Case Investigation Checklist

Pull the intake form, consultation memo, and any documents the prospective client provided. Confirm matter type, jurisdiction, and the client's stated desired outcome. Flag any deadlines mentioned in the consult — SOL, hearing dates, response deadlines — for the next step.

Search the conflicts database (Clio Conflicts, IntApp Open, NetDocuments + ConflictChex, etc.) for the client, related entities, opposing party, known witnesses, and key non-parties. Imputation under Model Rule 1.10 means a conflict on any firm attorney triggers review. If a hit returns, escalate to the managing partner before proceeding.

Record the SOL with redundancy: docket entry in the PMS, calendar entry on the responsible attorney and paralegal, and a note in the paper file. Add ticklers at SOL minus 90, 60, and 30 days. A missed SOL is the textbook automatic malpractice claim — redundancy is not optional.

Identify all client-side custodians of potentially relevant ESI — employees, IT admins, departed staff with retained accounts, third-party vendors. Send the litigation hold notice in writing, confirm acknowledgment, and suspend any auto-deletion policies (email retention, Slack message expiry, surveillance footage rotation). Late hold = spoliation exposure under FRCP 37(e).

Send written preservation demands to known adverse parties and any third parties holding relevant evidence (employer HR files, surveillance vendors, telecom providers for CDRs, hospital records custodians). Identify ESI categories specifically — generic preservation language gets ignored.

Coordinate forensically defensible collection — chain-of-custody log, hash values for ESI, original-format preservation. For larger collections, route through Logikcull, Everlaw, or Relativity rather than letting the client self-collect. Self-collection is the most common cause of missed custodians and spoliation findings.

Build the chronology in a tool the litigation team can update collaboratively (CaseMap, Filevine, even a structured Word table). Each entry: date, event, source document Bates range, key actors. The chronology drives witness identification and the case-evaluation memo, so accuracy matters more than polish.

Identify each cause of action and pull the elements from the controlling jurisdiction's pattern jury instructions or treatise. KeyCite or Shepardize each cited case — relying on overruled authority is an embarrassment in front of the partner and a sanctions risk in front of the court.

Memo structure: facts (from the chronology), causes of action with element-by-element analysis, evidentiary strengths, evidentiary gaps, defenses, damages range, and a recommendation. Keep it under five pages — partners read the recommendation and skim the rest.

Managing partner reviews the case-evaluation memo and makes the go/no-go call. Factors include merits, damages range against fee structure (especially on contingency), client cooperation observed during intake, and capacity of the litigation team. Document the rationale in the matter file regardless of the outcome.

If declining or referring out, send a non-engagement letter that explicitly states the firm is not representing the client, identifies the SOL date the client must protect, and (if applicable) names the referral. Failing to send this letter is the most common way a non-client becomes a malpractice plaintiff.

Walk the chronology and tag every named actor as either client-aligned, adverse, or neutral. Note who the firm can ethically contact directly (no contact with represented adverse parties under Rule 4.2) and who needs subpoena to compel testimony.

Interview neutrals and friendly witnesses early before memories degrade or counsel intervenes. Confirm jurisdiction's recording-consent rules — single-party vs. two-party consent states differ. For witnesses you may later depose, structure the interview narrowly to avoid creating impeachment material.

For each witness: contact info, statement summary, corroborating documents, demeanor notes, prior-relationship-to-parties, and impeachment risks. Mark interview memos as work product to preserve protection — do not share with the client without thinking through privilege.

Most med-mal, product liability, construction defect, and complex-damages cases need experts; routine breach-of-contract typically does not. Consider whether the expert is testifying or consulting only — consulting experts retain work-product protection that testifying experts lose under FRCP 26(a)(2).

Engagement letter with the expert covers scope, fee, and confidentiality. Back-calculate from the scheduling order's expert disclosure deadline — a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report typically takes 60-90 days from retention to final draft. Late retention compresses report quality and creates Daubert exposure.

Stress-test the report for opinions outside the expert's qualifications, methodological gaps, and any opinion the opposing side will move to exclude under Daubert/FRE 702. If the expert's conclusions weaken the case theory, decide now whether to revise the theory or replace the expert — not after disclosure.

The strategy memo translates the case-evaluation memo into action: theory of the case, target dispositive motions, discovery plan, expected expert lineup, settlement posture, and trial themes. This becomes the team's working document through trial.

Break the budget into phases per the ABA UTBMS codes: investigation, pleadings, discovery, motions, trial prep, trial, post-trial. Estimate hours by timekeeper and apply blended rates. Flag the assumptions (number of depositions, expert count, motion volume) so the budget can be revised as the case develops without a fee dispute.

Walk the client through the strategy and budget in person or by video. Capture written approval — countersigned engagement amendment if the original fee terms need updating, or a separate written authorization referencing the budget. Verbal agreement on a six-figure litigation budget is a fee-dispute waiting to happen.