Data-driven law firm rankings to reduce information asymmetry in legal disputes

Selecting capable counsel can shape the outcome of litigation, yet evaluating law firm performance remains challenging. Widely used rankings prioritize prestige, size and revenue over empirical litigation outcomes, offering little practical guidance. Here, to address this gap, we build on the Bradley–Terry model and introduce a new ranking framework that treats each lawsuit as a competitive game between plaintiff and defendant law firms. Leveraging a newly constructed dataset of 60,540 US civil lawsuits involving 54,541 law firms, our findings show that existing reputation-based rankings correlate poorly with actual litigation success, while our outcome-based ranking substantially improves predictive accuracy. These findings establish a foundation for more transparent, data-driven assessments of legal performance. This study introduces a data-driven method for ranking law firms based on litigation outcomes, revealing that traditional reputation-based rankings do not reflect legal performance accurately.