Client Acceptance

The Garfinkel Group evaluates cases based on whether accountability can be imposed in the real world—not simply whether misconduct occurred.

Each potential matter is reviewed confidentially and assessed across several concrete factors.

Enforceability of Accountability

We evaluate who the defendants are, whether they can be held financially responsible, and whether litigation can produce a meaningful result. A case may involve serious wrongdoing, but if accountability cannot be imposed, we will not pursue it.

Strength of Liability

We analyze whether the facts support clear liability under the law and whether the claims can withstand scrutiny by courts and experienced defense counsel. Cases built on speculation, inference alone, or hindsight disagreement are not accepted.

Magnitude of Harm

We assess whether the decisions at issue caused substantial, measurable damage—financial, professional, or otherwise—sufficient to justify litigation. Severity alone is not enough; the harm must be legally and economically meaningful.

Client Credibility

Successful litigation depends on consistency, judgment, and credibility. We assess whether the client's account is coherent, supportable, and capable of withstanding adversarial testing.

Litigation Investment

We consider the complexity of the case, the anticipated discovery burden, and whether the firm can pursue the matter with the level of rigor required without compromising standards.

Proof and Evidence

We evaluate available documentation, communications, systems, and financial records, as well as whether additional evidence is likely to be uncovered through discovery. A case is not rejected simply because all evidence is not yet in hand, but it must be capable of being proven.

Only matters that satisfy these criteria are accepted.