'Just in Case' Planning Checklist
The 'Just in Case' component is the Lean Law equivalent of a backup or redundancy plan to ensure that nothing has been missed.
April 09, 2018 at 02:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
The Just in Case component is the Lean Law equivalent of a contingency or redundancy plan. Its purpose is to ensure that nothing has been missed and to provide space for lawyers to look ahead and to plan for future scenarios. This is not a time for detailed analysis or a structured Progress Review. It's a distinct time for vision and creativity.
Checklist:
STOP
- Make some time.
- Gather the team to look at the entire project with a fresh and unbiased view.
LOOK BACK
- Look at the important issues from a list of key issues or an 'Efficiency Tip Sheet' list.
- Review the Project Plan and confirm that all of the important issues are on there, and that those which should have been done are complete.
LOOK FROM ABOVE
- Consider whether the list of key issues is still correct, make deletions and additions, ensuring that the project plan is updated in the same way.
- Consider if there are dangers, opportunities or connections which you hadn't previously appreciated.
- Re-examine all the key issues which you are treating as "known" or proved, to verify this is reliable.
LOOK FORWARD
- Try to imagine what could happen.
- Consider what you would do in these "What if" scenarios.
CAPTURE
- Record findings and follow ups, and adjust the Project Plan accordingly.
Lean Routine:
- Have you considered how frequently to convene Just in Case meetings and who should be included? Will it be followed by a Progress Review event?
- Has the meeting been scheduled in advance so people have some time to gather their thoughts? Have participants been encouraged to bring imagination and vision?
- Do you have a list of issues to prompt discussion? Consider using a whiteboard to capture all comments so that the team can see and reflect on the possibilities.
- As you look back at past work, consider any deviations in the project forcing the team to avoid or mitigate an unexpected event. Is the correction course selected still the right approach? Has the problem been solved?
- Have you encouraged team members to look back with a fresh and unbiased view?
- When you examine the project plan and each important issue, is there anything that has been overlooked? Imagine the consequences of your current strategy. Are there possibilities, nuances or risks that haven't been addressed?
- As you step back to gain perspective, are you prepared to test your assumptions? Can the team revisit and test all known issues? Are the "known facts" in your project truly reliable?
- As you look into the future, open your mind to consider the known risks and imagine unknown risks. What are the hidden risks? Have you ignored anything meaningful that could go wrong?
- If you've engaged in prior risk assessment, does the Just in Case discussion change any existing plans? Are there new developments that require fresh contingency planning? Have you documented the required follow-up and action items?
- Have meeting notes been summarized in a Lean Communication to the team?
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbout the Awards: Florida Legal Awards 2025 Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Katie Hall
'Any NFT Is a Security': What an SEC Wells Notice Sent to OpenSea Could Mean for Attorneys
4 minute readLawyer, Mother and the Dark Night of the Soul: What We Are Doing to Women at Law Firms
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
- 2Is Your Law Firm Growing Fast Enough? Scale, Consolidation and Competition
- 3Child Custody: The Dangers of 'Rules of Thumb'
- 4The Spectacle of Rudy Giuliani Returns to the SDNY
- 5Orrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250