We aren't claiming to assess the wide practice of law, just litigation. We do Litigation Analytics.
And do you look at motions other than actual judgments? I.e. if Firm A wins a motion to suppress some piece of evidence and then there's a subsequent settlement, we should infer that Firm A "won" the case, even if there's no judgment to that effect.
If I felt that I owed you nothing, surely this counts as a "loss" for me at trial.
If, however, you had originally sued for $50M and I felt I might owe you some money but no more than $1M so I decided to fight it, the $100k judgment would be considered an enormous "win" for me.
What data does your analysis use to distinguish between the two scenarios given that the verdicts are identical?
As a matter develops, parties tend to drop out if they think that their chances have declined beyond some threshold. But if they continue, or more likely, their legal representation suggests they continue, it implies that they think they have a good chance of success.
Of course, you can get irrational litigants but most of the time, if it goes to judgement, both parties think they have a high chance of success. Otherwise they would have bailed.