It is safe to say that accurate intake is crucial and identifying potential problems early can save your firm significant time, resources, and reputation. This document outlines five common red flags to watch for during the intake process that could indicate a problematic case.
‍

1. Vague or Inconsistent Account of the Incident

A clear and consistent narrative of how an injury occurred is fundamental to building a strong case. Be wary if a potential client provides:

• Shifting Details: The story changes with each retelling or new information emerges that contradicts previous statements. Inconsistent testimony undermines credibility, opening opportunities for the opposing counsel, making settlement more difficult and riskier.
• Lack of Specifics: The client struggles to recall key details such as dates, times, locations, or the sequence of events. While some memory gaps are natural under stress, a complete lack of specifics can indicate fabrications and make it difficult to prove liability or damages. 
• Overly Emotional or Defensive Responses: While understandable for someone who has experienced trauma, excessive emotion or defensiveness when asked for factual details can be a sign of exaggeration or instability.

Always strive to get as many concrete details as possible. If the client's account feels off, it's worth a deeper dive. 
‍

2. Unrealistic Expectations or Demands

Clients often have an initial idea of what their case is worth, but some may present demands that are far out of line with legal precedent or the severity of their injuries. Unrealistic expectations from your client creates friction between your firm and the client. Watch out for:

• Demanding an Instant Payday: The client is primarily focused on a quick settlement amount rather than the full legal process and appropriate compensation. A client obsessed with “fast cash” may push firms to cut corners, accept lowball offers, or abandon strategy. 
• Insisting on a Specific Dollar Amount: They name an exorbitant figure early on, without understanding the factors that determine case value. Settlement values depend on liability, medical damages, policy limits, jurisdiction, and many others. If a client hangs on to an arbitrary figure, they may resist reasonable settlement offers, creating stalled negotiations and frustration.
• Refusal to Consider Alternatives: The client is unwilling to discuss mediation, negotiation, or the potential for a trial, only focusing on a specific outcome they envision. A client unwilling to explore strategic options limits your ability to advocate effectively. 

Managing expectations early is vital. If a client's demands are unreasonable from the outset, it can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction down the line. Proper and consistent communication establishes realistic expectations and goals, resulting in less friction and better representation.
‍

3. History of Frequent Claims or "Claim Mentality"

‍

While everyone is entitled to seek justice for injuries, a pattern of frequent or dubious claims can be a major red flag. Insurance companies and defense attorneys are quick to highlight repeat claimants as opportunistic and dishonest. To ensure your firm avoids this, investigate:

• Multiple Prior Personal Injury Cases: Especially if these cases involved similar types of incidents or injuries. Patterns of these claims invite heightened scrutiny and weaken jury sympathy. It may also uncover credibility issues.
• "Professional Plaintiff" Behavior: The client seems to know the ins and outs of the legal system unusually well, or references specific legal jargon. This type of behavior may indicate a client who treats lawsuits as a source of income. Such clients often inflate damages, are resistant to compromise, and pose heightened fraud risk.
• Focus on Litigation Over Recovery: Their primary interest seems to be suing rather than genuinely recovering from an injury. This mindset makes them less sympathetic and may push them to reject reasonable settlements.

A clear pattern of prior claims or a claim-first mentality should prompt further due diligence during intake. Running background checks, verifying past representation, and asking targeted questions about prior cases can help distinguish between a genuinely injured client and one who may pose a high reputational and financial risk to your firm.
‍

4. Negative Track Record with Attorneys

Always consider contacting previous counsel (with the client's permission) if this red flag appears... Red flags in this area include:

• Speaks Negatively About Past Lawyers: They openly criticize previous attorneys, alleging incompetence, dishonesty, or unfair billing practices. This can indicate a client who is difficult to satisfy or prone to blaming others. 
• Has Been Fired by Previous Firms: If they admit to being dropped by other law firms, it's crucial to understand why. This could point to a history of non-cooperation, unrealistic demands, or ethical conflicts.
• Expresses Distrust in the Legal System: While some skepticism is normal, an overriding belief that all lawyers are corrupt or that the system is inherently rigged can make effective representation challenging.  .

A client who is not fully transparent or cooperative from the beginning can become a significant hurdle later in the process. 
‍

5. Reluctance to Cooperate or Delays in Providing Information

Building a successful personal injury case requires strong cooperation between the client and their legal team. Attorneys can only advocate effectively if they have complete, accurate, and timely information. Client reluctance to cooperate can create barriers that weaken the case from the very start. Red flags in this area include:

• Hesitation to Sign Releases: The client is unwilling to sign medical, employment, or other necessary releases. Without releases, it’s nearly impossible to substantiate damages. Hesitation may indicate they’re hiding prop injuries, unrelated claims, or damaging information.
• Difficulty in Contacting: They are consistently unresponsive to calls or emails. Lack of communication slows the case, jeopardizes deadlines, and signals potential non-cooperation during discovery of trial.
• Withholding Information: The client seems to be intentionally holding back relevant details, even after being assured of confidentiality. Hidden information almost always resurfaces, leading to compromised case strategies or damage credibility.

A client who is not fully transparent or cooperative from the beginning can become a significant liability to the firm. Missed deadlines, incomplete evidence, and surprise revelations not only weaken the case but also drain firm resources.

Conclusion

Spotting these red flags during the intake phase can help your firm identify potentially problematic cases before they consume valuable resources. A rigorous intake process, combined with keen observation, will enable you to focus on the cases that truly deserve your firm's expertise.


For Further Information: Contact Jackid@lexafide.com
Schedule a Demo! https://calendly.com/terryd-lexafide/30minSubscribe to our newsletter: