Economic damages calculation support

An economic damages engagement produces a but-for financial scenario, a damages-period schedule isolating the window at issue, an assumptions log stating every judgment call in plain language, and supporting exhibits tying each figure back to a source document, a bank statement, a general ledger entry, a signed contract, a prior filing. Where the claim has more than one component, lost profits on one product line and increased costs on another, for example, we build each component separately and then roll them into a single summary schedule so counsel can see both the total and the pieces underneath it. Revisions as the case develops, a new document surfaces, opposing counsel's expert report narrows the dispute, are turned around against the matter's own timeline rather than a generic monthly cycle.

We start with a scoping call covering the claim, the event date, the records available, and the deadline, ideally with the attorney of record on the line so the scope matches what the matter actually needs. From there we collect the pre-event financial history, reconcile it to bank and tax records where possible, and build the but-for projection using documented growth and cost trends rather than a round number. The damages period gets isolated next, bounded by the specific dates the event affected, not the surrounding quarters. The assumptions log is written alongside the model, not after it, so nothing gets reverse-engineered to justify a number after the fact. A senior reviewer reviews the full package, model, schedules, and log together, before it goes to counsel, and we stay available for revisions as the matter proceeds toward a filing, a mediation, or a trial date.

Attorneys retained on a breach of contract, business tort, wrongful termination, or non-compete matter who need the financial side of a damages claim built or checked before it goes into a filing or a settlement demand. Business owners pursuing or defending a claim who need an accountant's version of the number rather than a rough internal estimate. Insurers, mediators, and in-house counsel who need a neutral calculation both sides can examine line by line. We do not offer an opinion on whether the underlying claim has legal merit, and we do not testify; where the matter needs a testifying expert, that role sits with a credentialed partner or counsel's own retained expert, and we build the workpapers that person relies on.

Businesses come to this engagement in different states of readiness, and most of the friction shows up in the same handful of places every time. A pre-event set of books that will not reconcile to the bank statements undermines the whole baseline before the but-for model even starts. A damages period that quietly bleeds into an unrelated slow season inflates or deflates the number depending on which way it drifts. A single company-wide average growth rate applied to a seasonal business produces a but-for projection that does not resemble how the business actually earned money. And a model built without a written assumptions log leaves every judgment call exposed the first time opposing counsel asks how a number was derived. We catch each of these during scoping and build the fix into the schedule from day one rather than patching it after a challenge lands.

The underlying bookkeeping usually lives in QuickBooks Online, Xero, or NetSuite, and we pull directly from whichever system the business already runs rather than asking for a re-export into something new. The but-for model itself is built in Microsoft Excel, formula-driven and fully auditable, since a damages calculation opposing counsel cannot trace line by line is a damages calculation that invites a challenge. Where the underlying transaction population is large, thousands of invoices or payment records across several years, we use CaseWare IDEA to test and summarize the data before it feeds the model. Finished exhibits are exported to the format counsel needs for a filing or a mediation binder, typically PDF schedules cross-referenced to the underlying Excel workpapers.

Damages calculations are scoped and quoted individually rather than priced off a flat menu, since a single lost-profits schedule for a small business dispute and a multi-component calculation spanning several product lines and years are genuinely different pieces of work. Our US rate card covers recurring bookkeeping and advisory work; a damages engagement is quoted the way our Scale tier is quoted, after a scoping call that pins down the claim, the records available, and the deadline, so you have a number in writing before work starts rather than an open-ended clock.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert's methodology has to be reliable and the product of a defensible process, not just a credentialed person's say-so, and damages calculations are a frequent target for a motion to exclude on exactly that ground. We do not testify, but the workpapers we build are constructed the way a defensible methodology has to look on paper: a stated basis for every input, a documented reason for every adjustment, and a clear line from the raw financial records to the final number. When a testifying expert, whether one of our review partners or counsel's own retained expert, has to defend the calculation under cross-examination, the assumptions log and the source-document trail are what they defend from.