Choosing documents for an initial case review

An initial case review needs the documents that establish the issue, not an unexplained collection of every file. When instructing an adviser, agree what they need and how they want it delivered. ^[1]

Select documents by the question they answer Include the operative agreement, relevant notices, latest substantive response and evidence supporting the principal issue. Add a short index explaining each item's significance. Keep draft and final versions clearly distinguished.

Provide material that contradicts your account and identify missing attachments or pages. Do not silently edit the record to make the case look stronger. Preserve originals even where a smaller working pack is used for review.

Make access reliable and proportionate Use readable scans, complete pages and descriptive filenames. Check permissions on shared links and confirm the recipient can access the pack. Agree how sensitive or privileged material should be transferred.

Pair the documents with a concise chronology. For electronic evidence, follow preservation principles before exporting selected copies. Ask whether additional documents are required after the adviser has identified the central issue, rather than assuming a large upload proves everything has been reviewed.

Choose a small core pack around the issue presented Begin with the documents that establish the relationship, disputed event and current position. In a contract matter, that may mean the signed agreement, the relevant notice and the latest substantive response. Ask the adviser which additional material is needed for the particular review. SRA guidance on instructing a solicitor supports preparing for an informed professional relationship. [1] The practical aim is a pack the adviser can navigate within the agreed scope, with the wider archive available if the initial analysis identifies another issue.

Give each selected document a short explanation in the index: what it is, its date and the question it helps answer. Avoid describing every item as important. A receipt may establish payment, while an attached specification may define what was promised; those are different roles in the evidence. Include relevant material that challenges your account. Selection should reduce administrative clutter, not remove inconvenient facts or create a misleading picture of the record the adviser needs to understand before assessing the matter.

Preserve completeness within the selected documents A smaller pack should still contain complete copies of the documents selected. Check page counts, schedules, signatures and attachments. A contract missing the page containing variations or jurisdiction terms may lead to an avoidable misunderstanding, even if the main commercial clauses are present. If a page is unavailable, identify the omission explicitly. Do not silently replace it with text from another version or a template found online. The adviser needs to know the difference between the actual document and material used only to understand a possible gap.

Keep the originals in their existing form while preparing readable working copies. For scans, check orientation, legibility and whether handwriting or stamps are visible. For emails, retain the underlying message and attachment relationship rather than relying entirely on screenshots cropped to the sentence you want considered. Ask before altering metadata or converting material where evidential features may matter. A convenient review format can be useful, but it should not destroy the original record from which further verification might later be required.

Make the file structure match the index Use stable, descriptive filenames with dates where helpful, and distinguish signed, draft and superseded versions. Numbering the selected files can make the index easier to follow, provided the references stay consistent. Avoid several files all called final, especially when they contain different terms. If a document is replaced in the working pack, mark the replacement and preserve the earlier copy separately. The reader should not have to infer which version is operative from file modification times or the order in which attachments arrived.

Check access through the agreed delivery method. A cloud link may work for you because you own the folder but fail for the intended recipient. Confirm permissions without opening the material to everyone with the link if that is unnecessary. If the adviser requests an upload portal, follow its instructions and retain a submission record. Where the pack is split across several messages, provide an overall index identifying all parts, so a missing second email does not leave the first attachment looking like the complete submission.

Explain sensitive material and gaps before the review begins Tell the adviser if the archive includes documents received under confidentiality restrictions or material that may involve another person's legal advice. Ask how it should be handled and transmitted rather than distributing it widely in a shared family or business folder. Describe how the material came into your possession. Do not obtain further evidence through unauthorised account access. The initial review should be based on documents you can properly provide, with any question about use or disclosure raised before the material is circulated more broadly.

After delivery, confirm what the adviser has agreed to review and whether additional documents are needed. A successful upload is evidence of transmission, not proof that every file has been read. Keep a dated copy of the index and note subsequent additions, particularly material that changes a factual assumption. This creates a manageable path from the initial pack to a fuller review if required. It also helps control costs and misunderstandings by connecting the documents supplied with the work actually commissioned, while preserving the complete underlying record for later reference.