System-welfare measurement
Estimate supported environmental, health, public-finance, market-integrity, institutional, and other economic effects that fall outside the parties’ transaction.
Browse by subject:
Litigation research and consulting
Measure the costs that ordinary transaction records leave out.
The Center can help counsel and multidisciplinary expert teams examine system-wide economic effects in environmental, public-health, product, financial, and institutional disputes. Current engagements begin as independent consulting research arranged through counsel. Testimony requires a separate, case-specific assessment of qualifications, methods, evidence, conflicts, and readiness.
Economic contribution
What a litigation-grade SAPM study can address.
A case-specific study defines the affected system, reconstructs the relevant activity and revenue boundary, values supported harm channels, tests alternative assumptions, and records uncertainty. The resulting model is designed to be reproduced and challenged.
Causation inputs and economic valuation
Convert admissible inputs from toxicology, epidemiology, exposure science, environmental science, engineering, or other qualified specialists into stated economic consequences.
Counterfactuals and sensitivity
Compare the observed path with supported alternatives, identify the assumptions that control the result, and show how conclusions change across credible ranges.
Reproducible record
Preserve sources, transformations, code, model versions, uncertainty, review decisions, and the limits of each conclusion for counsel and opposing examination.
Scope boundary
SAPM supplies an economic framework; each discipline supplies its own opinions.
An SAPM economist can measure economic consequences supported by the record. Medical diagnosis, individual or general medical causation, chemical fate, exposure reconstruction, engineering failure, and legal liability require appropriately qualified experts and counsel. The study may strengthen, narrow, or weaken a party’s theory.
Consulting engagement
Early case assessment, issue framing, data and evidence review, model design, damages scenarios, expert-team coordination, and confidential analysis for counsel.
Testifying engagement
A separately documented role with a complete opinion record, disclosure obligations, report preparation, deposition and trial readiness, and independent control of the conclusions expressed.
Multidisciplinary team
Complex environmental and health matters commonly require a toxicologist or epidemiologist, exposure or environmental scientist, statistician, economist, research engineers, and experienced litigation counsel.
Admissibility preparation
The method must survive examination under the rules that govern expert evidence.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the facts of the case. A litigation-grade SAPM package therefore emphasizes a method developed outside the specific dispute, published definitions, versioned code and data, validation, sensitivity analysis, known limitations, and a complete source record.
Before designation
Conflicts, qualifications, scope, data access, governing law, discoverability, timetable, and the division of opinion among experts are resolved before testimony is promised.
Method record
Every material source, boundary, transformation, assumption, exclusion, uncertainty range, model revision, and independent review is preserved.
Independent conclusions
Fees are based on time, scope, and responsibility. The Center does not accept compensation contingent on testimony, damages, settlement, or outcome.
Current entry route
Initial matters should combine SAPM knowledge with experienced litigation support.
The Center is currently interested in consulting assignments, methods collaborations, and case-screening work conducted through counsel, established litigation-support organizations, and experienced scientific experts. A testifying role would follow training, independent methods review, a suitable record, and counsel’s case-specific assessment.
A court-facing analysis must be useful, reproducible, candid about uncertainty, and limited to the questions the evidence and the expert’s qualifications can support.