The first conversation is not a sales meeting. It is the first piece of legal work on the matter, and it is conducted by a partner because it is the point at which the most valuable advice is usually given.

We are listening for three things. What actually happened, in sequence and with dates. What documents exist and who else has them. And what you want at the end — which is often not the same as what you would be entitled to.

By the end of it we will usually be able to say whether the claim is worth investigating, what the next step costs, and whether there is a limitation or evidential problem that changes the answer.

We say don’t more often than clients expect. It is the cheapest advice we give and, on the evidence of our own files, the most valuable.

What we ask

We want the sequence and the dates first, because limitation and the availability of urgent relief both turn on them. Then the documents: what exists, who holds it, and whether anything has been destroyed or is subject to a retention policy that will destroy it shortly.

Finally we ask what a good outcome looks like to you. It is frequently not the pleaded remedy. Clients often want an apology, a clean separation, or certainty by a particular date — and knowing that changes how we run the matter.

What you get out of it

By the end of the conversation we will usually be able to tell you whether the claim is worth investigating, what the next step costs, and whether there is a limitation or evidential problem that changes the answer.

Why we sometimes say no

A claim that is legally sound but economically pointless is not worth bringing, and we would rather say so in the first half hour than after a year of costs. We keep a note of the matters we declined and why, because it is the most useful record we have of our own judgement.