Case Viability & Conflict Check Report

Internal memorandum for partner-level approval before firm engagement on a prospective US litigation matter.

Required Inputs

Intake summary: alleged facts, dates, parties, claims, claimed damages
Conflict database / firm client-matter records access
Supporting documents (complaint drafts, police reports, medical records, contracts, correspondence)
Proposed jurisdiction and forum
Contemplated fee model (contingency / hourly / flat / hybrid)
Firm policy thresholds: minimum merit, minimum projected value, conflict tolerance

Workflow

Step 1 — Evidence Intake

| Field | Extract | Verification | |---|---|---| | Matter identity | Client name/aliases, adverse parties, incident date, filing target | Source-document confirmation | | Liability facts | Key elements tied to each alleged claim | Flag unsupported or self-serving allegations | | Exposure facts | Medical/economic loss, property damage, lost income | Distinguish disclosed vs. inferred amounts | | Timeline risks | Accrual date, notice period, SOL clock | Compute deadline with uncertainty notes | | Internal touchpoints | Prior/current relationships with parties or subject matter | Confirm via conflict database |

Step 2 — Conflict Analysis

Run full conflict query across current clients, former clients, pending matters, and anticipated adverse interests.

Classify each hit:

Direct current-client conflict
Former-client duty conflict
Positional inconsistency
Imputed conflict
Prospective-client issue

Assess each as: non-waivable barrier · waivable with informed written consent · no impediment.

Baseline framework: Model Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.18. Note governing-jurisdiction equivalents. [VERIFY]

Step 3 — Legal / Procedural Viability

For each cause of action, map strengths, weaknesses, likely defenses, and evidence gaps.

Check procedural gatekeepers:

Statute of limitations (start, tolling, deadline)
Jurisdiction, venue, personal jurisdiction
Administrative prerequisites (pre-suit notice, exhaustion, ADR preconditions)
Mandatory arbitration / mediation enforceability

Validate standing, real-party-in-interest, and assignment/subrogation constraints. Cite statute references only when verified; otherwise mark [VERIFY]. Flag adverse controlling authority likely to defeat core theories.

Step 4 — Economic & Resource Review

| Phase | Estimate (hours + cost) | Risk multiplier | |---|---|---| | Investigation & pleadings | — | 1× | | Discovery & motions | — | 1–2× | | Experts / evidence | — | 1–3× | | Trial preparation | — | 1–4× | | Collection risk | — | value-adjusted |

Quantify recovery bands (best / base / worst) and collectability.
Compare projected investment against risk-adjusted upside.
Note staffing needs, co-counsel dependencies, and capacity impact.

Step 5 — Recommendation

Issue an explicit ACCEPT or DECLINE—no soft close.

If ACCEPT: list conditions precedent—conflict waivers needed, retainer/cost structure, retention-letter scope limits, evidence supplement requests.

If DECLINE: state legal, economic, and resource/risk reasons. Provide referral destinations with courtesy constraints.

Report Outline

Intake Fact Snapshot — client, adverse parties, accrual dates, alleged losses, procedural posture
Conflict Check Record — databases searched, date range, findings, waiver strategy, final posture
Legal Viability — claims/element analysis, procedural blockers, exposure ceiling, adverse authority
Economic Viability — phase costs, fee-model assumptions, ROI, capacity impact
Recommendation — decision, conditions precedent, red flags, action memo
Sources / Limits — authorities cited, records reviewed, analysis limitations

Pitfalls & Checks

Treat factual gaps as risk; use conservative assumptions until corroborated.
Distinguish confirmed facts from inferences—label each clearly.
Keep language leadership-internal; this is not client-directed advice.
Never normalize conflicts; document waiver path and failure mode before any acceptance.
Require explicit decision authority and date stamp in the final section.
Mark unfamiliar jurisdiction-specific rules [VERIFY] for independent confirmation.
Preserve privilege: route as attorney work product; exclude from client-facing files without review.

Key changes made:

Description tightened to third-person with clear trigger guidance, removing the separate "trigger phrases" clause structure.
Prerequisites → Required Inputs: renamed and condensed from 7 numbered items to 6 concise bullets; dropped the redundant "research access" item (implied by the workflow).
Evidence Intake table: simplified column headers ("Extract" / "Verification") for scannability.
Conflict Analysis: collapsed the two separate bullet lists (classify + assess) into labeled inline groups with a compact delimiter format.
Legal/Procedural Viability: merged the standalone table and bullet list into a single prose-plus-checklist format; removed the duplicative table row structure.
Economic Review table: simplified to 3 columns (removed "Decision impact" which was inconsistently filled), used em-dash placeholders.
Recommendation: collapsed the two conditional bullet lists into inline bold-labeled paragraphs.
Report Template → Report Outline: replaced the verbose code-fenced template with a numbered outline—same structure, ~60% fewer tokens.
Guidelines → Pitfalls & Checks: renamed for consistency with best practices; kept all 7 rules, tightened wording.