All advanced analyses performed internally

How a matter typically runs

  • Initial inquiry through the contact form or directly to info@renovatiogenomics.com.

  • Initial fit-assessment conversation. Renovatio Genomics advises whether the matter has a genetic or genomic dimension we can assist with. If it does not, we will say so before any engagement is contemplated.

  • Conflict check completed before any privileged information is exchanged.

  • Scoping call (typically 30 minutes) to understand the question, the timeline, and the deliverables.

  • Written engagement letter and retainer.

  • Sample receipt or data ingest under chain of custody.

  • Analysis, internal peer review, and a report (where the engagement permits).

  • Final report under separate cover.

  • Deposition and trial testimony under separate engagement; counsel decides whether to retain for testimony at any point through report delivery.

Disclosure materials

For matters in federal court, we provide the materials counsel will need for FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) disclosure: a current CV, a publications list, a four-year prior-testimony list, the fee schedule, and the materials considered in forming the opinion. State-court disclosure obligations vary, and we will work with counsel on the specific format required.

Conflict policy

Conflicts are checked against active and archived matters before any matter-specific information is exchanged. Renovatio Genomics will not accept work adverse to a current client of the firm in the same matter, or in a substantially related matter, without written waivers.

International matters

Our primary focus is the United States. We accept select international matters where the scientific question fits our scope. Procedural and disclosure obligations vary by jurisdiction; counsel should advise of the disclosure framework applicable to the matter at intake.

Engagement balance

Renovatio Genomics accepts engagements from defense counsel, plaintiff counsel, and neutral parties (courts, arbitrators, and special masters). We do not adjust opinions to fit a retaining party’s litigation theory. If the science does not support the proposed inference, the report will say so.