Litigation Case Strategy
Develops and pressure-tests litigation strategy across the full case lifecycle. Takes case documents as input and produces structured work product — from initial case assessment through appellate practice.
Prerequisites
- Case documents — complaints, answers, key correspondence, contracts at issue, prior court orders, relevant statutes
- Procedural posture — current stage (pre-filing, pleading, discovery, pre-trial, trial, post-trial, appeal)
- Client role — plaintiff or defendant; first-party or third-party
- Jurisdiction — court, applicable law, any special procedural rules
- Case objectives — desired outcome, settlement authority if any, budget constraints
- Known facts — key facts favorable and unfavorable; witness list if available
Specify which stage(s) to focus on, or request a full lifecycle assessment.
Stage 1: Initial Case Assessment
Case Theory Development
From the originating documents, develop:
- Factual narrative — chronological summary of events giving rise to the dispute
- Legal theories — each viable claim or defense with:
- Elements required
- Facts supporting each element (cite to specific documents)
- Facts undermining each element (adverse facts)
- Strength assessment (Strong / Moderate / Weak) with reasoning
- Opposing theories — anticipate the other side's best arguments
- Leverage analysis — settlement value drivers, litigation cost exposure, publicity risk, business relationship impact
- Early case budget — estimated phases and resource requirements
Document-Based Chronology
When provided with a set of documents (emails, contracts, letters, filings):
- Extract key events with:
- Date and time (where available)
- Participants (sender/recipient for correspondence)
- Event description (one sentence)
- Source document reference
- Significance to case theory
- Sort chronologically
- Flag gaps — periods with no documentation that may require follow-up
- Identify pivotal events — turning points that strengthen or weaken the case
- Note privilege concerns — flag potentially privileged communications
Output as a structured chronology table:
| Date | Event | Participants | Source | Significance | Notes |
|---|
Stage 2: Discovery Planning
Discovery Strategy
- Information needs — what facts must be established, from which sources
- Document requests — targeted RFPs tied to case theories, with specific document categories and date ranges
- Interrogatories — contention interrogatories and fact interrogatories tied to elements
- Deposition targets — priority witnesses with justification and sequencing rationale
- Third-party discovery — subpoenas needed, custodians, potential objections
- Preservation obligations — litigation hold scope, key custodians, ESI sources
- Proportionality analysis — scope justified relative to amount in controversy
Discovery Response Review
When reviewing received discovery:
- Evaluate sufficiency of responses against the requests
- Identify evasive, incomplete, or boilerplate objections
- Flag documents that support or undermine case theories
- Generate follow-up requests or meet-and-confer points
- Note any privilege log issues
Stage 3: Deposition Practice
Deposition Preparation
For each deponent, produce:
- Witness profile — role, relationship to events, likely knowledge areas, credibility factors
- Key topics — organized by case theory, not chronologically
- Question outlines — structured by topic with:
- Foundation questions (establish knowledge base)
- Substantive questions (elicit key admissions)
- Impeachment questions (prior inconsistent statements, documents)
- Pin-down questions (foreclose escape routes)
- Exhibit list — documents to use, sequence, and purpose for each
- Risks — what the deponent might volunteer that hurts the case; how to handle
Deposition Summary
From a transcript, extract:
- Key admissions (with page:line citations)
- Inconsistencies with other testimony or documents
- Topics where witness was evasive or non-responsive
- New facts or leads revealed
- Impeachment material for trial
- Areas requiring follow-up discovery
Stage 4: Motion Practice
Brief and Motion Drafting
For any motion type (dismiss, summary judgment, in limine, compel, sanctions):
- Legal standard — applicable standard of review with controlling authority
- Argument structure — organize by strongest argument first; each argument includes:
- Legal rule with citation
- Application to case facts (cite record)
- Anticipate and address counterarguments
- Conclusion on this point
- Statement of facts — persuasive but accurate; cite record throughout
- Procedural requirements — page limits, local rules, certificate of conference if required
Argument Evaluation
When provided with a draft brief or complaint:
- Strength assessment — grade each argument (Strong / Moderate / Weak)
- Vulnerability analysis — identify what opposing counsel will attack:
- Factual gaps or unsupported assertions
- Legal authority that cuts the other way
- Logical weaknesses in the argument chain
- Procedural deficiencies
- Improvement suggestions — for each vulnerability:
- Additional authority to cite
- Factual support to add
- Alternative framing
- Language tightening
- Missing arguments — theories or authorities not raised that should be considered
- Opposing brief preview — draft the strongest response the other side could file
Stage 5: Trial Preparation
Cross-Examination Development
For each opposing witness:
- Objectives — what admissions or impeachment points to achieve
- Question sequences — leading questions organized by topic:
- Establish the undisputed fact
- Box in the witness with prior statements
- Confront with contradicting document or testimony
- Secure the admission or demonstrate the inconsistency
- Exhibit choreography — when to introduce each document, foundation requirements
- Contingency plans — if witness denies expected answer, alternative paths
- Red lines — questions to avoid (opens door to harmful testimony)
Trial Document Organization
From the case record, identify and organize:
- Exhibits by witness and topic
- Demonstratives needed
- Stipulations to propose
- Motions in limine (offensive and defensive)
- Jury instructions / proposed findings of fact
Stage 6: Post-Trial and Appeals
Appellate Analysis
- Preserved issues — identify which trial objections and motions preserved error
- Standards of review — for each potential issue (de novo, abuse of discretion, clear error, plain error)
- Issue prioritization — rank appellate issues by:
- Likelihood of reversal
- Standard of review favorability
- Strength of record support
- Impact if won (remand vs. reversal with direction)
- Record compilation — identify key transcript excerpts, exhibits, and orders for the appendix
- Argument outline — for each issue: error, prejudice, relief sought
Guidelines
- Every factual assertion must cite a specific source document, exhibit, or transcript reference
- Present both favorable and unfavorable facts — do not omit adverse information
- Grade arguments honestly — a "Weak" rating with explanation is more useful than false confidence
- Tailor all work product to the specific jurisdiction's rules and standards
- Mark [VERIFY] on any case citation, statutory reference, or local rule not confirmed against current authority
- Distinguish between facts in the record and inferences drawn from those facts
- When building chronologies, include only events supported by documents — do not interpolate
- For deposition outlines, use leading questions only (cross-examination style) — never open-ended
- Maintain attorney-client privilege awareness — flag communications that may be privileged before including in work product
- Separate strategic recommendations from factual analysis
