A Georgetown Law student discovered that SCOTUS losers may be predicted in advance by the larger number of questions they receive from Supreme Court Justices. Chief Justice John Roberts validates this, indicating last year that Justices use questions as a “backboard” for persuading colleagues to adopt their position. I agree that losing parties’ attorneys tend to draw more questions. The formula probably works in trial and intermediate appellate courts as well.
But this device has limited utility when you are already in front of the decision-maker; as attorney fees are spent and the legal work is done. It would be advantageous to forecast outcomes earlier. I suggest that when counsel on each side of a case differ significantly in years of experience, the side with more years has a greater likelihood of winning. I exclude legal aid and pro bono attorneys from my hypothesis, since they often advance matters with less or non-existent merit-based triage.