Professional Services Legal Services Complex Litigation

Mass Tort Litigation

High-stakes engagements requiring expert coordination, evidence management, and structured decision paths.

Example organizations in this space: Motley Rice Baron & Budd Simmons Hanly Conroy Weitz & Luxenberg

This interactive experience is the shipped product itself — the same application code customers run in production, mounted read-only in your browser over a real sample journey. Not a video, not a mockup: because the demo and the product are one codebase, it can never drift from the real thing.

Inside this journey
  1. Referral Qualification

    Confirm fit: estimated claimant volume, jurisdictions, timing, and decision authority before investing in full case discovery.

    Qualification Questions

    Claimant volume & profiles

    • To help us assess fit, roughly how many potential claimants are you referring? Options: 1-10, 11-50, 51-200, 201-1,000, 1,001-5,000, 5,001+ (very large pool)
    • Briefly describe the typical claimant profile or primary injuries/claims we should expect

    Jurisdictions & venue

    • Which statement best describes the geographic distribution of claimants? Options: Single state, 2-5 states, 6-20 states, Nationwide / many states, Undetermined
    • If known, list the specific states or federal venues most likely to be involved

    Decision authority & referral source

    • Who will make the final decision to move forward with full case discovery? Options: Referring attorney / solo decision-maker, Firm partner or lead counsel, State attorney general or agency official, Steering committee or multi-stakeholder group, Other, Unsure
    • Who else will influence that decision (co-counsel, clients, funders), and how should we plan to engage them?

    Timing, funding & compliance

    • What is your desired timeline for starting full discovery or coordinated intake? Options: Immediate (within 30 days), 1-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, No firm timeline / exploratory
    • Is funding already allocated for medical records retrieval, expert development, or case funding? Options: Yes — budget committed, Partially — some funding identified, No — funding needed, Contingent on agreement, Unsure
    • Will medical records or protected health information (PHI) be shared during intake if we proceed? Options: Yes — PHI expected, No — PHI will not be shared, Unsure / likely some PHI
  2. Case Discovery

    Map the alleged exposure, available evidence, claimant profiles, and the buyer's objectives, constraints, and success signals.

    Discovery Questions

    Quick snapshot: The referral in one paragraph

    • Tell me briefly about the referral or lead you are bringing, including the trigger event and how these individuals came to you
    • How many potential claimants do you estimate are in the initial pool? Options: 1–25, 26–100, 101–500, 501–2,000, 2,000+
    • When did the triggering study, recall, or disclosure first surface for this group? Options: Within 3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, Over a year
    • Who at your firm typically signs off on referring matters like this to outside co-counsel? Options: Lead plaintiff counsel, Managing partner, Intake manager, State AG litigation lead, Other
    • Which jurisdictions contain the majority of likely claimants in this pool? Options: Single state, Multiple states regionally, Nationwide but concentrated, Nationwide dispersed, Include federal venues
    • Describe any urgent timing windows we should know about, such as statute of limitations, regulatory comment deadlines, or scheduled hearings
    • If you had to walk away from pursuing this referral right now, what single missing fact or failure would cause you to stop?

    If the evidence shifts, what breaks first

    • If initial scientific or medical review weakens the causal story, how would that change your plan for these claimants? Options: Pause referrals, Proceed selectively, Seek more funding for experts, Push for early mediation, Other
    • Walk me through the primary injuries, diagnoses, or endpoints that appear across the claimant set
    • How many claimants already have medical records obtained or executed releases? Options: None, 1–10%, 10–40%, 40–75%, 75%+
    • Who has been the most common treating provider type for these claimants, and are they clustered geographically? Options: Primary care only, Specialists primarily, Hospital systems, Mixed and dispersed, Unknown
    • On a scale from 1 to 5, how confident are you that retained experts could meaningfully support causation in the jurisdictions involved? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • What single evidentiary gap, if not closed within 8 weeks, would make you decline co-counsel or advise claimants to settle early?

