Case analysis, theory and strategy

Most of the blogs that I write for this website, are concerned with matters of substantive law, an interesting new case, or a polemical piece, as I vent my spleen on the web about some perceived inefficiency of shortcoming in the courts. But a lot of junior lawyers read this blog, perhaps unsurprisingly, as credit hire claims on the small claims track or the fast track, are daily bread for many junior lawyers in their first years of practice.

So I have decided to include the occasional article on legal skills. Much of what I am about to write, is not going to be news for many of the time served lawyers undertaking credit hire work, but sometimes it is useful to set out fair and square, things you already know or ought to know, as it facilitates reflection of what you are actually doing, and whether that might be improved. So let us start with case analysis, case theory, and case strategy all of which I would give particular definitions as seperate stages of the overall preparation of a case.

In the practice of law, in any field, the process of case analysis, developing a case theory, and crafting a case strategy are fundamental to effectively advising and representing clients. These stages are sequential and interdependent, each building on the last to form a cohesive plan of action. This blog explores these concepts in depth, providing insight into how barristers can systematically prepare for legal proceedings.

Case analysis involves identifying and testing the building blocks of a case. These building blocks include the order sought, the nature of the remedy, the parties involved, the geographical and procedural jurisdiction, the legal basis for the claim, and the evidence required to support the case. Most of the time this will be relatively straightforward, but credit hire claims have the potential to trip up the unwary, once it is realised that a Romanian lorry is involved, or a motorist is uninsured, or perhaps the motorist has given a false name, or other beartraps appear which preclude a claim from being formulaic. Thus we could identify the very basis parts of a claim as follows:

The order sought: what order do you want the court to make? In a credit hire claim it will usually be a simple monetary judgment, with costs but sometimes other orders might need to be sought.

The nature of the remedy: even where it is a monetary judgment and costs, there can be complexities which might need to be identified at this stage: particularly as most credit hire claims will now be governed by a complex series of provisions in relation to costs, which can complicate strategy a little further on.

The parties: It is necessary to identify all potential parties involved. Some parties may be obvious, such as the drivers and their respective insurers, while others may be less obvious, requiring detailed investigation.

The geographical jurisdiction: Usually the place of the accident will determine the appropriate location for the case based on where the events occurred, but even an accident within England but where one of the parties is located in Scotland can cause complications.

The procedural jurisdiction: Identify the correct court or courts where the case can be brought, considering the nature of the dispute and the relief sought: once upon a time cases were brought in the local County Court: now there are a multitude of Portals, Protocols and central issuing forum where particular rules apply.

The legal basis for the claim: Do you understand what bailment is? Do you understand the limits of bailment? Do you know why if a taxi passenger opens a door causing an accident, you don’t sue the driver? What is the usual percentage liability split, where a speeding driver hits a car that pulls out from a minor road into her path? Establish the legal principles underpinning the case, including statutes, case law, and legal doctrines.

The evidence: Compile both oral and written evidence that will need to be proved for the case to succeed, such as witness statements, documents, and expert reports, but also documents such as bank statements of which disclosure is likely to have to be given.

Case analysis is not a one-time task but an iterative and reiterative process. As new information comes to light, the analysis must be revisited and revised to reflect the evolving understanding of the case. This continuous refinement ensures that the case remains robust and accurately represents the client’s interests.

Now case theory is derived from thorough case analysis but is not case analysis. It is a succinct, compelling statement of the case that explains what happened, why it happened, and why the client should prevail. A well-crafted case theory should be clear, concise, and supported by evidence.

There is a lot of literature, particularly from the USA on case analysis and case theory. I suspect part of the reason for this, is the use of juries in civil cases, where lawyers have to think very carefully about how they present cases which might otherwise appear simple, and would be simple if appearing before a legally qualfied judge of law and fact in the county courts of England and Wales. American legal scholars offer various definitions and perspectives on case theory:

Steven Lubet: In “Modern Trial Advocacy,” Lubet defines case theory as the lawyer’s narrative of what happened, emphasizing coherence and simplicity. He stresses the importance of a story that resonates with common sense and the experiences of the fact-finder.

