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
- Subject matter and personal jurisdiction
- Venue proper
- Administrative exhaustion (if applicable)
- Pre-suit notice requirements (e.g., government tort claims)
- Mandatory arbitration clauses
- Standing confirmed
E. Red Flags
- Client credibility concerns
- Prior claims / litigation history
- Social media contradicting injury claims
- Pre-existing conditions overlapping claimed injuries
- Adverse precedent in controlling jurisdiction
- Uncooperative or unreachable client
- Criminal exposure or parallel proceedings
- Gaps in medical treatment
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:
- Firm has subject-matter expertise
- Staffing capacity available
- Co-counsel needed? (if so, identified)
- Strategic value beyond fees (reputation, referral source, precedent)
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