# Mass Tort Marketing Vendor Scorecard

A procurement diligence aid for U.S. plaintiff personal-injury law firms evaluating a
mass-tort marketing partner or lead vendor.

**Last reviewed:** August 4, 2026
**Companion page:** https://www.masstortmarketingagency.com/mass-tort-marketing-buyers-guide

> This scorecard is an evaluation tool, not a prediction of campaign performance and not
> legal advice. Obtain counsel on advertising, TCPA, privacy, and state-bar compliance
> before you launch or sign.

---

## How to score

Score each of the 10 categories from 0 to 5 based on **evidence produced**, not on
assertions made in a pitch meeting. Maximum total: 50.

| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | No answer, refuses the question, or cites "proprietary" to avoid it |
| 1 | Verbal claim only, no documentation of any kind |
| 2 | Partial documentation, material gaps remain |
| 3 | Documented, but not verifiable by you independently |
| 4 | Documented and independently verifiable (sample records, references, systems demo) |
| 5 | Documented, verifiable, and contractually committed |

**Interpretation**

- **40–50** — Strong diligence posture. Proceed to reference checks and legal review.
- **25–39** — Proceed only after closing the specific gaps you scored below 3, in writing.
- **Below 25** — High risk. Do not launch without remediation.

A high score means the vendor answered diligence questions well. It does not guarantee
campaign results, lead volume, retainer rates, or return on spend.

---

## The 10 categories

### 1. Demonstrated mass-tort specialization  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Named the specific torts they are actively running today
- [ ] Can describe current eligibility criteria for a tort without preparation
- [ ] Tracks MDL and registry/census developments that change eligibility
- [ ] Has references from plaintiff firms in a comparable tort
- **Red flags:** general PI portfolio repackaged as mass tort; no awareness of the
  docket status of the tort you are buying into.

### 2. Lead exclusivity and resale policy  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Written definition of "exclusive" (per firm? per tort? per state? for how long?)
- [ ] Contractual prohibition on resale, syndication, or "aged lead" remarketing
- [ ] Disclosed whether the same claimant record can reach a co-counsel or competitor
- [ ] Named any downstream data buyers or partners
- **Red flags:** "exclusive" undefined; exclusivity that expires in days; silence on
  what happens to leads your firm rejects.

### 3. TCPA consent documentation and audit trail  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Provides consent evidence with every lead (certificate/token, timestamp, IP,
      capture URL, and the exact disclosure text shown)
- [ ] Can reproduce a replay or screenshot of the consent page as rendered
- [ ] Documents how revocation requests are captured and propagated
- [ ] Records survive vendor termination and are exportable to you
- **Red flags:** consent "on file" but not deliverable per lead; no record of the
  disclosure language actually displayed; no revocation handling.

### 4. State-bar advertising and disclosure controls  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Names a reviewer (internal or outside counsel) who approves creative
- [ ] Maintains an archive of every ad, landing page, and script version with dates
- [ ] Handles jurisdiction-specific filing/retention duties (e.g. Texas filing,
      New York retention) or states plainly that the firm owns those duties
- [ ] Disclaimers, firm identification, and "advertisement" labeling handled per state
- **Red flags:** creative that names your firm without your review; no archive; no one
  who can say which state's rules govern a given ad.

### 5. Qualification criteria and medical/exposure screening  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Written, versioned criteria document per tort
- [ ] Screening covers injury, exposure/use window, statute of limitations, and venue
- [ ] Documents which facts are self-reported vs. verified against records
- [ ] Change-control process when criteria move
- **Red flags:** criteria that live only in a script; no distinction between claimed
  and documented facts.

### 6. Intake coverage, speed-to-lead, and bilingual capacity  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Published hours, holiday coverage, and after-hours routing
- [ ] Reports median and 90th-percentile time-to-first-contact, not averages
- [ ] Documented contact-attempt cadence before a lead is abandoned
- [ ] Spanish-language (and other required language) capacity, staffed not machine-only
- **Red flags:** averages only; no cadence policy; "24/7" that resolves to voicemail.

### 7. CRM integration, source tracking, and data ownership  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Named integration method and field mapping
- [ ] Source, campaign, creative, and channel persist onto the record in your CRM
- [ ] Written confirmation that the firm owns the data, and export rights on exit
- [ ] Documented handling of accounts, pixels, domains, and call recordings
- **Red flags:** leads delivered by email or spreadsheet; tracking that stops at the
  vendor dashboard; ad accounts owned by the vendor with no transfer path.

### 8. Pricing transparency and performance definitions  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Every billable event is defined in writing, with the disqualifying conditions
- [ ] Media spend is separated from vendor fees, and media invoices are viewable
- [ ] No undisclosed markup on media, data, or subcontracted intake
- [ ] Fee structure reviewed against Rules 5.4 and 7.2(b) by the firm's counsel
- **Red flags:** blended "all-in" pricing with no media visibility; definitions of
  "qualified" that the vendor can adjust unilaterally.

### 9. Tort-specific channel strategy  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Channel plan is specific to this tort and claimant population, not a template
- [ ] Accounts for platform policy limits on health/legal targeting and messaging
- [ ] States what is being tested, over what period, at what budget
- [ ] Explains how they will detect and cut an underperforming source
- **Red flags:** identical plan across unrelated torts; performance promises attached
  to a channel.

### 10. Reporting, replacement policy, and contract terms  ( ___ / 5 )

- [ ] Reporting reaches signed retainer and filed case, not just delivered leads
- [ ] Written credit/replacement policy with a defined dispute window and cure period
- [ ] Subcontractors disclosed and bound to the same terms
- [ ] Cancellation, transition, and data-export rights are explicit
- **Red flags:** no dispute window; auto-renewal with a long notice period; reporting
  that cannot be reconciled against your own CRM.

---

## Score sheet

| # | Category | Score (0–5) | Evidence received | Gap to close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mass-tort specialization | | | |
| 2 | Exclusivity and resale | | | |
| 3 | TCPA consent trail | | | |
| 4 | Bar advertising controls | | | |
| 5 | Qualification screening | | | |
| 6 | Intake and speed-to-lead | | | |
| 7 | CRM, tracking, data ownership | | | |
| 8 | Pricing transparency | | | |
| 9 | Channel strategy | | | |
| 10 | Reporting and contract terms | | | |
| | **Total** | **___ / 50** | | |

Reviewer: ______________________  Date: ______________