    The people behind the files: who they are and what matters to them

    • Why do these individuals trust you with the referral rather than pursuing matters locally or alone?
    • List the age ranges, common comorbidities, and any socioeconomic factors that affect follow up or expert availability
    • When you have screened similar cohorts in the past, what operational lessons should we apply here?
    • Do any claimants have active counsel, existing settlements, or release language that could block intake? Options: Yes, many, Yes, a few, No, Unknown
    • Estimate the percent of claimants ready today to sign releases and attend an independent medical exam Options: 0–10%, 11–30%, 31–60%, 61–90%, 90%+
    • Should court or MDL deadlines compress intake to 90 days, roughly what share of your pool would drop out or be unreachable? Options: Under 10%, 10–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, Over 75%
    • Name the single operational failure that would cause you to stop referring claimants to an outside firm

    Outcomes that make this worth it

    • Imagine we secure results from litigation or settlement, which single outcome would make you feel this referral succeeded for your clients? Options: Full medical compensation, Meaningful non-economic damages, Interim payments, Precedent-setting ruling, Systemic change
    • Describe how you prioritize compensation for medicals, pain and suffering, punitive damages, and precedent when advising clients
    • Within what timeframe would interim payments need to arrive to avoid severe client hardship? Options: Within 30 days, 30–90 days, 3–6 months, No interim needed
    • Select the non-financial outcomes that matter most to your clients or office Options: Public admission or apology, Labeling or recall, Policy or regulatory change, Court opinion establishing liability, None of the above
    • What level of fee-sharing transparency and reporting would you require to remain engaged through settlement? Options: Detailed itemized reporting, Periodic summaries, High-level totals only, I have no preference
    • Name the contractual protection that, if absent, would make you stop referring cases

    Where the case could unravel, and how we avoid it

    • Where does this set of cases look most likely to collapse under Daubert, jurisdictional, or standing challenges?
    • Tell me about claimant attrition drivers you have seen in prior mass tort matters and how fast attrition typically runs
    • Identify external actors likely to push for an early global resolution, such as regulators, defense counsel, or insurers Options: Regulators, Large national defense firms, Insurers, Settlement administrators, Other
    • Are there existing settlements, class releases, or prior releases that could legally limit recovery for these claimants? Options: Yes, significant issues, Yes, isolated issues, No known barriers, Unknown, needs review
    • Estimate the minimum claimant pool size you believe is necessary to justify sustained litigation and leverage Options: Under 100, 100–500, 500–1,000, 1,000–5,000, Over 5,000
    • Would a contradictory regulatory finding be a deal killer for your referrals? Options: Yes, stop referrals immediately, Maybe, would reassess, No, continue referrals, Unsure

    The other paths on the table

    • Assuming you stay with current counsel or handle this internally, what would need to be true for that to remain preferable to hiring outside co-counsel?
    • List the other firms or internal options you are actively evaluating and the single attractive reason for each
    • Under what specific conditions would you remain with the incumbent approach instead of changing to external counsel?
    • Has anyone inside your office proposed solving this without outside counsel, and if so what additional resources did they commit? Options: Yes, funding, Yes, extra staff, Yes, expert relationships, No proposal, Unknown
    • Would you switch to an incumbent that matched fee transparency and expert funding, yes or no Options: Yes, No, Maybe

    Operational readiness and constraints we must clear

    • Can your team produce signed releases and medical records for a representative subset within 30 days? Options: Yes, for a sample set, Yes, for most claimants, No, will take longer, Unknown
    • Identify which third-party systems must integrate for intake and document transfer, for example intake CRM, court docket, or medical records vendor
    • Point to the role title responsible for data access and approvals inside your organization
    • Do you have the headcount and administrative capacity to support expert exams, discovery production, and bellwether prep in parallel? Options: Yes, dedicated resources, Yes, with temporary help, No, capacity gap, Unsure
    • Are there required regulatory approvals, state AG reviews, or litigation holds that could gate the timeline? Options: Yes, multiple, Yes, one or two, No, Unknown
    • Roughly how many jurisdictions will require subpoenas or court orders to access records? Options: None, 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, More than 10
    • Can you commit to a named person and a timeline for producing an initial data package within 21 days, yes or no Options: Yes, No, Need discussion

    Deciding and moving forward

    • Provide the non-negotiable items that would get you to sign a co-counsel agreement within 14 days
    • On a scale from 1 to 5, how quickly can your leadership approve engagement paperwork once key terms are agreed? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • Provide the roles that must approve the engagement and their typical review timeframes
    • Select the payment milestones or expert funding commitments that are deal breakers for you Options: Initial expert escrow, Milestone-based payments, Interim settlement distributions, No upfront funding required, Other
    • Will you consider a pilot tranche of cases or an initial volume commitment within 30 days, yes or no Options: Yes, pilot tranche, No, need full engagement, Maybe, with conditions
    • Given alignment, choose the realistic earliest timeline you could sign: within 7 days, 14 days, or 30 days Options: Within 7 days, Within 14 days, Within 30 days, Longer than 30 days
  3. Firm Approach & Outcomes

    Walk through how coordinated intake, scientific development, bellwether strategy, and MDL leadership produce the buyer's desired outcomes and mitigate risks.

