Audience · 02

For attorneys.

A second set of eyes on an existing plan before you scope, redraft, or sign your name to a review. Reads the actual instruments — trust, will, beneficiary forms, 706, illustrations — and returns a structured finding set with citations.

01Advisors 02Attorneys 03BGAs
Where this fits

The work that arrives mid-engagement.

A new client brings in a plan you didn't draft and wants to know what to fix before you draft anything new. A trust-and-estates partner wants a clean diff across the instrument, the amendments, the beneficiary forms, and the last 706 before redrafting. The engagement is the review — and the deliverable needs to be defensible to the client and to a reviewer who comes after.
Why a depth layer earns its keep

Reading a multi-instrument plan well takes hours of associate time the engagement letter rarely funds. Skipping it pushes risk onto the file.

The depth layer reads the documents, reconciles them, and surfaces what's broken with citations to the source text. The legal judgment stays with you.

A finding with a citation is a finding you can defend. A finding without one is an opinion.

Where SC drops in

Three points in your engagement.

No client questionnaire. No fact intake. We work from the documents you already have and return a structured set you can build on.

Workflow 01

Engagement scoping.

Before the engagement letter goes out, run a founder-reviewed brief on the existing plan. Scope what the engagement actually needs to cover — and price it honestly.

Default deliverable Founder-Reviewed Brief — pre-engagement scoping
Workflow 02

Pre-drafting review.

Full case review reads every instrument, reconciles across them, and scores findings by severity. Use it to draft against — or to defend the decision not to.

Default deliverable Full Case Review — advisor memo + client summary + debrief
Workflow 03

Quick scope check.

If you just need to confirm there are no red flags before you commit time, the Question Scan is a lower-friction entry point. Internal screening, not a client deliverable.

Lower-friction entry Question Scan — internal screening pass
A sample finding

One card. Everything in front of you.

The canonical finding card. Severity, domain, what we know, what we don't, the recommended next step, and the citation behind it. Findings without citations don't ship.

Critical · Beneficiary Designation · Finding F-02

IRA beneficiary form contradicts the trust's residuary scheme.

The trust's residuary clause directs the IRA into a conduit subtrust for the surviving spouse. The current beneficiary designation on file with the custodian names the surviving spouse outright as primary, and the children outright as contingent. The custodian form controls.

What we know

Trust §6.3 establishes a conduit subtrust for inherited retirement assets. Custodian beneficiary form (dated 2018) names the spouse outright as primary; children outright as contingent. IRA balance per last statement: $2.41M. No 706 or post-mortem planning has occurred.

What we don't know

Whether the 2018 designation post-dates the most recent trust amendment. Whether the client was advised on the conflict at the time of restatement. Whether other custodians hold designations that match the trust or override it.

Recommended next step

Re-execute beneficiary designations to direct the IRA into the conduit subtrust — or amend the trust if the current outright designation reflects a deliberate change in intent.

Resolution must precede any drafting work. The contradiction is dispositive on $2.41M of value.
ConfidenceHigh · 96%
LowMediumHigh
Citations

Reusable component. Same finding shape across briefs, full case reviews, and the planning desk.

Next step

Bring one plan you're about to scope.

A 30-minute working session on a real engagement. We'll walk a finding set end-to-end on the document set you'd otherwise hand to an associate.

Book a Demo See pricing