A plaintiff firm screens many cases and takes a few. The harder question is which to decline. A case taken on incomplete facts consumes partner time, advances cost capital, and creates client relationships that are painful to unwind when the case fails to develop. The viability framework below is what FidesBeacon delivers as D42 — a seven-component intake-stage assessment that produces an honest accept-or-decline call.
Component 1 — Claim type identification and framing
Confirm the proposed claim type. State the controlling legal standard. List the elements the plaintiff must prove. The assessment downstream is element-by-element, which means the framework only works if the elements are stated clearly at the top.
Component 2 — Preliminary elements assessment
For each element, assess from the intake document set: supported (record contains material evidence), thin (some support but inadequate at this stage), absent (no support in intake documents), or contradicted (intake documents undermine the element). The honest answer is often a mix. The point is to surface where the weakness is before the case becomes everyone's problem.
Component 3 — Damages range estimate
A preliminary low/likely/high damages range with explicit methodology and key assumptions. The reasoning matters more than the numbers at this stage. The firm will refine the damages model with an expert later; the intake-stage call is whether the damages magnitude justifies the investment.
Component 4 — Statute of limitations posture
A triage-level SOL flag: applicable statute, approximate accrual date, preliminary deadline assessment, and tolling or discovery rule considerations. Full SOL analysis is a separate deliverable (D43); intake-stage D42 just confirms whether the clock has already run.
Component 5 — Defense exposure prediction
Likely defenses, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims the defendant may raise, with assessed strength and the client's counter for each. A case can survive elements assessment, pass SOL triage, and still founder on a strong affirmative defense that the intake didn't flag.
Component 6 — Evidentiary gaps
What the firm does NOT have yet that would be needed to support the case. Each gap with a recommended source (deposition, subpoena, expert, public records, discovery request) and an estimated cost to obtain. The cost column is what turns "we need more evidence" into a real economic call.
Component 7 — Recommendation
The structured verdict: take / decline / take with conditions / take with co-counsel / defer decision. With reasoning, any conditions, an estimated case value if won, an estimated investment required, and an estimated probability of recovery. The decimal probability concentrates the mind in a way that "looks promising" does not.
Why honest decline calls beat aggressive intakes
A firm that recommends acceptance on every borderline matter builds a roster of cases that consume partner time at the expense of the strong cases. A firm that declines half the borderline matters concentrates partner time on the cases that actually move. The framework's value is the discipline to decline.