It may surprise you to know the truth (whatever that means) doesn’t matter at all - at least not from my perspective.  What does matter is how effective I can be in bridging the distance between the two, or more, perceptions of the case.   That distance is often narrowed by helping the parties gain an objective perspective of what a jury will likely hear, if the case proceeds to trial.  And, importantly, how difficult it might be for a complete outsider (a juror) to sort through conflicting expert witness testimony and decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”. Only to then be faced with assigning a dollar value to that assessment.  This is a potentially daunting task when everything they heard during trial – like the descriptions of the elephant by the three blind men – is both right and wrong. This strategy is neither plaintiff nor defense oriented; it is collective participant oriented.