Why not use a modified Elo rating? That way you can not only easily figure out if you're going to win, but simulate the outcome of different scenarios?
The problem is the second assumption of Elo's system, per wikipedia: "if a player wins a game, he is assumed to have performed at a higher level than his opponent for that game. Conversely, if he loses, he is assumed to have performed at a lower level."
But you can't assume that about lawsuits. If the client should have paid ten million in damages, the better lawyer might limit the award to nominal damages. But the same nominal damages loss might be a disaster in another case the lawyer should have won.
Lawsuits aren't zero-sum, bilateral agreements to compete like most sports. Parties aren't just competing for a 'win,' but looking to maximize gain or minimize loss.
Elo rating is a system used to gauge chess players. You win/lose point depending on your points difference before a match. If the favourite loses, more points are lost to the underdog than if the underdog loses.
You can apply this to a wide variety of sports where most teams don't get to play most other teams, eg you can guess that Germany are better than India at soccer despite the rarity of the tie.
And of course you can modify the system to take account of various issues such as the retirement of better players, which tends to remove points from the system.
But you can't assume that about lawsuits. If the client should have paid ten million in damages, the better lawyer might limit the award to nominal damages. But the same nominal damages loss might be a disaster in another case the lawyer should have won.
Lawsuits aren't zero-sum, bilateral agreements to compete like most sports. Parties aren't just competing for a 'win,' but looking to maximize gain or minimize loss.