Litigation support schedules

The engagement covers building whatever accounting exhibits the matter requires, transaction summaries, account reconciliations, damages calculations, or a full schedule set behind an expert report, to the format and level of detail counsel specifies. Each summary exhibit is built with a cross-reference to the backup workpapers behind it, so a challenged line item can be traced immediately to its source. We also maintain version control across revisions, since a schedule in active litigation rarely stays static, and provide a clean audit trail showing what changed between versions and why. Where counsel needs the schedules formatted for a specific filing, an Excel workbook for internal use and a PDF exhibit for the docket, we produce both from the same underlying source.

We start with a call covering the matter's posture, what accounting question the schedule needs to answer, the filing or hearing timeline, and whether prior work, an earlier expert report, a demand letter calculation, needs to be incorporated or superseded. We then build the schedule from source documents directly rather than from a prior summary, tracing every figure back to its bank record, invoice, or ledger entry as we go. Drafts go to counsel for review against the case strategy, and we revise against feedback and the case timeline as it develops. A senior reviewer reviews every schedule for a traceable source and a consistent method before it goes to counsel.

Attorneys handling a commercial dispute, a fraud or embezzlement matter, a partnership dissolution, or a business valuation fight who need accounting schedules that will hold up under scrutiny at a deposition or trial. It is also for expert witnesses who need the supporting workpapers behind their report built to a standard that survives a Daubert challenge, and for parties preparing for mediation who need a documented set of figures rather than an informal calculation. It is not a substitute for legal drafting; we prepare the accounting exhibits, and the attorney drafts the filing that uses them.

The most common problem is a damages number that was calculated early in a case, before full discovery, and never rebuilt once additional documents arrived, leaving the figure resting on assumptions nobody can now defend. Another is a summary exhibit with no cross-reference to backup, so when opposing counsel asks where a specific number came from, the answer takes days to reconstruct instead of minutes. A third is inconsistent methodology across different schedules in the same matter, one exhibit uses a different damages period or a different baseline than another, which opposing counsel will exploit. We also frequently rebuild schedules that were built in a rush and contain formula errors that would not survive a careful review.

Microsoft Excel is the primary working format for both the summary exhibits and the backup workpapers, structured so that every cell in a summary can be traced to a specific tab and cite in the backup. We pull source data directly from whatever platform holds the underlying books, QuickBooks Online, Xero, or NetSuite, rather than working from printed reports that may not reflect the current ledger. Bank and card statement data gets converted from PDF or CSV into a structured format before it is traced into a schedule. Final exhibits are exported to PDF for filing or deposition use, with the working Excel file preserved so a challenged figure can be walked through live if needed.

Litigation support schedules are quoted as a custom Scale-tier engagement after a call covering the matter's complexity, the number of exhibits needed, and the filing timeline. A single damages schedule supporting a demand letter costs far less than a full set of exhibits behind an expert report in active litigation with a trial date already set. Because litigation timelines can compress quickly, we flag early if a requested turnaround is tight so counsel can plan around it rather than discovering the constraint at the deadline.

Every figure on a summary exhibit has to trace, without a gap, to a specific line in the backup workpapers and from there to a source document. We check that the methodology is consistent across every schedule in a single matter, so a damages period, a baseline year, or an allocation approach used in one exhibit matches how it is used in every other exhibit in the same case. A senior reviewer builds and checks the trace, then reviews the overall schedule set for internal consistency and defensibility before it goes to counsel, specifically looking for the kind of inconsistency opposing counsel would raise first.

Litigation rarely proceeds on the schedule anyone planned at the outset. A discovery dispute delays document production, a hearing gets continued, or new records surface that change a figure counsel has already relied on in a filing. We build our schedules with that reality in mind, keeping the underlying workpapers organized so a revision does not mean starting the trace over. When counsel tells us a filing date moved or new documents arrived, we update the affected schedules and clearly flag what changed from the prior version, so counsel always knows exactly which number is current and why it changed.