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