    Solution Experience

    • Firm Approach & Outcomes — Solution Experience
    • Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
    • Seller to run the buyer's three representative claimant profiles through the intake-to-bellwether scenario and deliver a tailored readiness roadmap before the follow-up session.
    • You confirm the demonstrated intake-to-trial workflow eliminates the timing and evidence gaps you described.
    • Walk through the intake-to-science path with your sample cases
    • You confirm the shown bellwether and MDL scenarios produce the interim recovery and settlement timing safeguards you need.
    • Buyer to provide three representative claimant profiles, preliminary medical summaries, and any known jurisdictional constraints.
    • Demonstrate bellwether strategy and MDL leadership outcomes
    • Buyer to confirm the decision committee members and the target decision timeline for moving to Engagement Scope.
    • You confirm the fee-sharing and governance mechanics remove opacity and create an auditable settlement distribution path.
    • Show the fee-sharing and governance mechanics
    • Validate alignment with your needs
    • Firm Approach & Outcomes — Solution Experience
    • Solution Experience Deck — Firm Approach & Outcomes
    • Solution Brief — Firm Approach & Outcomes
    • meeting
    • slides
    • document
  4. Engagement Scope

    Define services, case volume thresholds, expert funding, responsibilities, timelines, and explicit out-of-scope items for the engagement.

    Scope Configuration

    • Plaintiff Intake and Enrollment
    • Medical Records Collection and Review
    • Retain and Manage Causation Experts
    • Epidemiology and Exposure Study Coordination
    • Document Review and ESI Processing
    • Bellwether Case Preparation and Prosecution
    • MDL Leadership and Case Coordination
    • Trial Preparation and Jury Trial Representation
    • Settlement Negotiation and Resolution
    • Settlement Administration and Distribution Support
    • Litigation Funding and Cost Advancement
    • Co-Counsel Fee Allocation Agreements

    Scope Questions

    Plaintiff Intake and Enrollment

    • How will claimants enter intake (referral portal, intake hotline, local counsel upload, direct web form)? Options: Referral portal, Intake hotline, Local counsel upload, Direct web form, Other
    • What is your projected number of enrolled claimants in months 0-12? Options: Less than 100, 100-499, 500-1,999, 2,000 or more
    • Do you require specific enrollment documents at intake (signed plaintiff release, medical authorization, device serial/lot info)? Options: Yes, No
    • Which claimant eligibility criteria must the intake form capture (injury diagnosis code, exposure date range, device lot number, treating physician)? Options: Diagnosis code, Exposure date range, Device lot number, Treating physician, Other
    • Who will validate claimant identity and initial eligibility for enrollment (intake coordinator, referring attorney, automated verification)? Options: Intake coordinator, Referring attorney, Automated verification service, Other
    • When do signed plaintiff releases and medical authorizations need to be received to meet intake deadlines? Options: At first contact, Within 7 days of enrollment, Within 30 days of enrollment, Other

    Medical Records Collection and Review

    • List the record sources required for medical review (hospital records, imaging studies, physician office notes, billing/claims such as CMS files).
    • Specify the signed authorization workflow you will use for records retrieval (scanned HIPAA authorization upload, e-signature via portal, hard-copy courier). Options: Scanned upload, E-signature portal, Hard-copy courier, Other
    • Identify the date ranges or exposure windows to request from medical providers (earliest symptom date to last treatment date).
    • Describe the required record formats and delivery methods from providers (native EHR export, CCD/CCDA, searchable PDF). Options: Native EHR export, CCD/CCDA, Searchable PDF, Other
    • Are redaction and coding for PHI and structured data needed before expert review? Options: Yes, No
    • Confirm the acceptance criteria for complete medical record sets for a claimant (signed authorization, full hospital chart, imaging files, billing records). Options: Signed authorization + hospital chart + imaging + billing, Signed authorization + partial records, Other

