AIC Round Robin Request Form (To be completed by when thinking of increasing Scope of Representation) Client name * This Client has been EASY TO WORK WITH with and follows advice. * Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Middle of the Road Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree This Client RESPECTS SUPPORT STAFF. * Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Neutral Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree This Client is *NOT* ARGUMENTATIVE & *NOT* WHINY. * Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Neutral Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Overall, this is a GREAT CLIENT. * Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Unsure / Not Clear Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree We ENJOY THIS TYPE OF CASE when litigating or arbitrating. * Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Neutral Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Likely VENUE COUNTY? * County of Venue Bases? * Clear CONTRACT CLAUSE providing exclusive Venue in above County Defendants are all residents or domiciled in the above County. The injury or events giving rise to the claims occurred in the above County. Adverse party or counsel has stipulated to Venue in above County. Real Estate Action (like foreclosure, quiet title) & Real Estate is in the above County. Litigation in Court OR Arbitration ? * Litigation in Court (No Arbitration clause) Arbitration based on ADR clause Adverse party has expressed willingness to now submit dispute to binding Arbitration Risk of Venue being transferred? (explain) * Which Court based on SMJ? * Circuit Court (Over $50,000 or Ejectment, etc.) County Court ($50,000 or less) Small Claims Court ($8,000 or less) None because Arbitration Risk of a Counter-claim or other claim that could change SMJ of Court to Circuit Court * Describe anticipated Counts and general summary of the claim(s) * Is an Expert Required? * Yes, an Expert would likely be required but we do NOT have one in mind. Yes, an Expert would likely be required and we DO have one in mind. No Expert will be needed. Letter Grade for this Client based on personality compatibility: * D A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D F Overall letter Grade based on Case being in our Wheelhouse, good facts, good law, straight-forward case, as far as the idea of increasing scope. * D A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F Final thoughts on why I think we should increase scope: * Recommended Retainer Amount * Initials of Submitter * ***POST-ROUND ROBIN MGT VIDEO MEETING*** FINAL DECISION ON INCREASING SCOPE (Lauren to fill in by pen during Round Robin Video Meeting) Yes we will increase scope without Caveat Yes we will increase scope BUT WITH CAVEAT NO, We will not increase scope If Yes, Final Retainer Amount $ If CAVEAT or Custom EP, details here. If No, Who assigned to Relay and How to Relay Thank you!