Portfolio Control
Which plaintiff firms are quietly running up my exposure?
Updated July 2026
The ones you cannot name yet. Morgan & Morgan alone booked $1.098 billion in jury verdicts across 295 trials in 2025, and it is one firm among thousands. The plaintiff bar studies its own record; most defense programs do not. You find the firms driving your exposure by compiling your own verdict and settlement history by opposing firm and venue.
How do you find out which plaintiff firms are driving your exposure?
You compile what you already own. Map every open and closed matter to the opposing firm and the venue, then read the pattern: which firms take the largest awards, which extract a premium in one county and fold in another, which try cases and which settle. The facts sit in claims exports, settlement records, and defense counsel reports. Nobody has put them in one view.
- Opposing firm on every matter: the single field most defense books never track consistently.
- Award and settlement size by firm: who takes the big numbers and who takes the discount.
- Venue behavior by firm: the attorney who commands a premium in one county and folds in another.
- Trial versus settle tendency: the trial-first firms build a record every time they go to verdict.
- Repeat fact patterns: the same play, run again, against a defendant who did not see it coming.
| Firm | What the record shows | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Morgan & Morgan | $1.098 billion in jury verdicts across 295 trials in 2025; the largest plaintiff firm in the country | Firm 2025 trial report |
| Berman & Simmons | $23.1 million medical malpractice verdict in Aroostook County, Maine, the state's largest non-death med mal award | Firm press release, June 2026 |
These are firms that publish their results. Every trial report and press release is intelligence about how a firm values cases, which venues it favors, and how it behaves under pressure. The plaintiff side reads that record closely. The question is whether your side reads it about them.
Is it the biggest firms that create the most exposure?
Not exactly. Size is visible; the quieter advantage is the record those trials build. A firm that goes to verdict hundreds of times learns your venues, your juries, and how your defense behaves under pressure. The Institute for Legal Reform studied 1,288 nuclear verdicts from 2013 to 2022 and found them concentrated in California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Exposure is a firm-and-venue pattern, not a logo.
1,288
nuclear verdicts of $10 million or more studied from 2013 to 2022, concentrated in California, Florida, New York, and Texas
Institute for Legal Reform
The firm that hurts you most may not be the one with the biggest advertising budget. It is the one that has tried your fact pattern in your venue enough times to know exactly where your defense breaks. That is a knowable pattern, sitting in verdict records that are already public.
What does a firm running a play it has run before actually look like?
It looks like a case you could have seen coming. In one 2025 trucking matter, a logging company put a driver with 25 prior charges behind a loaded truck and never ran the check. The plaintiff firm had run that play before: a public driving record, a punitive-friendly venue, a $125 million verdict. Every element was knowable before the truck moved. It was just unread.
- The opposing firm's case-results page, published on its own website.
- The venue's verdict history and its appetite for punitive damages.
- The fact pattern the firm keeps repeating across matters.
- The panel counsel assigned, and how they have fared against this firm before.
None of that is hidden. It is scattered across billing portals, claims exports, settlement records, and public dockets, none of which talk to each other. The deficit is visibility, not data. The firm running up your exposure is doing it in plain sight.
How do you make the pattern visible before the next verdict?
You consolidate the facts you already own. CaseGlide structures the live litigation data your defense counsel report, opposing firm, venue, posture, and exposure, into one view, so the firms and venues driving your losses surface across the whole portfolio. It does not predict a verdict. It shows you which open matters sit in front of the firms and venues where the tail is fattest.
The point is not to profile a firm for its own sake. It is to act: match your strongest counsel to the hard cases in the hot venues, resolve the ripe matters before the demand outruns the record, and stop being surprised by an adversary who has beaten you the same way three times. The intelligence is built on data you already hold.
Common questions
Which plaintiff firm wins the most money?
By its own public reporting, Morgan & Morgan is the largest plaintiff firm in the country. It booked $1,098,230,342 in jury verdicts in 2025 and says it tried 295 cases to get there, part of more than six billion dollars it reports recovering for clients across the year. The firm reports more than 1,000 attorneys and more than 100 offices. But size is the visible advantage, not the decisive one. The quieter edge is the record a trial-first firm builds: every verdict teaches it something about venues, juries, and how the defense behaves under pressure. The threat to your portfolio is less any single firm's scale than whether you are learning from your own cases as fast as the other side is learning from theirs.
Can I predict which firm will hit me with a nuclear verdict?
No, and any tool that claims to is overselling. CaseGlide does not predict verdicts or forecast litigation risk. What it does is make an existing pattern visible: which opposing firms take the largest awards, which venues concentrate nuclear outcomes, and which of your open matters sit in front of both. That is a read on where your exposure is fattest today, drawn from verdict and settlement history you already own, not a forecast of any single case. The judgment about what to do with that read, which cases to fight, which to resolve, which counsel to assign, stays with your team. Visibility into the pattern is the edge, not a crystal ball.
Where nuclear verdicts concentrate by state→Where does the data to profile opposing firms come from?
From records you already hold or can pull for free. Your claims system and billing portals name the opposing firm on most matters. Your settlement records show what each firm actually took versus what it demanded. Defense counsel status reports describe venue, posture, and how the case moved. Public dockets and firms' own case-results pages fill in verdict history. The problem is never a shortage of data; it is that these sources sit in separate systems that do not talk to each other, so no one ever compiles the firm-by-firm and venue-by-venue picture. CaseGlide structures the litigation data your counsel already report into one view, so those patterns surface across the whole portfolio instead of staying buried one matter at a time.
Catch a case drifting before counsel calls→Does knowing the opposing firm change how I defend the case?
It should. A firm's track record tells you where it is dangerous and where it is not. If an opposing firm reliably commands a premium in a particular county and settles softly elsewhere, that shapes venue strategy, settlement authority, and which of your own panel firms you assign. A firm that tries cases aggressively demands a different posture than one that always settles on the courthouse steps. Defending every matter the same way ignores intelligence that is sitting in your own history. When you can see the opposing firm's pattern next to the venue and the fact pattern, you can put your strongest counsel where the exposure is real and stop overspending where it is not.
Measure which defense firms win hard cases→CaseGlide is the litigation intelligence platform for Fortune 500 legal departments and insurance claims organizations. It structures live litigation data from defense counsel into executive decisions: reducing defense spend, settling the right cases sooner, and shrinking litigated claim volume.
Next step · See it on your docket
See what your litigation portfolio is telling you
A 30 minute walkthrough on your own docket. No slides, no committee.