How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Wisconsin

Step-by-step

Below is a practical walkthrough for running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Wisconsin (US-WI). The goal is to model how a Wisconsin offer of judgment can affect cost risk before you file or respond—without turning the tool into legal advice.

1) Open the analyzer tool in DocketMath

• Go to the tool here: **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
• If DocketMath asks you to select a jurisdiction, choose:

  • **Jurisdiction: US-WI (Wisconsin)

2) Confirm the analyzer is using Wisconsin’s default offer period

Based on the jurisdiction data provided, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for Wisconsin. That means the analyzer should use the general/default period associated with Wis. Stat. § 807.01 (i.e., the default framework rather than a special timeline for a specific claim type).

What to check in the tool:

• Look for a jurisdiction summary, rule label, or setting that indicates it is using:

  • Wisconsin default offer timeline (tied to Wis. Stat. § 807.01)

If you see multiple timing options, make sure the selection says it’s using the Wisconsin default, not another jurisdiction’s framework.

3) Enter the case and offer parameters

The analyzer typically needs inputs that drive the cost/risk comparison. Fill in the fields using the tool’s labels. Common inputs include:

• Offer amount
• Expected final judgment (sometimes phrased as anticipated recovery, target judgment, or expected outcome)
• Your side / role (offeror vs offeree), if the tool distinguishes roles
• Estimated recoverable costs (if the tool allows you to include costs in the model)
• Interest / timing assumptions (if the tool includes them—many analyzers let you model how time impacts totals)

How inputs affect outputs:

• If you include costs/interest, your break-even “advantage” can shift materially.
• If costs are left blank or set to placeholders, the output may look more optimistic than a model that reflects real litigation expenses.

4) Add outcome-side assumptions so the comparison is meaningful

Most offer-of-judgment analyses compare at least two scenarios, such as:

• Scenario A: the offer is accepted
• Scenario B: the offer is not accepted (and the case proceeds to an expected outcome)

Because Wis. Stat. § 807.01 ties acceptance to entry of judgment “accordingly,” your acceptance scenario should generally align closely with the offer amount (i.e., acceptance reduces uncertainty and snaps the result to the offered number).

When the tool asks for something like:

• Expected final judgment (or a modeled result), or
• which side benefits under your assumed outcome,

use your best available litigation math—even if it’s rough—so the output represents your real-world risk.

5) Run the calculation and review the results panel

Click Analyze (or the tool’s equivalent action). The results panel typically shows a structured comparison, often including:

• A scenario summary (accepted vs not accepted, or offer vs no offer outcomes)
• A net difference (how totals compare between alternatives)
• A break-even lens, such as “offer is advantageous if judgment is above/below X,” if that feature is present

Wisconsin-specific timing note for interpretation: use the Step 2 rule/timeline confirmation so you interpret the tool’s “offer window” correctly when timing affects totals.

6) Adjust inputs to stress-test the model

Before you stop, run a quick sensitivity check by changing one variable at a time, for example:

• Adjust Expected final judgment by a reasonable range (e.g., ±10%) and re-run.
• Toggle cost inclusion (if the tool allows) and compare the results.
• Compare results for a lower vs higher Offer amount.

Why this matters: many analyzers depend on ratios (offer vs expected outcome) and whether costs/interest are included. Small input changes can move the break-even point.

7) Export or save the analysis for internal reference

If DocketMath provides any of the following, use them so your assumptions stay consistent:

• Share link
• Print/PDF view
• Save this run

That way, if you revise numbers later (new valuation, updated cost estimates, changed expected outcome), you can compare versions without losing your baseline.

Common pitfalls

Avoid these frequent mistakes when running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in US-WI:

• Leaving the tool on the wrong jurisdiction

  • If you accidentally select a non-Wisconsin jurisdiction, the offer timing and modeling assumptions may not reflect Wis. Stat. § 807.01.

• Assuming a claim-type-specific timeline exists

  • For the Wisconsin data provided, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so the analyzer should rely on the general/default period under Wis. Stat. § 807.01.
  • If the tool has advanced timing options, verify it’s set to Wisconsin default.

• Entering the same value for “offer amount” and “expected final judgment”

  • The offer amount is what the offer states.
  • The expected final judgment is your modeled outcome after litigation risk.
  • If these are identical, the results can appear artificially neutral or less informative.

• Omitting costs or using unrealistic defaults

  • If cost fields are blank, the model may understate risk.
  • If the tool uses a default cost figure, consider whether it is reasonable for your situation.

• Re-running without tracking what changed

  • Update one input at a time (or at least write down what you changed) so you can interpret why the output shifted.

Caution (not legal advice): If you model acceptance as unlikely while your facts suggest acceptance is likely, the tool may produce an overly favorable risk picture. The analyzer quantifies scenarios based on the assumptions you enter.

Try it

If you want a quick practice run:

1. Open /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Set:

   • **Jurisdiction: US-WI (Wisconsin)
3. Enter a simple baseline set of numbers:

   • Offer amount
   • Expected final judgment
   • Estimated costs (if the tool includes a costs option)
4. Click Analyze

Then iterate:

• Change only Expected final judgment (move it up or down) and re-run.

How to read the results for Wisconsin: keep in mind the rule summary you confirmed in Step 2—under Wis. Stat. § 807.01, acceptance results in judgment entered “accordingly.” So acceptance scenarios should generally align to the offer value, while non-acceptance scenarios reflect your expected litigation outcome inputs.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado