A register counts records. It does not count people
Every route into a claimant book carries duplication. Your own database overlaps with the media campaign. A transferred file overlaps with the book you already had. And in a group litigation order, the same claimant may have instructed three firms without telling any of them.
Mediatasks de-duplicates within the book we hold. Resolving one person across data sets held by other firms is a different job — it needs purpose-built software, a neutral position between the parties, and an audit trail that survives being questioned.
One claimant, one record, one number. Everything downstream is built on that.
Four ways a book size stops being true
Each of these is visible in the data. None of them announces itself — they surface when a funder, a defendant or a court asks how the figure was reached.
The same claimant, three times
In a group litigation order a claimant may have signed with several firms. Every firm counts them.
An inherited file nobody has audited
A case transfers in with a spreadsheet, a history and no provenance. It becomes the baseline by default.
Funded spend on records you will lose
Acquisition, processing and engagement paid for claimants who are retained by another firm.
A figure that will not survive scrutiny
Every stakeholder is quoted a slightly different number and none of them can be evidenced.
Built for the litigation file
Forenzix is a London software firm working exclusively in litigation. Its de-duplication system is used in group litigation orders to resolve the problem of claimants instructing multiple law firms, and to manage each claimant’s journey to a single retained firm.
Two things make it the right fit. It operates an open-book position with full auditing rights, so the output is designed to be checked rather than trusted. And it reports to every participating firm, not only the one paying — which is what makes a cross-firm exercise possible at all.
- Firm
- Forenzix — litigation software and data
- Base
- City Gate House, 22 Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HF
- Founder
- Henry Lochrane, Founder & Director
- Role
- De-duplication across group litigation data sets; audit and remediation of inherited intake files
- Method
- Duplicate identification across multiple data sets, claimant-led election between firms, reporting to all parties
- Audit position
- Open book, with full auditing rights for funders and instructing firms
- Also builds
- Reporting dashboards and management-information tooling for litigation portfolios
- Reference
- forenzix.co.uk
Two columns. One case file.
The division of labour is deliberately clean. We hold the claimant record and everything that happens to the people in it. Forenzix establishes which records are the same person — including across firms we have no sight of.
Neither column reaches into the other. The seam is a resolved identity handed back into the claimant record, with the working shown.
Participation infrastructure
The claimant, end to end.
- Claimant acquisition and registration
- Eligibility validation and data quality
- One claimant record, maintained for the life of the case
- Engagement through the quiet years
- Programme reporting against the case timetable
Book integrity
The identity, end to end.
- Duplicate identification across participating firms’ data sets
- Claimant-led election between competing retainers
- Audit and remediation of inherited intake files
- Reconciliation and audit trail for every decision
- An evidenced book size, reported to all parties
Fig. 01 — the join. Column A holds the record; column B establishes whose record it is. The case file is the only shared surface.
The claimant chooses their firm. Not the firms, and not the software.
Stage by stage
De-duplication is not a one-off cleanse. It runs at intake, again across firms, and then continuously as the register grows.
Stage 01 is the whole argument for doing this at takeover.
An unaudited inherited file becomes the baseline by default. Every later report is measured against a number nobody ever checked.
Takeover The inherited file is ingested and mapped onto the claimant record structure. Provenance audit and a baseline count, established before anything is built on the file.
Internal cleanse Duplicates within our own book resolved at intake, with a canonical record per claimant. Matching rules agreed and documented, so the same logic applies to every later pass.
Cross-firm Minimum necessary fields supplied under agreed data-sharing terms. Duplicates identified across every participating firm’s data set in the group order.
Election Claimant communications around the election, in the firm’s name and voice. The election mechanism itself, and the outcome reported to every firm involved.
Ongoing New registrations screened against the resolved book as they arrive. Continuous duplicate checking, so the figure stays true as the register grows.
Filing A contactable, verified population ready for the schedule. A reconciled book size with the audit trail behind it, for funders and the court.
Clean the file before you build on it. Afterwards, every number inherits the error.
Documents, not introductions
A joint engagement that produces nothing but a warm handshake is not worth publishing. These are the artefacts the joint engagement is designed to put on your desk.
Where a claimant has instructed more than one firm, the choice is theirs and it is recorded. No book is transferred on an assumption.
Cross-firm matching is the most sensitive work on this register. Roles, lawful basis, minimum necessary fields, retention and deletion are agreed in writing before a single record moves. The firms are separately owned and separately instructed, and conflicts are checked independently on each side.
Available across all three operating modes
The partner register sits above the operating modes, not inside one. Whichever configuration of the Participation Operating System™ a matter runs on, the integrity discipline attaches the same way.
It is optional in every case, but it is the one engagement we would argue for at takeover rather than later.
CasePartners™
You already hold the book, or you have just inherited it. This is where duplication and unaudited provenance actually live.
Read the mode →LeadPartners™
We build the book. Screening at intake keeps funded acquisition off records another firm will retain.
Read the mode →ArbPartners™
US mass arbitration. Filing fees are charged per claimant, so a duplicate is a direct and immediate cost.
Read the mode →- Jurisdiction
- UK, and group litigation orders in particular · EU (WAMCA, RAD). US matters are considered case by case.
- Best introduced
- At takeover or intake, before the inherited file becomes the baseline everything is measured against.
- Also useful
- Mid-programme, where a register has grown through several channels and the reported figure has drifted.
- Not a fit
- Books from a single clean source with no cross-firm exposure, where our own validation is sufficient.
Questions of substance
Doesn’t Mediatasks already de-duplicate the book?+
Within the book we hold, yes — that is part of validation. What we cannot do is resolve the same claimant across data sets held by firms we have no sight of. That needs a neutral party, purpose-built software and an audit trail every firm will accept.
Do the other firms have to take part?+
In practice, yes, and that is exactly why the exercise is run by an independent third party reporting identically to everyone rather than by any one firm’s supplier. In a group litigation order the court’s own interest in an accurate register usually does the rest.
Who decides which firm keeps the claimant?+
The claimant, through an election form, with the outcome recorded and reported to every firm involved. Not the firms, and not by whoever registered them first.
How is claimant data protected in a cross-firm exercise?+
Data protection roles, lawful basis, the minimum necessary fields, retention and deletion are all agreed in writing before any record moves. Matching does not require the full file — only enough to establish identity.
We have just taken over a case. Where do we start?+
The provenance audit, before anything else is built on the file. It establishes what you actually inherited and what the opening number is. Everything reported afterwards is measured against it, so it is worth being right.
How is the arrangement paid for?+
Each firm is paid for its own work, on terms agreed with you in writing before it begins. Neither firm pays the other for an introduction. The specification sets out the commercial basis in full.
Request the specification.
The joint specification sets out scope, the matching and election methodology, data-sharing terms between the firms, audit rights and the commercial basis in full. Sent as a PDF, no call required.
Request the specification
partner_spec — GrowthEngine embed not yet configured
Paste the GrowthEngine embed snippet into Appearance → Customise → GrowthEngine Forms.
By submitting this form you agree to our Privacy Policy. Your data is processed by Mediatasks and its CRM provider in accordance with UK GDPR.