Case Viability & Conflict Check Report
Internal privileged memo evaluating a prospective PI matter for case acceptance, conflict clearance, and resource commitment.
Prerequisites
- Intake summary — client name, adverse parties, incident date, injuries, objectives
- Supporting documents — police reports, medical records, photos, insurance info
- Firm conflict database — current/former clients, pending matters
- Fee parameters — contingency rates, cost-advance policy, minimum case value thresholds
Quick Start
- Gather intake summary and supporting documents
- Run conflict screen against all parties and entities
- Assess legal viability: claims, defenses, SOL, procedural bars
- Project damages and calculate cost-benefit
- Issue recommendation: ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS / DECLINE / DEFER
- Draft executive summary with privilege designation
Memo Sections
1. Factual Summary
- Chronological narrative of key events
- All parties identified (client, adverse parties, insurers, witnesses, related entities)
- Client's stated objectives
- Gap analysis:
| Missing Information |
Impact (H/M/L) |
Resolution Path |
| {item} |
{level} |
{method} |
2. Conflict of Interest Analysis
Screen every person/entity against firm databases.
Check: prospective client + affiliates, all adverse parties (named and anticipated), insurers/adjusters, key witnesses, subject matter overlap.
For each conflict found:
| Factor |
Analysis |
| Type |
Direct (Rule 1.7) / Former client (Rule 1.9) / Imputed (Rule 1.10) / Prospective (Rule 1.18) |
| Affected matter |
{identify specifically} |
| Waivable? |
Yes — informed written consent / No — {reason} |
| Proposed cure |
Screening wall / Client consent / Decline |
If clear: state affirmatively with search date range and scope. Flag jurisdiction-specific RPC variations with [VERIFY].
3. Legal Viability
A. Causes of Action — For each claim, table elements vs. supporting/undermining facts and available evidence.
B. Anticipated Defenses — For each defense (comparative negligence, assumption of risk, etc.), assess likelihood, impact, and mitigation strategy.
C. Statute of Limitations
- Applicable statute with citation
- Accrual date and basis
- Tolling doctrines (discovery rule, minority, incapacity)
- Filing deadline: {exact date}
- Urgency: > 6 months / < 6 months / < 90 days / EXPIRED
D. Procedural Requirements
E. Red Flags
4. Financial Viability
Damages projection — estimate low/mid/high for: past medical specials, future medical, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, pain & suffering, punitive (if applicable).
Cost-benefit analysis — projected attorney hours, fee arrangement, hard costs (filing, depositions, experts), total firm investment, expected recovery × probability of success, ROI ratio.
Collectability — assess insurance coverage, defendant assets, judgment-proofing concerns.
Resource check:
5. Recommendation
One of:
- ACCEPT — conditions listed
- ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS — specify prerequisites (waivers, retainer, investigation)
- DECLINE — specific reasons + referral suggestions
- DEFER — specify information needed + decision deadline
Rationale: synthesize conflict status, legal merit, financial viability, and strategic alignment in 2-3 paragraphs.
6. Executive Summary
- 3-5 bullet key findings
- One-sentence recommendation
- Report date, preparing attorney, contributors
- Sources consulted and search scope
- Time-sensitive deadlines flagged
- Privilege designation: Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product
Pitfalls & Rules
- Candor — internal document; sugar-coating risks harms the firm
- SOL precision — calculate deadlines exactly; flag < 90 days as urgent
- Collectability — never assume; verify insurance and assets
- Ethics rules — apply Model Rules of Professional Conduct; mark jurisdiction-specific variations with [VERIFY]
- Minimum case value — for contingency fees, apply firm threshold before recommending acceptance
- Citations — mark any unverifiable legal citation with [VERIFY]
- Privilege — state "Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product" explicitly in output
1---2name: case-viability-report3description: Produces internal case viability and conflict check memos for personal injury litigation intake. Screens conflicts, assesses liability and damages, checks statute of limitations, and outputs an accept/decline recommendation. Use when evaluating new PI intake, running conflict checks, assessing case merit pre-filing, or preparing acceptance memos.4---5
6# Case Viability & Conflict Check Report
7
8Internal privileged memo evaluating a prospective PI matter for case acceptance, conflict clearance, and resource commitment.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12- **Intake summary** — client name, adverse parties, incident date, injuries, objectives
13- **Supporting documents** — police reports, medical records, photos, insurance info
14- **Firm conflict database** — current/former clients, pending matters
15- **Fee parameters** — contingency rates, cost-advance policy, minimum case value thresholds
16
17## Quick Start
18
191. Gather intake summary and supporting documents
202. Run conflict screen against all parties and entities
213. Assess legal viability: claims, defenses, SOL, procedural bars
224. Project damages and calculate cost-benefit
235. Issue recommendation: ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS / DECLINE / DEFER
246. Draft executive summary with privilege designation
25
26## Memo Sections
27
28### 1. Factual Summary
29
30- Chronological narrative of key events
31- All parties identified (client, adverse parties, insurers, witnesses, related entities)
32- Client's stated objectives
33- Gap analysis:
34
35| Missing Information | Impact (H/M/L) | Resolution Path |
36|---|---|---|
37| {item} | {level} | {method} |
38
39### 2. Conflict of Interest Analysis
40
41Screen every person/entity against firm databases.
