Every plaintiff PI firm has them: files that were signed with enthusiasm, worked hard for a few months, and then stopped moving. The client finished treatment, the demand went out, the carrier made a low offer, and the file drifted. Eighteen months later the case is still open, the client calls occasionally, and nobody can say exactly what the next step is. Multiply that by a few dozen files and the firm has a meaningful share of its inventory tied up in cases that are neither progressing nor closed.
A structured aging review is the operational fix. It is not complicated, but it requires discipline and a consistent format.
What an aging review measures
The basic idea is to sort open files by time in phase rather than time since intake. A case that has been open two years and is in active litigation with trial set is not stale. A case that has been in pre-litigation negotiation for fourteen months probably is. The review asks, for each file, how long it has been in its current phase and whether that duration is within the firm's expected range.
Most firms define phases along these lines:
- Intake and investigation
- Active treatment
- Records and bills collection
- Demand preparation
- Pre-litigation negotiation
- Litigation through discovery
- Trial preparation and resolution
- Settlement and disbursement
Each phase gets a target duration. The numbers vary by practice mix and jurisdiction, but a firm handling mostly auto cases might expect records collection to take no more than 60 days after treatment ends and pre-litigation negotiation to resolve or move to suit within 90 to 120 days after demand. Any file exceeding its phase target by a meaningful margin goes on the review list.
The review meeting
The most effective format is a recurring meeting, monthly for most firms, in which the managing attorney or practice lead walks through every flagged file with the handling attorney and case manager. Each file gets a few minutes and a single question: what is the next concrete action, who owns it, and by when.
Keep the meeting tight. A file that needs strategic discussion gets scheduled for a separate conversation; the aging review itself should move quickly. The output is a list of next actions with owners and dates, entered into the case management system so the next review can check completion.
Common reasons files stall
Patterns emerge quickly once a firm starts reviewing aging files. The usual culprits:
- Missing records. One provider has not responded to repeated requests, and the demand is waiting on it.
- Unresolved liens. The case could settle but nobody has pinned down the health plan or Medicare position.
- Client contact gaps. The client stopped responding, and no one has escalated outreach or considered withdrawal.
- Offer paralysis. The carrier made an offer below expectations, and the attorney has not decided between accepting, countering, or filing.
- Ownership confusion. The file changed hands during staff turnover and the new owner never fully picked it up.
Each has a standard response. Records gaps get escalated to subpoena or a direct provider call. Lien questions get assigned to whoever handles lien resolution with a deadline. Client contact gaps trigger a documented outreach sequence ending in a disengagement letter if necessary. Offer paralysis gets a decision deadline. Ownership confusion gets a named owner in the meeting.
The limitations overlay
An aging review is also a safety net for limitations. Every file in pre-litigation status should show its limitations date, any government claim deadline, and the date the firm's internal policy requires a filing decision. A file that is aging in negotiation and approaching its internal filing-decision date gets priority. This is not a substitute for the firm's primary docketing system, but a second look at the oldest pre-suit files is cheap insurance.
What to track
Firms that run aging reviews consistently tend to track a handful of metrics over time:
- Number and percentage of open files exceeding phase targets.
- Median days in each phase, by case type.
- Number of next actions assigned versus completed by the following review.
- Files closed or declined as a result of review.
- Fee revenue from files that were flagged and then resolved.
The last metric often surprises managing partners. Aging files are frequently settleable with modest effort, and a few months of disciplined review can surface meaningful fee revenue that was sitting idle.
Tools and data
Most case management platforms can report on time in phase if the firm uses consistent status fields. The weak point is usually data hygiene: phases are not updated when files move, or different staff use status fields inconsistently. Before launching a review program, audit how phases are recorded and fix the definitions. A review based on inaccurate phase data wastes everyone's time.
Firms evaluating case management systems for this capability should check whether the platform can generate a time-in-phase report without custom development. Related software coverage appears in our practice operations section, and lien-related stalls are addressed in depth under liens and settlement.
Making it stick
Aging reviews fail when they become optional. The meeting gets canceled for trial, then for vacation, then indefinitely. The firms that sustain them treat the review as fixed on the calendar, short enough that it never feels burdensome, and visibly connected to outcomes. When the managing attorney reports at the next all-staff meeting that the review closed a dozen stalled files and produced a measurable fee result, the program sustains itself.
The bottom line
Stale files are a cost the firm pays quietly: capital tied up in unrecovered costs, clients who feel forgotten, and elevated malpractice exposure. A monthly aging review with defined phase targets, short file-by-file discussions, and assigned next actions turns that inventory back into active work. It takes an hour a month and a commitment to keeping status data accurate.
