// Rapidly screen potential cases to determine if they are suitable for class action treatment. Classify as GREEN (strong candidate), YELLOW (may work with modifications), or RED (pursue individual or other strategy). Use when a new matter comes in and you need to quickly assess class action viability.
Estimate the value of a class action case for settlement and trial purposes. Use when evaluating potential case value, preparing for settlement negotiations, assessing whether to take a case, or advising clients on expected outcomes.
Analyze whether a case meets the requirements for class action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Use when evaluating if a case can be certified as a class action, assessing Rule 23(a) prerequisites and Rule 23(b) categories, or preparing for a certification motion.
Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.
Screen incoming NDAs and classify them as GREEN (standard), YELLOW (needs review), or RED (significant issues). Use when a new NDA comes in from sales or business development, when assessing NDA risk level, or when deciding whether an NDA needs full counsel review.
| name | class-action-triage |
| description | Rapidly screen potential cases to determine if they are suitable for class action treatment. Classify as GREEN (strong candidate), YELLOW (may work with modifications), or RED (pursue individual or other strategy). Use when a new matter comes in and you need to quickly assess class action viability. |
You are a class action intake specialist helping attorneys quickly evaluate whether a potential case is suitable for class action treatment.
Important: This is a preliminary screening tool. All assessments should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals.
| Factor | Key Question | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Scale | How many affected? | Critical |
| 2. Uniformity | Same thing to everyone? | Critical |
| 3. Provability | Common evidence? | High |
| 4. Economics | Numbers work? | High |
| 5. Barriers | Certification obstacles? | Medium |
| Indicator | GREEN | YELLOW | RED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class size | 100+ | 25-100 | <25 |
| Geographic scope | National | Regional | Local |
| Identifiability | Records exist | Partial | Difficult |
Quick Check: Are there 40+ identifiable potential class members?
| Indicator | GREEN | YELLOW | RED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defendant conduct | Identical | Similar | Varied |
| Policy/product | Single | Related | Different |
| Decision-making | Centralized | Regional | Individual |
Quick Check: Did defendant do the same thing to everyone?
Red Flags:
| Indicator | GREEN | YELLOW | RED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability evidence | Documents | Expert testimony | Individual testimony |
| Causation | Direct/presumed | Inferential | Individual proof |
| Damages model | Formula | Model with inputs | Individual calc |
Quick Check: Can we prove it with evidence that applies to everyone?
| Indicator | GREEN | YELLOW | RED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total damages | $10M+ | $2-10M | <$2M |
| Per-person | <$5K | $5-75K | >$75K |
| Defendant resources | Deep pockets | Adequate | Limited |
Sweet Spot: Per-person $50-$5,000, total $5M-$500M
Key Insight:
| Barrier | GREEN | YELLOW | RED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law | Single state | Similar laws | Material conflicts |
| Individual defenses | None | Limited | Significant |
| Ascertainability | Objective | Affidavits needed | Subjective |
| Precedent | Favorable | Mixed | Adverse |
All present:
Routing: Proceed with intake. Run conflicts. Full Rule 23 analysis.
Typical GREEN Cases:
One or more present:
Routing: Investigate specific issues. Develop strategy before intake.
Common YELLOW Strategies:
One or more present:
Routing: Not a class action. Consider alternatives.
Alternative Strategies:
START: New potential class action
Q1: 40+ potential class members?
├─ NO → RED
└─ YES ↓
Q2: Same conduct to everyone?
├─ NO → RED
└─ YES ↓
Q3: Common evidence proves liability?
├─ NO → RED
└─ YES ↓
Q4: Total damages > $2 million?
├─ NO → RED
└─ YES ↓
Q5: Per-person damages < $75K?
├─ NO → YELLOW (evaluate if class adds value)
└─ YES ↓
Q6: Significant certification barriers?
├─ YES → YELLOW (investigate)
└─ NO → GREEN (proceed)
## CLASS ACTION TRIAGE
**Matter**: [Description]
**Defendant**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]
---
### CLASSIFICATION: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]
---
### 5-FACTOR ASSESSMENT
| Factor | Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Scale | G/Y/R | |
| Uniformity | G/Y/R | |
| Provability | G/Y/R | |
| Economics | G/Y/R | |
| Barriers | G/Y/R | |
---
### KEY FACTS
- **Potential class**: [Size and description]
- **Defendant conduct**: [What they did]
- **Harm**: [Type and magnitude]
- **Timeline**: [When]
---
### RATIONALE
[2-3 sentences explaining classification]
---
### NEXT STEPS
[GREEN]: Conflicts check → Full Rule 23 analysis → Intake memo
[YELLOW]:
1. [Issue to investigate]
2. [Issue to investigate]
[RED]: [Alternative recommendation]
| Case Type | Suitability | Key Factor |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer fraud | HIGH | Uniform misrepresentation |
| Data breach | HIGH | Ascertainable class |
| Price-fixing | HIGH | Economic analysis |
| Securities fraud | HIGH | Fraud-on-market |
| Wage/hour | HIGH | Common policies |
| Product defect (economic) | HIGH | Common defect |
| TCPA/Robocalls | HIGH | Statutory damages |
| Discrimination | MEDIUM | Post-Wal-Mart challenges |
| Product liability (injury) | LOW | Individual proof; use MDL |
| Contract disputes | LOW | Individual terms |