Thomas A. Mauet: In “Trial Techniques,” Mauet describes case theory as the unifying concept that gives meaning to the facts and evidence. It should frame the issues in a way that supports the desired outcome.

Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd: In “Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques,” Pozner and Dodd highlight the need for a case theory to be both a roadmap and a persuasive argument that guides every aspect of the trial, from opening statements to closing arguments.

All case theories need to be tested and developed as the case progresses. New evidence or legal arguments may require the theory to be modified or even abandoned. Flexibility and adaptability are crucial in maintaining a viable and compelling case theory. But case analysis and case theory, are also distinct from case strategy.

Case strategy is the practical implementation of the case theory through preparation, organization, legal advice, and advocacy in court. It involves detailed planning and execution to achieve the desired outcome. Again various legal writers provide various insights into case strategy:

Peter Murphy: In “Murphy on Evidence,” Murphy emphasizes the importance of thorough preparation and knowledge of the rules of evidence as foundational to a successful case strategy.

Gerry Spence: In “Win Your Case,” Spence advocates for a strategy that combines meticulous preparation with powerful storytelling, ensuring that the facts are presented in the most persuasive manner.

David Berg: In “The Trial Lawyer: What It Takes to Win,” Berg discusses the strategic use of cross-examination and witness preparation as critical components of effective trial advocacy.

Case strategy involves the following steps:

Gathering evidence: Collect medical records, police reports, and eyewitness statements.

Issuing proceedings: File the claim in the appropriate court.

Obtaining disclosure: Request relevant documents from a party, such as repair documents and financial documentation.

Interim applications: Seek specific disclosure orders or sanctions against a party for non-compliance.

Witness preparation: Prepare witnesses for testimony, ensuring they understand the key points of their evidence.

Advocacy in court: Present the case theory effectively through opening statements, evidence in chieft and cross-examinations, and closing arguments.

Interim applications can be a powerful tool for gaining advantage in a case. They can compel the disclosure of crucial documents or impose sanctions on a defaulting party for not providing documents, thereby strengthening the client’s position. Building a strong case involves meticulous preparation and a clear understanding of the legal and factual issues.

However, not all cases proceed to trial. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as mediation and negotiation, can often resolve disputes more efficiently and forms an integral part of case strategy: in effect, trial is the last resort if ADR fails. In this respect negotating strategies are worthy of a blog (several blogs!) in their own right. The days of having three figures and three positions (best, realistic and worse case) are long gone. Negotiation requires a much more nuanced approach and an understanding of the dynamics within which one’s opponent is operating. There is an awful lot of literature written about negotiation strategies:,some examples are:

Principled Negotiation (Fisher and Ury, “Getting to Yes”): Focuses on mutual interests rather than positions, aiming for win-win solutions.

Positional Bargaining (G. Richard Shell, “Bargaining for Advantage”): Involves starting with extreme positions and making concessions to reach a compromise.

BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) (William Ury, “Getting Past No”): Emphasizes the importance of having a strong alternative plan if negotiations fail. 

Of course, if negotiation fails, then a decision must be made whether to take a case to trial or not, and in reality, negotiation will “succeed” if the downsides of going to trial are apparent.

Deciding whether to proceed to trial involves considering several key factors:

Strength of the Case: Assess the likelihood of success based on the evidence and legal arguments.

Costs: Evaluate the financial implications of going to trial versus settling.

Client’s Objectives: Consider the client’s goals and preferences, including their willingness to settle.

Potential Outcomes: Weigh the possible verdicts and their impact on the client.

Time: Consider the time required for a trial and the potential for delay in the court system.

Case analysis, case theory, and case strategy are fundamental components of the job of being a lawyer. Through detailed case analysis, you can develop a compelling case theory, which then informs the case strategy. This sequential approach ensures thorough preparation, robust advocacy, and the best possible outcomes for clients. In the next blog, I shall look at some fact management skills, and a wonderful piece of software, which has greatly assisted me in my work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.