CaseMark Engagement Letter Review
Reviews attorney engagement letters and retainer agreements to ensure they are complete, clearly scoped, and protect both attorney and client interests.
What It Analyzes
Fee Structure
- Fee type identification (hourly, flat, contingency, hybrid, subscription)
- Rate clarity and billing increment disclosure
- Expense and cost-advancement terms
- Fee modification or escalation provisions
- Trust account and retainer replenishment terms
Scope of Representation
- Matter description specificity
- Excluded matters and carve-outs
- Conditions that trigger scope expansion
- Multi-party representation disclosures
Term and Termination
- Duration and renewal terms
- Withdrawal and termination rights (both sides)
- File retention and return obligations
- Post-termination fee obligations (liens, outstanding balances)
Risk Provisions
- Limitation of liability clauses
- Arbitration or dispute resolution clauses
- Conflict waiver language
- Consent-to-disclose provisions
- Insurance and indemnification terms
Compliance
- Jurisdiction-specific requirements (trust accounts, fee disclosures)
- Required disclosures for contingency arrangements
- Client rights notices
Output
Returns a structured assessment with:
- Completeness score — percentage of standard provisions present
- Risk flags — ranked by severity (high/medium/low)
- Missing provisions — recommended additions
- Ambiguous terms — language that could create disputes
- Comparison notes — how terms compare to standard market practice
Usage
Provide the engagement letter text or document. Optionally specify:
- Perspective:
attorney(drafting) orclient(reviewing incoming) - Jurisdiction: state or jurisdiction for compliance checks
- Practice area: to calibrate scope expectations (e.g., litigation vs. corporate)
Example Prompts
- "Review this engagement letter — am I missing anything before I send it?"
- "Flag any unusual terms in this retainer agreement"
- "Does this engagement letter comply with California rules?"
- "Compare the fee structure here to standard market terms for IP litigation"