    Retain and Manage Causation Experts

    • Identify the expert disciplines you will retain for causation (toxicology, epidemiology, cardiology, orthopedics, pharmacology). Options: Toxicology, Epidemiology, Cardiology, Orthopedics, Pharmacology, Other
    • Specify the Daubert readiness deliverables required for each expert (CV, prior testimony list, litigation support history, draft report). Options: CV, Prior testimony list, Litigation support history, Draft report, Other
    • Are conflict checks and disclosure of prior defense engagements required for retained experts? Options: Yes, No
    • By when must each expert be engaged relative to intake milestones (within first 100 enrollments, within 6 months, before bellwether selection)? Options: Within first 100 enrollments, Within 6 months, Before bellwether selection, Other
    • Provide the form of evidence you will accept to confirm expert funding commitments (signed engagement letter, retainer deposit, executed invoice). Options: Signed engagement letter, Retainer deposit, Executed invoice, Other
    • Detail the expected expert deliverables for causation work product (narrative report, exposure timeline, literature synthesis, rebuttal packet). Options: Narrative report, Exposure timeline, Literature synthesis, Rebuttal packet, Other

    Epidemiology and Exposure Study Coordination

    • Describe the study designs you plan to pursue for exposure analysis (retrospective cohort, case control, registry analysis). Options: Retrospective cohort, Case control, Registry analysis, Other
    • Specify which external datasets should be integrated (state disease registries, manufacturer distribution logs, claims databases). Options: State registries, Manufacturer distribution logs, Claims databases, Other
    • Identify the exposure window definitions required for study inclusion (product market release date to last known exposure date, specific lot ranges).
    • Who will own protocol sign-off and IRB submissions for epidemiologic work? Options: In-house study lead, External academic partner, Third-party CRO, Other
    • Confirm the acceptance criteria to validate study readiness (data access agreements executed, minimum analyzable cohort size met). Options: DAAs executed + cohort size met, Partial DAAs or cohort size pending, Other
    • Outline the data linkage and de-identification standards you require for integrated datasets (deterministic match, probabilistic match, HIPAA safe harbor). Options: Deterministic match, Probabilistic match, HIPAA safe harbor, Other

    Document Review and ESI Processing

    • Estimate the expected ESI volume for initial processing in either GB or approximate document count. Options: Less than 100 GB / <100k docs, 100-500 GB / 100k-500k docs, More than 500 GB / >500k docs
    • Which custodial sources must be collected and processed (email mailboxes, shared drives, mobile devices, cloud collaboration platforms)? Options: Email mailboxes, Shared drives, Mobile devices, Cloud collaboration platforms, Other
    • Specify the review coding taxonomy required for document tagging (medical relevance, causation, privilege, settlement relevance). Options: Medical relevance, Causation, Privilege, Settlement relevance, Other
    • Select the preferred review load file format for attorneys and vendor workflows (native format, searchable PDF, Concordance load). Options: Native format, Searchable PDF, Concordance load, Other
    • Identify required preservation and chain-of-custody steps for key custodians and devices.
    • Describe your privilege review approach for ESI (manual review, technology-assisted review, predictive coding). Options: Manual review, Technology-assisted review, Predictive coding, Other

    Bellwether Case Preparation and Prosecution

    • Identify the bellwether selection criteria you will use (representativeness, injury severity, geographic diversity, completeness of records). Options: Representativeness, Injury severity, Geographic diversity, Completeness of records, Other
    • State the target number of bellwether trials within the first 24 months. Options: None, 1-2, 3-5, 6 or more
    • Are separate budgets required per bellwether for depositions, expert fees, and demonstratives? Options: Yes, No
    • Assign responsibility for preparing bellwether-specific case files and demonstrative exhibits. Options: Central litigation team, Assigned case lead, Co-counsel, Other
    • Indicate trial readiness metrics a bellwether must meet before selection (complete expert reports, deposition schedule, medical records complete). Options: Two expert reports + records complete, One expert report + records complete, Other
    • Explain the preferred approach to pre-trial motions for bellwethers (Daubert early, consolidated motions, individual motions per case). Options: Daubert early, Consolidated motions, Individual motions per case, Other

