Lawsuit Intelligencer publishes original analytical writing about mass torts, product liability, toxic exposure litigation, plaintiff-side legal marketing, intake practices, and the business of plaintiff-side law. We are interested in pieces that take a position, support it with specifics, and would tell an experienced reader something they didn't already know.
Who we publish
Practicing attorneys, plaintiff- or defense-side. Physicians and clinicians whose work intersects with mass tort or product-liability cases. Litigation experts, consultants, and economists. Legal marketers, intake professionals, and operators inside the legal industry. Academics in tort law, regulation, and adjacent fields. Investigative journalists covering the litigation industry.
If your background isn't on this list and you have something substantive to say, send the pitch anyway.
What we publish
Bylined analysis and commentary, generally 800 to 1,800 words. Specific forms we look for:
Regulatory analysis. Federal or state shifts that move litigation. Explain what changed, why it matters, and what practitioners should do — not what a press release said.
Industry analysis. The business of plaintiff-side law: referral economics, intake practices, legal marketing, firm structure, AI in legal work, consolidation, the gap between consumer expectations and how the system actually works.
Case and doctrine analysis. Why a particular case, MDL, settlement structure, or appellate decision matters beyond its own facts. Doctrine in motion.
Contrarian takes. We are particularly interested in pieces that disagree with conventional wisdom in the plaintiff bar, the defense bar, or the legal trade press, and back the disagreement with reasoning.
Reported pieces. If you've talked to people, read filings, or done original research, that work has a home here.
What we don't publish
Promotional pieces about your firm, your services, or your software. The byline is your visibility; the article is the reader's. Pieces that read as marketing for the author's practice get sent back.
Generic legal explainers — "what is a class action," "do I have a case for X" — and similar consumer-facing content. That work belongs on Lawsuit Informer or in CLE materials, not here.
Pieces written primarily by AI tools. Use AI for research and drafting if you want; most of us do. The analysis and judgment have to be yours, and we can usually tell when they're not.
Press releases formatted as articles. Filing announcements without analysis. Listicles.
Disclosures
Attorneys writing about cases they are litigating, or in which they have a financial interest, must disclose that interest at the top of the piece. We publish pieces from authors with skin in the game — that's often who has the most useful perspective — but the reader has to know. Pieces discussing products, firms, or service providers in which the author has a financial relationship require similar disclosure. When in doubt, disclose.
How to pitch
Send a one-paragraph pitch to editor@lawsuitintelligencer.com. Tell us what you're arguing, why now, why you're the person to write it, and approximate length.
If we're interested, you'll hear back within a week with editorial direction. If we're not, we usually tell you why. Sometimes the pitch is right but the timing isn't.
Practical notes
We don't currently pay contributors. We do work editorially with you on pieces — line edits, structural questions, fact-checking — and we credit your byline, your firm or affiliation, and link to your work. As the publication grows, paid commissions will become part of the model.
Pieces are exclusive to Lawsuit Intelligencer for 30 days after publication. After that, republish on your own site, LinkedIn, Substack, or anywhere else, with a link back.
We don't accept anonymous submissions. In narrow cases we'll work with sources who need to be quoted anonymously inside a piece written by an attributed author.
Editorial decisions are made by David Meldofsky.