---

name: viability-conflict-check-report language: en description: Drafts a pre-filing litigation intake memo combining conflict screening, legal/procedural viability, and economic triage for an accept-or-decline decision. Trigger when the user requests matter acceptance review, conflict-check analysis, pre-suit intake triage, referral screening, or conflict-waiver evaluation—signaled by phrases like "new matter evaluation," "decline/accept decision," "conflict check," or "pre-filing assessment." tags:

• analysis
• litigation
• memo

---

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

1. Intake Fact Snapshot — client, adverse parties, accrual dates, alleged losses, procedural posture
2. Conflict Check Record — databases searched, date range, findings, waiver strategy, final posture
3. Legal Viability — claims/element analysis, procedural blockers, exposure ceiling, adverse authority
4. Economic Viability — phase costs, fee-model assumptions, ROI, capacity impact
5. Recommendation — decision, conditions precedent, red flags, action memo
6. 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.