Most practitioners encounter Litigation Support as a passing question from a referral source before they treat it as a practice area. The ones who eventually own the area in their market did the opposite.
Aimed at forensic accountants at any career stage who have started seeing referrals in Litigation Support and want to know what the work actually looks like once you commit to it.
The forensic accountant’s relationship with Litigation Support usually starts with a defined scope — typically expressed as a series of specific questions the engaging attorney wants answered. Effective forensic accountants spend significant time at intake clarifying the scope, identifying the documents needed, and setting realistic timelines. Engagements that skip this clarity routinely produce work that doesn’t answer the question the attorney actually needed answered.
The engagement starts at intake
A useful structure for the scoping conversation: what is the client trying to accomplish, what’s the timeline they’re working with, what other professionals are on the case, what documents and information will be needed, and what deliverable will mark the engagement complete. Each of these should make it into the engagement letter explicitly.
For Litigation Support matters, define the deliverable at scoping. Will you produce a written report? A memorandum? An oral presentation to the case team? A draft document for negotiation? The same matter with a different deliverable is functionally a different engagement; pretending the deliverable will ‘become clear as we go’ produces worse outcomes than naming it upfront.
Documentation as infrastructure
Build a third-party document tracker for every Litigation Support engagement. What you’ve requested, when, from whom, what’s arrived, what’s still outstanding. This kind of tracking is unsexy but it’s the single most common reason matters run over timeline.
Case-file discipline matters more in Litigation Support than in general practice because the matters are denser, the third-party records are more complex, and the matter timelines are usually longer. Practitioners who run organized case files complete matters faster, defend their work more effectively if challenged, and produce reusable templates from each engagement.
Working scenario: a forensic accountant was retained as an expert witness in a contested Litigation Support matter. The opposing side challenged the practitioner’s methodology at deposition for two full days. The practitioners who survive this kind of challenge well are those who can articulate, in plain language, exactly why each analytical choice was made — which requires documenting reasoning during the engagement, not reconstructing it under cross-examination.
Working alongside attorneys and other professionals
Litigation Support matters almost always involve a team beyond the forensic accountant and the client. Attorneys, financial professionals, mediators, sometimes therapists or evaluators. Coordinating with the team produces better outcomes; ignoring them produces work that doesn’t integrate with the broader matter. Practitioners who develop strong relationships with the local family-law professional community handle these engagements more smoothly than those who treat each case as a solo effort.
The protocol for coordination matters. Some matters require frequent multi-professional calls; others require occasional written updates; others require near-silence between the forensic accountant and other professionals on the case. Set the protocol at scoping with the client and the other professionals so nobody is confused about who’s expected to do what.
Keeping your practice current
Reading the trade publications that cover Litigation Support matters more than most practitioners give it credit for. Thirty minutes a week, sustained across a year, produces a working sense of where the field is moving. Practitioners who do this find themselves citing relevant developments in client conversations and case strategy; those who don’t fall behind quietly.
Peer review of your work, even informally, improves it faster than solo practice. Find one or two other practitioners working in Litigation Support who will review your draft deliverables and give honest feedback. Reciprocate. For deeper reference, see ACFE Report to the Nations on occupational fraud.
Wrapping up the matter
Some Litigation Support engagements end without producing the outcome the client hoped for. Closing those engagements well — being honest about what the work produced and why — matters more than closing the successful ones. The client may not feel great about the outcome, but they’ll remember that you were straight with them, which produces referrals over time even from disappointing matters.
If the engagement produced a written deliverable that the client will share with attorneys, courts, or other professionals, make sure the closing version is clearly marked as final and dated. Drafts have a way of escaping into the broader case file; an unambiguously labeled final version eliminates the most common source of post-engagement confusion.
If you’re considering Litigation Support as a focus area and you want one concrete commitment to make: pick the upcoming family-law conference closest to you and commit to attending every year for the next five years.
How VennBoard fits in
VennBoard supports the kind of case-management discipline Litigation Support engagements benefit from: organized case files, integrated communication with co-professionals, deliverable versioning, and the kind of operational consistency that makes the difference between burning out at twenty matters and running a sustainable practice at fifty.
Practitioners interested in seeing VennBoard’s case-management infrastructure for Litigation Support work can learn more at VennBoard.com.
Further reading
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement