As lawyers looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the case, they also expect to win. In a case that essentially boils down to Clinton's word against Jones', the burden of proof is upon Jones. The encounters could also be used as evidence if the women can be shown to have suffered or prospered in their jobs because of how they responded to Clinton. That would help Jones make the case that she suffered harm as a consequence of refusing Clinton's advances. That's an essential element.
Evidence there is weak.
Jones wasn't fired, demoted or apparently punished in any way. But if she finds other women who responded positively to Clinton's advances and were rewarded, her lawyers can try to invoke a line of cases in which courts have ruled that a plaintiff can prove harm by demonstrating that those who submitted to the sexual advances of a supervisor were favored at work, while those who did not were held back. It was a significant procedural victory for Clinton that in pretrial maneuvers his lawyers got Judge Wright to approve a jury of 12 in his case instead of the six-member panel more typical in civil suits. The larger jury will make it harder to reach a unanimous verdict against him. As might be expected, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who knows something about public embarrassments involving women, looks at the matter from the coolest possible perspective.