Mission-Oriented Litigation
How strategic frameworks from public policy can transform the practice of law
Executive Summary: Mission-Oriented Litigation
This article introduces practicing lawyers to mission-oriented frameworks developed in academic research and government policy and demonstrates their possible application to litigation strategy. Drawing from economist Mariana Mazzucato's work on mission-oriented innovation policy, the framework offers a strategic alternative to traditional case management approaches.
In theory, mission-oriented litigation may produce more effective results for clients while contributing to broader goals of justice and community well-being. It offers practicing lawyers a framework for strategic thinking that goes beyond case processing to address the complex, interconnected challenges their clients actually face. Let’s be honest: Despite its conceptual elegance and procedural rigor, the American judicial system remains a blunt instrument.
Mazzucato's approach represents legal practice that is strategic rather than reactive, collaborative rather than adversarial, and focused on meaningful outcomes rather than process completion. In other words, it focuses on value creation and preservation rather than value extraction and transfer.
For Plaintiff Lawyers: Transform from "winning cases" to "client restoration"—coordinating legal strategy with clients' broader life circumstances, financial needs, and long-term objectives.
For Defense Lawyers: Shift from "defeating claims" to "comprehensive protection"—integrating legal defense with risk management, business strategy, and stakeholder relationships.
The article provides detailed working examples from employment discrimination, personal injury, and family law cases, showing how mission-oriented approaches achieve better outcomes through:
Strategic patience that builds stronger cases rather than accepting quick settlements
Integrated teamwork that coordinates legal, medical, therapeutic, and business professionals
Adaptive strategy that evolves based on evidence rather than predetermined plans
Stakeholder engagement that creates sustainable solutions serving all parties' interests
Introduction: Beyond Case Management to Mission Management
In 2024, the UK Labour government promised to deliver five national "missions"—ambitious, cross-cutting objectives designed to tackle complex societal challenges through coordinated action across multiple sectors and participants. While some dismissed this as political rhetoric, the concept draws from decades of academic research and practical experience in what scholars call "mission-oriented innovation policy."
The mission framework, pioneered by economist Mariana Mazzucato and others, represents a fundamental shift from traditional problem-solving approaches. Rather than simply fixing market failures or managing existing systems, missions involve "orchestrating" diverse players toward ambitious outcomes that require innovation, collaboration, and sustained commitment across traditional organizational boundaries.
This approach has proven powerful for tackling "wicked problems"—complex, interconnected challenges that resist simple solutions. Climate change, public health crises, and economic inequality all require the kind of coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort that missions are designed to facilitate.
But missions aren't just for governments. The underlying principles—ambitious goal-setting, cross-cutting collaboration, outcome-focused strategy, and stakeholder engagement—offer valuable insights for any complex endeavor requiring sustained effort across multiple parties with different interests and capabilities.
For practicing lawyers, these principles provide a sophisticated framework for approaching litigation strategy that goes far beyond traditional case management. Rather than simply processing cases through the legal system, mission-oriented litigation treats each case as a complex coordination challenge that requires strategic vision, adaptive tactics, and genuine collaboration with clients and other participants.
The Four Core Principles of Mission-Oriented Approach
1. Integration Over Fragmentation
Traditional organizations operate in departmental silos, each optimizing for their own metrics and priorities. Missions require breaking down these barriers to create coordinated action across different functions, expertise areas, and stakeholder groups.
Even in solo and small-firm practice, it’s easy to fall into fragmented thinking—treating tasks like marketing, intake, research, drafting, client communication, and negotiation as separate functions. A mission-oriented approach encourages you to break down these mental and functional barriers and instead view every part of your work as contributing to a unified outcome for the client.
In practice, this means:
Seeing client acquisition, counseling, fact development, and legal strategy as a single, evolving conversation—not separate stages.
Aligning your legal tactics with the client’s broader emotional, financial, and personal goals.
Collaborating across boundaries—not just with your client, but with outside professionals (therapists, doctors, financial planners, etc.) when their insights can help advance the mission.
The challenge is that under pressure—tight deadlines, limited resources, emotional fatigue—lawyers often default to task-based thinking: just get the motion filed, just close the case, just meet the next deadline. Mission-oriented practice resists this pull by staying focused on the bigger picture and integrating every action into a coordinated strategy that truly serves the client’s deeper needs.
2. Long-term Vision Over Short-term Pressures
Mission-oriented practice requires expansive thinking—setting ambitious goals that justify short-term sacrifices in service of long-term gains. These goals should be inspiring enough to sustain effort and unify diverse interests around a shared purpose.
