casemark/risk-analysis

Risk Analysis Summary

Produces a prioritized risk analysis from matter documents, quantifying exposures and recommending mitigations for attorneys, clients, and stakeholders.

Prerequisites

1. Matter documents — contracts, pleadings, correspondence, regulatory filings, insurance policies
2. Matter context — jurisdiction, industry, phase (pre-filing / active / settlement), key parties
3. Risk tolerance — if known, acceptable exposure thresholds or strategic constraints

Workflow

1. Executive Overview

• Matter snapshot — one-paragraph factual summary
• Top 3–5 risks — ranked by severity × likelihood, one sentence each with estimated exposure
• Immediate actions — time-sensitive deadlines, SOL dates, regulatory windows

2. Risk Register

Assign each risk a sequential ID (R-01, R-02, ...) and complete:

| Field | Content | |---|---| | Category | Contractual / Regulatory / Litigation / Financial / Reputational / Operational | | Description | Specific risk statement grounded in document evidence | | Factual basis | Cite provisions, regulatory sections, correspondence, or facts | | Legal authority | Statutes, regulations, case law — mark [VERIFY] if uncertain | | Likelihood | High / Medium / Low with reasoning | | Severity | Critical / Major / Moderate / Minor | | Financial exposure | Best-case / most-likely / worst-case range | | Non-monetary impact | Reputational harm, sanctions, operational disruption | | Mitigating factors | Defenses, insurance coverage, factual counterarguments | | Interdependencies | Other risk IDs that compound or conflict |

3. Risk Matrix

Plot risk IDs on a 3×3 severity (rows) × likelihood (columns) grid:

              │ Low            │ Medium         │ High
──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────
Critical      │                │                │
Major         │                │                │
Moderate      │                │                │

4. Mitigation Strategies

For each risk rated Major/High or above:

• Action — specific, practical step
• Type — Legal defense / Procedural / Settlement / Insurance / Operational
• Feasibility — High / Medium / Low
• Effectiveness — estimated exposure reduction
• Resources — cost, time, personnel
• Trade-offs — whether this mitigation exacerbates another risk

5. Timeline

| Priority | Risk ID | Action | Deadline/Trigger | Owner | |---|---|---|---|---| | Urgent | | | | | | Near-term (30–90 days) | | | | | | Strategic (90+ days) | | | | |

Flag all hard deadlines: statutes of limitations, cure periods, regulatory filing dates.

6. Information Gaps

List areas needing additional investigation, discovery, or expert consultation to refine the assessment.

Pitfalls

• Ungrounded risks — every risk must cite specific documents or facts; never assert risk in the abstract
• Missing quantification — provide dollar ranges with stated assumptions; flag estimates as conservative or aggressive
• Fact vs. inference — clearly distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences, and speculative scenarios
• Tone imbalance — neither minimize genuine risks nor catastrophize manageable exposures
• Audience mismatch — use language accessible to business stakeholders; define legal terms on first use
• Unacknowledged uncertainty — state confidence levels; identify what additional information would change the assessment
• Ignored interdependencies — flag where addressing one risk may worsen another
• Jurisdiction blindness — note where analysis depends on forum, governing law, or regulatory body