42
43**Check:** prospective client + affiliates, all adverse parties (named and anticipated), insurers/adjusters, key witnesses, subject matter overlap.
44
45**For each conflict found:**
46
47| Factor | Analysis |
48|---|---|
49| Type | Direct (Rule 1.7) / Former client (Rule 1.9) / Imputed (Rule 1.10) / Prospective (Rule 1.18) |
50| Affected matter | {identify specifically} |
51| Waivable? | Yes — informed written consent / No — {reason} |
52| Proposed cure | Screening wall / Client consent / Decline |
53
54If clear: state affirmatively with search date range and scope. Flag jurisdiction-specific RPC variations with [VERIFY].
55
56### 3. Legal Viability
57
58**A. Causes of Action** — For each claim, table elements vs. supporting/undermining facts and available evidence.
59
60**B. Anticipated Defenses** — For each defense (comparative negligence, assumption of risk, etc.), assess likelihood, impact, and mitigation strategy.
61
62**C. Statute of Limitations**
63
64- Applicable statute with citation
65- Accrual date and basis
66- Tolling doctrines (discovery rule, minority, incapacity)
67- **Filing deadline: {exact date}**
68- Urgency: > 6 months / < 6 months / < 90 days / EXPIRED
69
70**D. Procedural Requirements**
71
72- [ ] Subject matter and personal jurisdiction
73- [ ] Venue proper
74- [ ] Administrative exhaustion (if applicable)
75- [ ] Pre-suit notice requirements (e.g., government tort claims)
76- [ ] Mandatory arbitration clauses
77- [ ] Standing confirmed
78
79**E. Red Flags**
80
81- [ ] Client credibility concerns
82- [ ] Prior claims / litigation history
83- [ ] Social media contradicting injury claims
84- [ ] Pre-existing conditions overlapping claimed injuries
85- [ ] Adverse precedent in controlling jurisdiction
86- [ ] Uncooperative or unreachable client
87- [ ] Criminal exposure or parallel proceedings
88- [ ] Gaps in medical treatment
89
90### 4. Financial Viability
91
92**Damages projection** — estimate low/mid/high for: past medical specials, future medical, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, pain & suffering, punitive (if applicable).
93
94**Cost-benefit analysis** — projected attorney hours, fee arrangement, hard costs (filing, depositions, experts), total firm investment, expected recovery × probability of success, ROI ratio.
95
96**Collectability** — assess insurance coverage, defendant assets, judgment-proofing concerns.
97
98**Resource check:**
99
100- [ ] Firm has subject-matter expertise
101- [ ] Staffing capacity available
102- [ ] Co-counsel needed? (if so, identified)
103- [ ] Strategic value beyond fees (reputation, referral source, precedent)
104
105### 5. Recommendation
106
107One of:
108
109- **ACCEPT** — conditions listed
110- **ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS** — specify prerequisites (waivers, retainer, investigation)
111- **DECLINE** — specific reasons + referral suggestions
112- **DEFER** — specify information needed + decision deadline
113
114Rationale: synthesize conflict status, legal merit, financial viability, and strategic alignment in 2-3 paragraphs.
115
116### 6. Executive Summary
117
118- 3-5 bullet key findings
119- One-sentence recommendation
120- Report date, preparing attorney, contributors
121- Sources consulted and search scope
122- Time-sensitive deadlines flagged
123- Privilege designation: *Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product*
124
125## Pitfalls & Rules
126
127- **Candor** — internal document; sugar-coating risks harms the firm
128- **SOL precision** — calculate deadlines exactly; flag < 90 days as urgent
129- **Collectability** — never assume; verify insurance and assets
130- **Ethics rules** — apply Model Rules of Professional Conduct; mark jurisdiction-specific variations with [VERIFY]
131- **Minimum case value** — for contingency fees, apply firm threshold before recommending acceptance
132- **Citations** — mark any unverifiable legal citation with [VERIFY]
133- **Privilege** — state "Attorney-Client Privileged / Work Product" explicitly in output
CaseMark