Litigation constantly demands your attention: file before the statute runs, answer discovery on time, prepare for the next hearing. These are real pressures, and no good lawyer ignores them. But mission-oriented practice prompts you to look up from the calendar and ask a deeper question:
What are we truly accomplishing for this client in the long run?
A client’s genuine interest isn’t always apparent from court pleadings. It might be financial stability after a job loss, peace of mind before a terminal illness, or restoring their reputation in the community. These larger goals often get sidelined by the urgency of procedural deadlines. When that happens, the process starts to lead the lawyer—instead of the lawyer leading the process.
A mission-oriented approach flips that dynamic. It doesn’t ignore deadlines or procedural imperatives; it anchors your legal strategy in the client’s broader story, ensuring that each move serves the long-term outcome.
The challenge is real: legal practice operates under constant pressure to prioritize what is urgent over what is important. Successful mission-based strategies create systems, habits, and decision-making frameworks that protect long-term thinking from being crowded out—while still staying flexible and responsive to the shifting terrain of litigation.
That balance is the art: the mission must be ambitious enough to inspire, concrete enough to guide, and flexible enough to evolve.
3. Outcomes Over Inputs
Traditional litigation planning focuses on specifying activities and deliverable operations, such as discovery and motion practice. Mission-oriented approaches emphasize outcomes while remaining open about how those outcomes will be achieved. This creates space for innovation, experimentation, and learning throughout the process.
The emphasis is on creating a working environment that encourages the discovery and adaptation of effective litigation tactics. Rather than delivering predetermined solutions, mission-oriented litigators tailor their methods to what they learn and adapt accordingly.
Is this helping move the client closer to the result they need?
This approach requires tolerance for uncertainty and the ability to adjust course when necessary. Success is measured not by checklists completed, but by outcomes that matter.
Here’s what this looks like in practice:
Tailored Strategies, Not Templates
Forget boilerplate filings. Mission planning means every move—from discovery requests to settlement posture—is designed with your client’s core objective in mind.
Example: You don’t send standard interrogatories just because it’s “that stage” of the case. You craft targeted questions to surface the exact evidence needed to support your theory of harm.
Results-Driven Decision Making
The question isn’t “What’s next on the litigation checklist?” It’s “What will actually change your client’s situation for the better?” That might mean pushing for trial—or pivoting to a creative resolution that better achieves their mission.
Example: If the client values public accountability more than monetary compensation, your settlement strategy—and communications—should reflect that.
Adaptive and Responsive Execution
Litigation is rarely linear. A mission-oriented approach embraces this, allowing you to pivot as new facts emerge, evidence develops, or your understanding of the client’s needs evolves.
Example: You begin with a wrongful termination claim. Discovery reveals a pattern of retaliation. Instead of sticking to the narrow path, you broaden the scope and invite regulatory interest or press attention.
4. Collaboration Over Control
Traditional legal practice often defaults to a top-down model: the lawyer gathers facts, makes decisions, and informs the client along the way. But mission-oriented litigation reframes the relationship. The lawyer isn’t just a technician or tactician—they’re a strategic partner helping the client pursue a broader, purpose-driven outcome.
This shift aligns with the lawyer’s ethical obligations under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which require lawyers to inform, consult, and obtain client consent on key decisions. Rule 1.4 mandates clear and timely communication. Rule 1.2 affirms that while the lawyer maintains professional judgment, the client has the final say on the objectives of representation.
The mission isn’t yours to control—it’s the client’s to lead. Your role is to bring legal expertise, strategic options, and risk assessments to the table—but the direction of the case must reflect the client’s goals, values, and boundaries.
Mission-oriented litigation embraces this dynamic through:
Informed Partnership: The lawyer takes time to explain not just legal options, but how each choice aligns—or fails to align—with the client’s long-term goals.
Iterative Consultation: Decision-making is a collaborative process, not a one-time intake or pretrial conference. As new information arises, the client is kept engaged and empowered to reassess direction.
Delegated Insight: Clients often hold knowledge—about relationships, motivations, or personal risk—that can guide strategy. Mission-focused lawyers create space for that insight to shape case development.
Example: In a custody dispute, the client may not care about exact parenting percentages, but deeply values minimizing their child’s exposure to conflict. That preference might not appear in a court order—but it should drive negotiation tone, scheduling flexibility, and therapeutic referrals. A lawyer who ignores that mission in favor of “winning more time” could do real harm.
Letting the client lead the mission doesn’t mean relinquishing professional judgment. On the contrary, it demands more of it.
