Quick answer
Begin with damages the evidence supports and a few liability scenarios. Then work out how much of a judgment could actually be collected. Price out the rest of the litigation and how long it will run. Last, figure the client’s net on a settlement. A bill multiplier skips those steps, and so does a single best-case verdict estimate. They’re often the steps that matter most.
A valuation is a working model. It isn’t a prediction that a jury will return a certain number. Its job is to help the lawyer explain why an offer does or doesn’t fit the evidence, spot the proof that’s missing, and tell the client what new information could change the advice.
For the bigger picture, start with the Texas injury claim value and litigation hub or our longer guide to how Texas injury claims are valued and litigated.
Build the verdict before estimating settlement value
Start with damages that admissible evidence supports. Sort them by category. Past medical bills get their own line, and so do future care, lost earnings, impairment, pain and any other claimed loss. For each one, write down the proof and the legal limits. Past bills have proof rules of their own; here’s how to prove past medical expenses in Texas.
And never pick the settlement number first, then work backward to damages that justify it.
Then test liability. Even a good case can end at zero. The jury might reject responsibility outright. Or it might find the claimant more than 50% responsible in a case governed by Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. At 50% or less, the judgment drops by the claimant’s percentage. Chapter 33 has its own scope and exceptions, so check that it covers the claim before you put it in the numbers. We walk through it in how comparative responsibility changes a Texas injury recovery.
Put at least three trials on paper. One ends in a defense verdict. One leaves the claimant with a big share of the responsibility. In one, the liability proof holds. Each needs evidence behind it.
Then change one thing at a time. The disputed video is one. The treating physician’s causation opinion is another. So is the missing witness, and so is any proof against a third party who may be responsible.
Separate verdict value from collectible value
A judgment and collected money are different things. List the policies you know about, their limits, and who they insure. Then look for excess layers, other claimants and coverage disputes.
Don’t fill gaps in the insurance picture with hope. Unknown coverage is unknown, and so are unknown assets. If a coverage investigation might turn something up, it can have its own scenario, but write next to it what evidence would make it real.
Do the percentage math once, where the client can see it. A responsibility finding is not a policy limit.
Say a hypothetical jury awards $750,000 and finds the claimant 30% responsible. That leaves $525,000 before limits, offsets, costs or collection. It’s an illustration, not a forecast or a promise of recovery.
Use probabilities as judgments, not facts
Any percentage you put on a scenario is your judgment, not a fact, and the evidence behind it should be written right there. Zero has to be one of the possibilities. A range is fine when that’s all the record gives you, and so is a rough read of the odds. An exact figure invented to fill a spreadsheet cell isn’t.
Scenarios shouldn’t overlap, and together they should cover the outcomes you’re modeling. Probabilities need to add to 100%. Be careful with risks that are linked. A weak causation opinion can hurt the odds of winning and lower the damages range at once, but that is one problem. Counting it twice needs an explanation.
Compare the client’s likely net and future choices
The client’s net comes after fees, case expenses, liens or reimbursement claims and other known deductions, so find those first. Mark which amounts are confirmed. A gross verdict or settlement is not what the client takes home.
Count only the litigation expenses still ahead. Experts, depositions, trial prep and an appeal may all hinge on decisions nobody has made yet. Money already spent is spent. It doesn’t make the claim worth more. Then compare the likely net from a reasonable settlement with the range of net results after more expense and more delay.
It helps to keep a one-page worksheet, one row per scenario.
Each row shows the evidence and, if supportable, a probability. Then damages and responsibility. Then the expected judgment and what’s collectible. Open coverage questions go at the end, along with the added cost and time and the client’s net.
Show what could change the recommendation
Then there’s the question of what would change your mind.
A new medical opinion might. A key video might. Confirming another policy layer, clearing a lien or finding new evidence on responsibility could too.
Be candid about which assumptions are solid and which are shaky. Say how much more investigation makes sense. Then the client can choose: accept, counter, mediate, or keep heading toward trial.
Discuss a Texas injury claim
Contact The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C., at (214) 200-4878 or request a consultation. For collision cases, review the firm’s Dallas car accident practice. Free consultation. No fees or expenses unless you recover.
Founding Attorney
Aaron A. Herbert is a Texas attorney, Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
For over a decade he has shown an unwavering commitment to clients who were seriously injured by major accidents and industrial catastrophes. During that time he has earned the reputation as one of America’s most aggressive trial lawyers by achieving noteworthy recoveries from judges and juries, as well as substantial settlements prior to trial, the majority of which contained negotiated confidentiality agreements at the request of the defense. When asked about these cases, Mr. Herbert has said that each case not only justified the recovery level, but that no one would trade places with any one of these victims in return for any amount of money, once they know the facts and severity of the injuries and tragedy involved. According to Mr. Herbert, “there can be no substitute for passion, preparation and persistence in the practice of law.” He is known not only for this tenacious preparation, but also for his imagination in the courtroom. He is passionate and persistent in seeking to obtain the maximum case value for each individual client at trial or through settlement, while reducing the stress of litigation on his clients.
Born and raised in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Herbert enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school and later received an Honorable Discharge. After the Marines, he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Texas A&M University, then a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. There he graduated in the top of his class and became an eternal Sooners Football fan. Aaron has worked as a zealous advocate for injured clients at several boutique personal injury litigation firms where he amassed numerous jury verdicts. After spending a year as the top earning litigation attorney at a firm that frequently tops verdict search as one with the highest number of trial wins in Texas, Aaron accepted a position as the managing pre-litigation attorney at another Dallas personal injury firm. Over the next seven years he transitioned to the managing litigation attorney, and that firm grew to one of the largest personal injury firms in Dallas. In 2010 he formed the Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, to get back to a focus on developing each individual case and maximizing case value for each client.
Mr. Herbert practices law with the belief that a well taken care of, highly engaged and motivated team of employees working in a cooperative team environment will result in superior representation and great results for the firm clients. He believes in always setting a goal of achieving the best possible results for each and every client.
Education
- Texas A&M University (B.S. Criminal Justice, 1999)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (J.D., 2002)
Professional Associations
- Licensed to practice in Texas (2002)
- Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization (2008)
Publications
- Litigating Dog Bite Cases, Texas Dog Law Seminar, Dallas 2009
Member
- State Bar of Texas
- American Bar Association
- American Trial Lawyer Association
- Texas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas Trial Lawyers Association
- Dallas County Bar Association
- Tarrant County Bar Association
- Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Texas Bar #24036761 · The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. · Dallas, Texas
This is general information about Texas law, not advice for a particular case. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case value and available recovery depend on the evidence, applicable law, insurance and other facts.