The Confidential Consultation: What Is Said, What Is Decided

The first meeting is often misunderstood. Some arrive hoping for an immediate answer, others fearing a sales pitch. It is neither. It is the moment when a still-vague request becomes a precise question, or turns out to be impossible.

It usually lasts between thirty and sixty minutes. By the end, it should be possible to say whether a verification is useful, within which limits, and at roughly what cost. If that is not the case, the conversation was badly run, by one side or the other.

In practice, first contact usually comes by telephone or a short message, often relayed by a lawyer, a trustee or a director. It requires no documents. Sending sensitive material before knowing who is on the other side is a common mistake, and sometimes the only genuinely costly one in a file.

The firm, for its part, checks for conflicts of interest: a file is not accepted if it concerns an existing client, an adverse party already represented, or someone already known to the firm. That check is quick and without consequence. It is also the clearest demonstration of what discretion means in practice.

Framing the request

The heart of the meeting is turning a concern into verifiable questions. What is established? What is assumed? Which decision depends on the answer? By when must that decision be taken? Those four questions often reveal that the problem is not where it was thought to be.

It is common for a client to arrive with one precise request and leave with another. That is not a commercial manoeuvre: it is the result of an honest examination of what can be established, within what delay and for what use. A reframed request costs less than a misunderstood one.

Scope and deliverable come next. Which countries, which companies, which people? A written report or an interim note? A document for a lawyer, a board, a negotiation? The answer determines the level of sourcing, the format and the timetable far more than the number of hours.

Feasibility and legality

The feasibility check covers three points. Whether the sources really exist: accessible registers, available documents, people willing to speak. Whether the timing fits the stated deadline. And whether the envisaged budget matches the scope requested, which is rarely the case at a first exchange.

The legality check is equally explicit. Some requests cannot be met: bank data, private communications, restricted files. Others can be met in part, through lawful means that take longer. Stating that difference early avoids building a mandate on a promise that cannot hold.

Sometimes the answer after that examination is no. A useless enquiry, or one destined to fail, costs more than a refusal. A firm that accepts everything signals that it measures neither the limits of its means nor those of applicable law.

The proposal

A written proposal normally follows the meeting within a short time. It restates the object, the scope, the intended method, the sources to be consulted, the exclusions accepted, the expected deliverable and the timetable. It also names who will work on the file and who supervises the mandate.

One element deserves particular attention: the confidentiality clause and the arrangements for handling data. These are not technical annexes. They determine who may speak about the file, what may be retained and for how long, and what happens when the mandate ends.

Timing and cost

Timing depends less on diligence than on the availability of sources. Documentary verification in Switzerland can take a few days; an enquiry involving several countries, interviews and incomplete registers takes several weeks. A serious timetable factors in third-party response times, which are often the binding constraint.

On cost, three formats coexist: a fixed fee for a closed scope, an hourly rate with a ceiling, and a retainer for regular monitoring. Whatever the format, the proposal must state what is included, what is not, what triggers a further approval, and how travel or foreign correspondent expenses are handled.

One principle makes the document easy to read: what is not priced in the proposal should not appear on the invoice without prior agreement. Overruns are discussed before they are incurred, never afterwards.

After the meeting

Nothing requires an immediate decision. A request can be reframed, reduced, postponed, or entrusted to another professional — a lawyer, an auditor, a technical expert. The first meeting has done its job as soon as it establishes what one is actually dealing with.

Once the decision is taken, a written mandate fixes roles, limits and practical arrangements. It is better signed before the first field call than afterwards, because that is the moment when everyone’s protection is settled.

The firm, for its part, does not chase. A file that does not come back is a file that was not ready, and saying so plainly is better than sustaining an expectation.

A confidential consultation can be arranged without commitment, in Geneva or remotely. It commits you to nothing. These pages are editorial information and do not constitute legal advice.