    MDL Leadership and Case Coordination

    • Describe the MDL leadership services you expect in scope (lead counsel filings, discovery master plans, PTO compliance). Options: Lead filings, Discovery master plan, PTO compliance, Other
    • Choose the governance cadence for MDL steering and case review meetings. Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, Quarterly
    • Identify the centralized case management artifacts required (master exhibit list, common fact depositions, centralized discovery database). Options: Master exhibit list, Common fact depositions, Central discovery database, Other
    • Are shared document repositories with permissioned access required for MDL coordination? Options: Yes, No
    • Set the expected number of cases to be centralized in the MDL during year one. Options: Fewer than 100, 100-499, 500-1,999, 2,000 or more
    • Determine the preferred common-benefit cost allocation method (time-based contribution, percentage of recovery, fixed common fund). Options: Time-based, Percentage of recovery, Fixed common fund, Other

    Trial Preparation and Jury Trial Representation

    • Identify the jurisdictions where you anticipate jury trials and any jurisdiction-specific deadlines to track.
    • Specify what trial-readiness deliverables must be completed before counsel will proceed to trial (jury instructions, demonstratives, Daubert motions resolved). Options: Jury instructions, Demonstratives, Daubert motions resolved, Other
    • Are courtroom technology services required for high-fidelity demonstratives and electronic exhibit display? Options: Yes, No
    • What ceiling on expert and trial consultant spend do you authorize per jury trial? Options: Under $50k, $50k-$200k, $200k-$500k, Over $500k
    • Will you designate lead trial counsel for each jurisdiction prior to trial scheduling? Options: Yes, No
    • Clarify the preauthorized settlement authority thresholds for trial teams during active trial (e.g., percentage of proposed recovery or fixed dollar cap).

    Settlement Negotiation and Resolution

    • Propose the fee-sharing model you prefer for negotiated settlements (percentage split, tiered waterfall, fixed fee per claimant). Options: Percentage split, Tiered waterfall, Fixed fee per claimant, Other
    • Select settlement priorities to be enforced in offers (individual compensation floors, confidentiality terms, no reversion clauses). Options: Compensation floors, Confidentiality, No reversion, Other
    • Do you require mediation or a neutral evaluation step before global settlement discussions? Options: Yes, No
    • List the claimant-level documentation required to support a settlement offer (medical summary, expert causation excerpt, economic loss substantiation).
    • Who will have final approval authority to accept settlement terms on behalf of the claimant pool?
    • Indicate whether structured settlements using annuities are acceptable or if lump-sum only is required. Options: Annuities acceptable, Lump-sum only, Either

    Settlement Administration and Distribution Support

    • Specify which claims administration services are required (claims portal, validation, distribution accounting, notice mailing). Options: Claims portal, Validation, Distribution accounting, Notice mailing, Other
    • Select the preferred distribution payment methods to claimants (ACH, wire transfer, check, third-party payment vendor). Options: ACH, Wire transfer, Check, Third-party vendor
    • Identify tax and lien resolution services required (Medicare conditional payment resolution, lien negotiation, tax reporting). Options: Medicare CPM resolution, Lien negotiation, Tax reporting, Other
    • Are you requiring an independent accounting audit of distributions and reserve calculations? Options: Yes, No
    • What record retention period do you require for settlement administration files and audit trails? Options: 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, Permanent
    • Share the minimum claimant documentation you will accept for distribution (final release, W-9, proof of identity).
  5. Mutual Commit

    Finalize commercial and legal terms including fee-sharing, co-counsel roles, funding commitments, confidentiality, and governance.

    Agreement Modules

    • Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
    • Master Services Agreement (MSA)
    • Statement of Work (SOW)
    • Fee Sharing Agreement
    • Co-Counsel Agreement
    • Litigation Funding Commitment
    • Confidentiality & Data Protection Addendum
    • Steering Committee & Governance Charter
    • Escrow & Trust Accounting Agreement
    • Settlement Allocation & Distribution Protocol
  6. Litigation Execution

    Operationalize litigation plan, intake cadence, and trial readiness.

    1. Litigation Readiness

      Capture concrete readiness facts the seller needs to begin intake and development — plaintiff releases, medical record access, custodians, and timeline anchors.

