How Data Can Drive Better Litigation Decisions: Where to File and What to Expect

By Adam J. Feldman • October 17, 2023

Guest Post by Adam J. Feldman, editor of Empirical SCOTUS

Sometimes litigants do not have freedom on where to file cases. Venue is often dictated by where an action occurs leading to a complaint.  In situations where litigants have some flexibility on where to file though, there is room for strategic litigation decisions.  Even when they do not, statistics help them account for the possibility that their decisions will withstand an appeal. Below are statistics related to federal appeals court decisions on district court cases filed in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2023. 1

One simple metric of interest, total appeals terminated, reflects the relative caseloads of the 12 geographic circuits along with the subject matter-specific Federal Circuit. 2

The number of cases by circuit roughly parallels the circuit size so that those circuits encompassing larger populations have relatively more cases filed than those circuits covering smaller territories. While the graph above gives a general sense of the landscape of federal appeals, a more helpful metric for litigation planning is how inundated judges in the circuits are by their caseloads. The next graph shows the count of terminated cases by active judges for the same period of time.

Here we see that even though the Ninth Circuit is the largest geographic circuit, it only has the fifth highest rate of terminated cases by a judge.  The number of cases terminated by a judge in the Ninth Circuit is on average 253 fewer than those terminated by a judge in the Eighth Circuit.

Aside from the Federal Circuit which hears appeals by case type rather than by location of the appeal, the circuits primarily hear cases surrounding similar issues. It is therefore helpful to know the circuit’s breakdown by substantive case types focusing on the percentage of each case type within each circuit. 

The Ninth and D.C. Circuits for instance heard the largest percentages of administrative appeals. Ninth Circuit administrative appeals typically relate to immigration cases while executive agency cases are primarily conducted within the D.C. Circuit.  The First and Fifth Circuits heard the highest percentage of private civil cases, and the D.C. Circuit heard a much greater proportion of U.S. civil appeals than any of the other circuits.

Two other points that may be particularly helpful for litigants are reversal rates in the various circuits and more granular data focusing on particular issues. Although the U.S. Courts’ statistics do not break cases down by specific issue areas, we can remove cases from several of the case types including criminal, that do not involve civil litigants.  Based on these two items, the next graph shows reversal rates for private civil cases (and patent or trademark decisions from the Federal Circuit) over the 12-month period ending June 30, 2023.

The circuits’ reversal rates at the top of the graph at around 15% are markedly different from those at the bottom of the graph which are around 10% and below.

Bankruptcy cases are substantively different from private civil cases, so it makes sense to look at these counts and reversal rates in isolation.  Certain circuits did not review a statistically significant number of bankruptcy decisions so their reversal rates are not shown.

The Third and Eleventh Circuits reversal rates in bankruptcy cases far exceed those for the other circuits. Looking at these numbers as distinct from the private civil cases also prevents either type of decision from throwing off the reversal rates from the other type.

Statistical information like this can help paint a clearer picture of a litigation landscape. Litigants can use it to make strategic decisions to the extent that they have flexibility of where to file. These statistics also provide litigants with more clarity for their expectations of likelihood that a trial court decision will be overturned.  This can also help companies with regular litigation before one of more judicial district(s) plan for whether or not to appeal and for what to expect from an appeal.  With the right set of data and tools, one can further break these numbers down by specific judge, more particular issues, or within other dimensions. 

Adam Feldman is the editor of Empirical SCOTUS , a blog that conducts data analysis of the United States Supreme Court, and the Principal of Optimized Legal, a legal data/statistical consultancy. He is also an adjunct professor of political science and public law at California State University, Northridge. You can reach Adam for specific data and analyses related to your own litigation questions in this and other areas.

1 Data for analyses below was provided by Judicial Business Statistics from USCourts.gov. All data is for geographic circuit courts and does not include the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The data relate to judicial business conducted between the end of June 2022 and June 2023.

2 DC refers to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; FC refers to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Recent Content

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.

Certum Group Expands Platform to Include Operational Services with Launch of Certum Legal Solutions

By Certum Group Team • December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.

Bloomberg Law: Litigation Funding Protects IP ‘Davids’ from Predatory Goliaths

By Kirstine Rogers • November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.

Litigation Finance Isn’t a Hidden Tax. It’s a Market Correction.

By W. Tyler Perry • October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.