1. Establish the issue and the right expertise

Record the question the instructing team wants addressed, the proceedings and jurisdiction. Write down why your current expertise fits that question and what falls outside it. Ask for clarification when a broad instruction conceals several different specialist issues.

Keep the competence decision separate from the commercial opportunity. Identify conflicts, prior involvement and relationships that need to be considered. This worksheet is a planning aid; it is not a declaration that a proposed instruction is appropriate.

2. Agree the material, scope and timetable

List the documents, records or other evidence expected, what has been received and what is missing. Clarify any inspection or assessment arrangements and relevant permissions with the instructing team. Identify the reporting deadline and subsequent stages that may need capacity.

Record the agreed fee basis, estimated work, expenses, cancellation or reservation arrangements, funding and payment responsibility. Agree how extra material or a changed question affects scope. Keep open questions visible instead of silently filling gaps.

3. Plan the report around evidence and reasoning

Use separate planning headings for instructions, qualifications, material considered, facts, assumptions, method, opinion, limitations and conclusions. Explain where information came from and what supports each opinion. Identify uncertainty and alternative explanations that matter to the question.

For England and Wales civil proceedings, check CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 for the actual report requirements and declarations. Other proceedings and jurisdictions have different requirements. Do not copy this list into a report and assume that it establishes compliance.

4. Test the difference between a record and a conclusion

Fictional exercise: the material contains a photograph of a ceiling stain and a note referring to a roof repair. Write one sentence for each category. Record: the bundle contains those items. Assumption to check: they relate to the same building and period. Opinion question: what caused the stain? Missing material: dates, inspection observations and relevant background.

The exercise shows why a document should not be promoted directly into a causal conclusion. Do not use it as building advice. A real expert would investigate within the agreed scope, consider relevant alternatives and explain the evidential limits.

5. Review the draft before it leaves your control

Check that the opinion answers the actual instruction, stays within your expertise and distinguishes assumptions from established facts. Trace important statements back to the material. Confirm that required wording, qualifications and declarations match the current procedure.

Check whether new information has altered the conclusion. Explain a change appropriately instead of preserving an earlier view for consistency. Review figures, references, numbering and attachments, and retain the records needed to explain the reasoning.

6. Keep an action log for the next stage

For each unresolved point, record the issue, who needs to respond and the next action. Separate evidential questions from fee or scheduling questions. Keep track of clarification requests, discussions and attendance obligations under the applicable directions.

Useful fields for a simple log are: issue; material needed; action; responsible contact; target date; and status. Use appropriate confidentiality and data-handling arrangements. Do not put real case information into a public website contact form.

Useful sources and how to use this worksheet

Use this resource alongside the actual instruction, court orders and current rules. The EWI competency framework can help identify professional development needs, while funding guidance is relevant where the instruction is legally aided.

The publisher is UK Domain Trader. This checklist is an editorial planning resource, not a prescribed court form or a professionally approved report template. It has not been reviewed by a practising expert. Suggest a correction through the site form without sharing case details.