      Pre-Deployment Questions

      Environment and access

      • Which intake and case-management environments will the seller be granted access to for intake, records ingestion, and document review? (Select all that apply so we can plan connection and account provisioning.) Options: Single production intake portal, Staging/test intake portal, Buyer-hosted document repository (SFTP/API), Third‑party records custodian portal, No external environment — manual file transfer
      • Is access to the buyer's EHR / medical-record retrieval vendor approved and scheduled for the seller to pull records? (This determines whether medical-record pulls can begin immediately.) Options: Yes — vendor access approved and scheduled, Partially — access limited to a subset of claimants, No — vendor access not approved, Not required — buyer will supply records
      • Who is the buyer-side technical contact for integration endpoints, SFTP/API handoffs, or portal credential coordination? Provide role/title and preferred contact channel. (Named contact required to unblock connectivity tasks.)

      Data and configuration

      • What is the current status of executed plaintiff authorizations/releases for the claimant pool? (We must confirm legal authority to request protected records before retrieval.) Options: All claimants have executed releases and they are stored centrally, Some releases executed — portions pending, No releases executed — seller to obtain releases, Releases handled by third-party custodian
      • Which specific record types and custodians must be retrieved during intake? Select all that apply so we can size retrieval workflows. Options: Primary care records, Hospital/ER records, Specialist clinic records, Pharmacy records, Imaging/radiology (DICOM), Occupational/medical surveillance records, Insurance/claims records, Other — will specify in next field
      • If you selected 'Other' or have named custodians (hospital systems, vendor names, payors) that require special handling, list the custodian names and who on the buyer side authorizes their release (role/title).

      People and ownership

      • Who is the seller's designated intake lead for this engagement? Provide role/title and primary contact channel. (This owner will receive deployment tasks and training invites.)
      • Who is the buyer-side records custodian or release coordinator (role/title)? If coverage differs by site, list site → role mapping or indicate 'same for all sites'.
      • Which governance model controls expert funding, discovery budget, and retention decisions for case development? Options: Seller controls expert funding and retention, Buyer controls/approves expert funding, Joint funding committee with named representatives, To be decided — no model yet

      Timing and constraints

      • What is the firm target date to begin active intake and record retrieval (first claimant intake / initial record pulls)? Provide a firm date so we can schedule milestones.
      • Are there any court orders, stays, blackout windows, or regulatory constraints that prevent outreach or record collection during the planned intake window? (If yes, select the best descriptor.) Options: None known, Short-term stay/blackout (specify dates in DeploymentConfig), Ongoing stay — no outreach/collection allowed, Confidentiality or custodian coordination required (custodian-controlled release)
      • List any timeline anchors we must schedule around (e.g., anticipated MDL appointment, bellwether trial window, statute of limitations deadline). For each anchor, state the event and controlling party/role who will confirm dates.
    2. Intake Configuration

      Lock intake workflows, data transfer methods, document tagging standards, expert assignment rules, and calendar constraints the teams will use.

      Configuration Details

      Environments & Endpoints

      • Which environment will be the primary intake environment for this engagement? (Default: Production) Options: Production, Staging, Sandbox/Test
      • Enter the intake API base URL or integration endpoint hostname the platform will push/pull to (format: https://... or host.example.com). If none, enter 'n/a'.

      Workflows & Assignment Rules

      • Select the intake workflow variant to lock for this engagement (Default: Standard triage → medical review → litigation intake) Options: Standard triage → medical review → litigation intake, Rapid triage (screen only) → intake, Pre-development pipeline → limited intake, Custom (provide workflow ID in the next question)
      • If you selected 'Custom' above, enter the exact workflow ID or name to be locked (enter 'n/a' if not applicable). Use the workflow identifier as it appears in your workflow registry.

