingly seek evidence of a firm's experience and performance overall in comparable litigation. Pertinent metrics may include:

• Trial appearances and outcomes 
• Jury verdicts
• Court-awarded damages 
• Summary judgment outcomes 
• Appellate results 
• Time-to-resolution metrics 

Viewed collectively, these data points provide a more comprehensive understanding of a firm's litigation profile than isolated success stories alone. 

Assess Litigation Trends and Law Firm Activity

Recent findings from the Lex Machina 2026 Law Firms Activity Report illustrate how litigation data can help identify firms with experience securing major verdicts, court-awarded damages, and contested rulings. The report analyzes major damage awards and case resolutions from 2023 to 2025 across U.S. federal courts and select state courts, providing empirical insight into law firm activity and performance. 

“High-stakes litigation decisions are too important to rely on anecdote alone,” said Eric Wright, senior vice president for Lex Machina at LexisNexis. “The Law Firms Activity Report helps general counsel, corporate legal teams, and law firms evaluate demonstrated experience in trials, damages awards, contested rulings, and appeals. With Lex Machina, legal teams can make more data-informed decisions about outside counsel selection, matter staffing, litigation strategy, and business development.” 

Among the report's findings:

• Government entities dominated contested judicial outcomes in federal district and circuit courts. From 2023 through 2025, federal government agencies secured the largest damages awards through contested judicial rulings.  
• Private law firms led in jury-awarded damages in federal courts. Ten law firms were each responsible for obtaining more than $1 billion in principal damages through plaintiffs' jury verdicts during the three-year period. 
• Plaintiffs secured more than $2.4 billion in principal damages through jury verdicts in Los Angeles Superior Court during the same period, underscoring the scale of high-exposure civil litigation in one of the nation’s busiest trial courts. 

Although historical outcomes do not guarantee future results, these types of analytics can help legal departments identify firms with relevant experience and evaluate counsel based on objective criteria rather than reputation alone. 

Why Data-Driven Counsel Selection Matters

Selecting outside counsel is one of the most consequential decisions that an in-house legal department makes. As civil litigation becomes more complex and costly, legal teams need more than anecdotal evidence when evaluating potential law firms. They need visibility into the types of matters firms have handled, the venues in which they have litigated, and the outcomes they have achieved. 

Lex Machina provides strategic insights on judges, attorneys, law firms, parties, and case outcomes across federal and state courts. By leveraging litigation analytics, legal departments can assess law firm experience, benchmark prospective counsel, and identify attorneys whose backgrounds align with the needs of a particular matter. 

To learn more about law firm performance in major civil litigation outcomes from 2023 through 2025, request the Lex Machina 2026 Law Firms Activity Report.  

“No doubt, the Lex Machina 2026 Law Firms Activity Report is a great tool for corporate legal departments when looking for experienced civil legal counsel, and it is also a great source of information for students and researchers, as it allows them to learn who the top civil law firm litigators are in some of the most active courts in the US, the amounts awarded in their lawsuits, and the issues that are the subject of litigation,” said Juan-Andrés Fuentes, research librarian at Harvard Law School. 

For additional information about litigation analytics and counsel evaluation, request a Lex Machina demonstration today.