Forensic Accounting Editing and Proofreading Services

An expert report in a breach of contract dispute states that the plaintiff suffered "$2.4 million in lost profits as a result of the defendant's actions." Opposing counsel reads this and has nothing specific to cross-examine, not because the number is unchallengeable, but because the report never actually shows how it was calculated: what revenue was projected, against what baseline, using what growth assumption, and how much of any shortfall was actually caused by the defendant's conduct rather than by the plaintiff's own underperformance or unrelated market conditions the analysis never separated out.

We edit what forensic accountants and expert witnesses produce to calculate and disclose damages — damages calculation methodology and assumption disclosures, causation analysis separating alleged conduct from other factors, expert report findings prepared for litigation, and the correspondence explaining a specific calculation to counsel preparing for deposition or trial. Our editors work on the number that has to survive being taken apart by someone paid to find its weakest assumption.

The disclosed methodology and assumptions are what a damages calculation actually needs to withstand scrutiny, and its failure is a headline figure presented with no visible path from the underlying data to the number. $2.4 million in lost profits states a conclusion; it does not state the projected revenue, the baseline it is measured against, the growth rate assumed, or the specific mechanism by which the defendant's conduct is alleged to have caused the shortfall, and an opposing expert with nothing to examine will attack the number's plausibility rather than any specific input, because no specific input was actually shown. We work through these so every damages calculation states its baseline, its projection method, and every material assumption — the growth rate used and why, the period covered, any adjustment made — since a calculation with visible inputs can be checked and defended input by input, while one presented as a bare total can only be defended by restating the total; so causation is analysed as a distinct step from quantification, given that showing a shortfall occurred is not the same as showing the defendant's specific conduct caused it, and a report that blends the two lets a reader assume causation was established when it was actually just assumed; so alternative explanations for the shortfall are addressed explicitly, because an opposing expert's first move is to propose a competing cause, and a report that never engages with the obvious alternatives looks, to a factfinder, like it never considered them; so any adjustment or exclusion applied to raw data is stated with its reasoning, rather than absorbed silently into the final figure; and so counsel's specific question about a specific assumption receives the actual basis for that assumption, not a repetition of the headline number. Reports written this way survive cross-examination because the reasoning was already on the page before anyone asked for it.

Everything you send is treated in confidence, including financial data, calculations and litigation correspondence. We are editors rather than forensic accountants, expert witnesses or attorneys, and we offer no view on damages, causation or methodology. What we can do is make sure the number shows its own working.