      Data Transfer & Tagging Standards

      • Preferred data transfer method for intake records and attachments (Default: Secure SFTP). Select one; identify non-secret endpoint identifiers in a later field. Options: Secure SFTP, S3 bucket (push), Platform API (push), Platform API (pull), Secure file share / integration agent
      • Select the document tagging standard to enforce at intake (Default: Minimal: claimant_id; document_type; date_received). If 'Custom', provide schema name in a later field. Options: Minimal: claimant_id; document_type; date_received, Extended: claimant_id; document_type; exposure_location; provider_name; date_received, Preservation-focused: claimant_id; document_type; retention_flag; source; date_received, Custom (provide schema name below)

      Expert Assignment & Scheduling Constraints

      • Choose the default expert assignment rule for newly intake-ready plaintiffs (Default: auto-assign by specialty + caseload balancing). This value will lock assignment behavior. Options: Auto-assign by specialty and caseload balancing, Round-robin to named experts, Manual assignment by intake manager, Geography-first then specialty
      • Set the maximum allowed time from intake->medical record request to record retrieval before automated escalation (in days). Default is 30.

      Limits, Retention & Finalization

      • Maximum concurrent intake files permitted per intake pipeline before throttling begins. Default is 500.
      • Enter the non-secret role name responsible for manual overrides and final assignment decisions (Default: Intake Manager). Provide the exact role label used in your RBAC system.
    3. Steering Committee & Case Reviews

      Schedule and document recurring governance, bellwether selection, expert-review, and co-counsel alignment meetings with shared notes and decisions.

      Meeting Notes

      • Steering Committee Charter and Meeting Rhythm
      • Bellwether Selection Framework
      • Expert Review Panel and Retention Plan
      • Co-Counsel Roles, Intake Allocation, and Fee-Sharing Principles
      • Steering Committee Case Review and Bellwether Vote
      • Log any contested decisions into the escalation tracker for resolution at the next governance meeting.
      • Publish the Daubert readiness checklist and the expert review workflow to the shared workspace.
      • Schedule pilot retention of one expert to validate contract and review workflow.
      • Define intake thresholds and allocation rules
      • A documented roles and responsibilities matrix for all participating counsel and teams.
      • A fee-sharing principles memo and an agreed intake allocation rule set ready for inclusion in the engagement scope.
      • A defined communication and data access protocol to be implemented in the intake configuration stage.
      • Publish the roles and responsibilities matrix to the shared workspace for final review.
      • Draft and circulate a short fee-sharing principles memo reflecting the agreed approach.
      • Implement the agreed document access and tagging protocol in the shared repository.
      • Create an intake allocation rule set for the intake team to enforce and test.
      • Confirm quorum and apply conflict checks to participants
      • A formal selection record listing cases advanced to bellwether development and the committee's rationale for each decision.
      • A set of assigned development tasks and near-term milestones for each advanced and deferred case.
      • A public note of any contested decisions and items escalated per the governance charter.
      • Publish the case selection record with votes, rationales, and the assigned development tasks to the shared workspace.
      • Open requests for any missing medical records or custodial documentation identified during review.
      • Initiate expert retention workflows for selected bellwether cases per the retention plan.
      • Confirm committee purpose and membership
      • A signed governance charter draft with membership, decision rules, and escalation path agreed by the participants.
      • A published recurring meeting schedule and a completed agenda template for committee use.
      • List of the first 90-day deliverables with named owners and due dates.
      • Publish the agreed governance charter draft to the shared workspace for final comment.
      • Publish the recurring meeting calendar and agenda template to the shared workspace.
      • Collect conflict of interest disclosures from all committee members.
      • Prepare the initial 90-day deliverables tracker and circulate to committee members.
      • Agree bellwether objectives and success signals
      • A completed bellwether selection framework and scoring matrix ready for pilot application to candidate cases.
      • A documented evidence package template and a schedule for the selection process with decision checkpoints.
      • Publish the scoring matrix and candidate evidence package template to the shared workspace.
      • Run the scoring matrix on the current candidate list and produce a ranked shortlist for the next committee meeting.
      • Identify any additional data sources or records required to bring borderline candidates to readiness.
      • Identify required expert disciplines and minimum qualifications
      • A curated list of prioritized expert candidates by discipline and a defined vetting and conflict screening workflow.
      • A retention plan with triggers, template contract terms, and budget approval thresholds documented.
      • A Daubert readiness checklist to apply to all expert reports before committee review.
      • Assemble candidate CVs and conflict screening results into a shared expert roster document.
      • Draft a template expert engagement letter with standard terms and budget limits.
      • Document roles and responsibilities by litigation phase
      • Agree vetting, conflict screening, and peer review rules
      • Define candidate eligibility and exclusion criteria
      • Define decision rules and voting thresholds
      • Review each candidate packet against the selection checklist
      • Agree fee-sharing principles and dispute resolution basics
      • Committee vote and record selection rationale
      • Set retention triggers, contract terms, and budget thresholds
      • Create scoring categories and weightings
      • Establish meeting cadence and standard agenda template
      • Specify required evidence package and data sources
      • Assign development tasks and set milestones for advanced and deferred cases
      • Define expert review workflow and Daubert readiness checklist
      • Set escalation path and conflict resolution steps
      • Set communication, data access, and document control protocols
      • Finalize first 90-day calendar and ownership of initial deliverables
      • Finalize selection timeline and decision checkpoints
    4. Litigation Execution

