Strategic Economic Analysis is an economics consulting firm specializing in loss analysis in civil litigation. The firm is run and operated by economist Kaycea Campbell, who provides economic reports and advise to both plaintiff and defense attorneys on cases in a variety of fields; these include personal injury, wrongful death, employment disputes, healthcare loss analysis, and lost profits from business cases.

Exploring her own career milestones, Kaycea exemplifies the level of professional quality and sought-after expertise that has made the firm a recognised champion in economic consultancy. With an M.A. in Economics from University of Southern California alongside a Ph.D. in Economics/Management from Claremont Graduate University, she has numerous publications under her belt on economic theory and public policy. She has since gone on to achieve a number of privileged positions including Associate Professor of Economics at Pierce College. Now with 10 years of economics and statistical experience to her name, her expansive credentials alone are what she believes singles her firm out as the best option for clients looking for economic consultancy in civil litigation.

Kaycea also actively engages in research on how an economy changes during periods of economic stagnation and or prosperity. “I am currently a Research Associate for the Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies. I review economic texts for publications and collaborate on projects and conferences related to economic issues. For the last five years I have been conducting healthcare economic analysis on a consulting basis to firms that require technical research on healthcare costs and finances. As such I have direct knowledge in healthcare economics. It is this specialized expertise that makes me fitting for calculations of lost profits within the healthcare field.

“I have also worked as an economics expert and consultant on civil litigation loss analysis related to personal injury, wrongful death, business profits, and employment disputes.”

​​With a resume like this, Kaycea is well placed at the head of Strategic Economic Analysis. Welcoming clients from all over the country, depending upon the nature of the case, she provides services reflecting the best that the industry can provide, bringing the full weight of her academia, and the professionalism of her employees, to bear. Whether engaging in expert testimony, suggesting questions for testimony, evaluating adverse economic reports, or helping to construct interrogatories and cross-examination of opposing experts,

Kaycea maintains the highest levels of professionalism and discretion.

Regarding the manner in which she conducts her business, Kaycea remarks, “I do not delegate analysis to assistants, so every client has my full attention and commitment. I also belong to a national network of experts that I can draw upon for consultation, if needed.”

Having faced challenges in her own career, Kaycea explores the wider difficulties faced by the industry at present. “Lawyers need results—and, often, these results depend on economic analysis. Economists are called into service by lawyers all the time, whether as consultants or witnesses, to answer important questions that can arise in a variety of court cases, such as: How much is a party in a divorce case really worth? What’s a fair calculation of long-term losses due to injury? What do certain financial records mean?

“There are numerous contexts in which economists’ testimony is relevant to courts. However, in many cases, economists are called upon specifically to determine economic damages. In some other scenarios, calculating tortious damages is a relatively simple matter; for example, someone whose negligence results in the destruction of a car is likely to be found liable for paying the owner of the car fair market value for the car. However, in personal injury and wrongful death cases, the calculation of damages is considerably difficult. “

​As if these considerations were not enough, the calculation of economic damages becomes even more difficult given that ‘in the United States a presentation of economic damages by a forensic economist is unique to each personal injury or death case, and is also unique to each jurisdiction’.”

Building upon this, Kaycea demonstrates how Strategic Economic Analysis fits into this dynamic, and how she continues to strive for motivation in a challenging market.

​“The calculation of economic damages in the United States is complicated by jurisdictional

differences. The central premise of economic damages is the determination of ‘but-for’ earnings, that is, earnings that would have achieved but for some intervening attempt such as personal injury, wrongful death, or copyright violation. The expertise contributed by the forensic economist lies in applying theories and methodologies to arrive at the most accurate, often year-by- year calculation of but-for earnings that can be used as the basis for awarding damages.

“These factors render the work of forensic economists highly important in American court settings. Staying active in research, leading seminars, writing textbooks, and collaborating on relevant academic and professional projects keep me motivated.”

Kaycea’s deep understanding of the industry also allows her a clairvoyant insight into the challenges that the industry will face in the near future.

“All of the signs indicate that lawyers need to deepen relationships with economic expert witnesses and consultants. Obtaining the correct economist’s services, whether in testimony or any other component of litigation, could be the difference between winning and losing.

“Economic pressures on certain industries nearly always alter the legal landscape. For lawyers who work in the fields of entertainment and intellectual property in particular, underlying the relationship between economic and litigation can confer an analytical and strategic advantage. Lawyers with an appreciation of the relationship between economic changes and trends in litigation can, for example, be more adept in identifying expert economic witnesses or in challenging economic assumptions put forward in court.

​“The major challenge is that not all aspects of the legal profession embrace this notion. For many lawyers, having a basic understanding of the economic impact of changes in technology and markets might represent the difference between having a firm grasp of a case and not understanding what is truly at stake.”