      Execute coordinated case intake, expert retention, bellwether trial preparation, MDL participation, and settlement negotiation with clear owners and milestones.

  7. Outcomes & Settlement Administration

    Confirm trial and settlement outcomes, manage distribution and appeals, and maintain a shared channel for issues, enhancements, and recordkeeping.

    Success Reviews

    • Closeout Health Check (weeks 1-4)
    • First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
    • Acceptance Gate: Distribution Readiness Decision (around day 90)
    • Quarterly Outcomes and Appeals Review (ongoing)

    Issues & Enhancements

    • Archive closed case files to the long-term record store and confirm access permissions for audit purposes.
    • Restate acceptance criteria and required numeric targets
    • Produce a documented acceptance decision referencing targets recorded in the Engagement Scope for each numeric criterion.
    • If any criterion is conditional or failed, agree a remediation plan with named owners and fixed completion dates.
    • Capture the named signatory and publish the acceptance record to the shared workspace within 24 hours.
    • Publish the formal acceptance decision document with pass/fail status for each criterion and the signatory record.
    • Create a remediation plan with owners and dates for any conditional or failed criteria and add it to the shared tracker.
    • Notify escrow and distribution administrators of the acceptance decision and any milestone changes.
    • Distribution ledger and outstanding exceptions
    • Ensure percentage of total settlement funds distributed to eligible claimants is increasing according to the plan and identify remaining blockers.
    • Maintain visibility on the number of active appeals or disputes and their likely impact on remaining distributions.
    • Keep the shared record store and issue channel current, and document any agreed low-effort process improvements.
    • Update the distribution ledger with resolved exceptions and circulate the updated cumulative distribution percentage.
    • Assign owners and deadlines for each open appeal or dispute and add knock-on tasks to the remediation tracker.
    • Confirm legal outcome and documentation
    • All parties confirm the outcome documents are present in the shared record store and accessible.
    • Named owners and target dates assigned for first-distribution readiness items.
    • Monitoring plan for appeals is agreed and documented.
    • Populate the shared record store with executed settlement/judgment documents and notify stakeholders.
    • Publish the initial distribution timeline and escrow receipt confirmations to the shared channel.
    • Create an appeals-monitoring calendar with named owners and escalation contacts.
    • Present current distribution and release metrics
    • Confirm whether percentage of settlement funds disbursed to eligible claimants and number of executed claimant releases are on track toward targets recorded in the Engagement Scope.
    • Document root causes for any gaps and assign corrective actions with clear due dates.
    • Confirm timeline to the Acceptance Gate meeting and the data package that will be required there.
    • Deliver the distribution ledger and claimant release audit to the shared workspace ahead of the acceptance gate.
    • Resolve named documentation gaps for the top 20% of pending claimants or escalate to the appeals-monitoring team.
    • Publish a remediation tracker with owners and completion dates for acceptance criteria gaps.
    • Medical record and claimant documentation completeness
    • Appeals and post-settlement disputes status
    • Present outcome data against each criterion
    • Review initial distribution schedule and milestone anchors
    • Fee-share and allocation reconciliations
    • Root-cause diagnosis for gaps
    • Pass/fail determination per criterion
    • Preservation and recordkeeping checklist
    • Agree corrective actions and timeline to acceptance gate
    • Appeals and challenge monitoring plan
    • Formal acceptance decision and signatory capture
    • Shared channel, enhancements, and recordkeeping hygiene
    • Open issues and owners
First-Party AI

1-2 minutes please — Your AI agent is working

First-Party AI™ can make mistakes. Always check important information.