You must:
Clarify legal limits and consequences (Rule 1.1 and 2.1)
Candidly assess risks, even when unpopular (Rule 2.1)
Decline to pursue tactics that are unlawful, unethical, or futile—even if the client insists (Rule 1.2(d))
But within those boundaries, mission-oriented practice means the lawyer leads through alignment, not authority. You don't just steer—you co-navigate.
Mission Principles in Litigation Strategy
The Litigation Challenge
Legal cases, particularly complex ones, share many characteristics with the "wicked problems" that missions are designed to address. They involve:
Multiple participants with different interests and capabilities
Uncertain outcomes requiring adaptive strategy
Resource constraints and time pressures
Need for coordinated action across different expertise areas
Long-term objectives that may conflict with short-term pressures
Complex factual and legal questions requiring iterative investigation
Traditional litigation management often mirrors the organizational problems that mission frameworks are designed to solve: siloed work streams, input-focused planning, top-down client relationships, and short-term tactical thinking.
Mission-Oriented Litigation Framework
For Plaintiff Lawyers: The mission becomes restoration—not just winning the case, but restoring the client to the position they would have been in but for the defendant's conduct. This requires coordinating legal strategy with the client's broader life circumstances, financial needs, emotional healing, and long-term objectives.
For Defense Lawyers: The mission becomes protection and preservation—not just defeating the plaintiff's claims, but preserving the client's business relationships, reputation, operational capacity, and strategic position. This requires integrating legal defense with risk management, public relations, regulatory compliance, and business strategy.
Core Principles Applied:
Integration: Break down silos between legal research, fact development, client counseling, and business strategy
Long-term Focus: Prioritize outcomes that serve client's ultimate objectives, not just immediate legal victories
Outcome Orientation: Remain flexible about tactics while maintaining focus on defined success metrics
Collaboration: Engage clients as active partners and coordinate with all participants who can contribute to mission success
Working Examples: Mission-Oriented Litigation in Practice
Employment Discrimination: Restoration Through Strategic Patience
Case Context: Solo practitioner representing a mid-level manager terminated after reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor. Client is a single mother facing immediate financial pressure.
Traditional Approach: File EEOC charge, respond to employer position statement, request right-to-sue letter, file federal complaint, conduct discovery, negotiate settlement or proceed to trial.
Mission-Oriented Approach:
Mission Definition: Restore client's career trajectory and financial security while establishing accountability for discriminatory conduct.
Integration Over Silos:
Unified Strategy: EEOC process designed to build federal court leverage rather than separate administrative track
Client Counseling Integration: Regular sessions that combine legal updates with career counseling and financial planning
Evidence Coordination: Client's documentation of workplace retaliation becomes both emotional processing and legal strategy
Resource Pooling: Time allocated based on advancing overall restoration goals, not just legal milestones
Example: Instead of a standard EEOC filing, spend extra time helping client document patterns of retaliation and identify potential witnesses. This serves both a therapeutic function (client regains sense of agency) and legal function (stronger case foundation).
Long-term Over Short-term:
Strategic Patience: Decline the employer's initial low-ball settlement offer to develop a stronger case through a comprehensive EEOC investigation
Interim Support: Connect the client with a career counselor and temporary employment while building leverage for a better outcome
Investment Mindset: Front-load investigation costs to create settlement leverage and trial-readiness
Example: Employer offers $15,000 quick settlement. Mission-oriented analysis considers: Will this amount actually restore the client's position? Does it provide a sufficient deterrent effect? Is there evidence of a broader pattern that justifies continued investment?
Outcomes Over Inputs:
Adaptive Discovery: Let EEOC investigation revelations guide federal court discovery strategy rather than a predetermined plan
Theory Evolution: Start with individual discrimination claim, adapt to pattern-and-practice case as evidence emerges
Settlement Timing: Base negotiation timing on maximizing leverage, not completing process checklist
Example: EEOC investigation reveals three other women filed similar complaints. Adjust strategy from individual restoration to systemic change, potentially involving class action or pattern-and-practice claims.
Collaboration Over Control:
Client Partnership: Client becomes active investigator and strategist, not passive recipient of legal services
Stakeholder Engagement: Identify and cultivate relationships with former colleagues, potential witnesses, and advocacy organizations
Community Building: Connect with other employees experiencing similar issues, creating mutual support and stronger legal case
Example: Client's insights about workplace culture lead to discovery of "boys' club" text message group containing discriminatory comments. Client's network helps identify witnesses willing to testify about systemic pattern.
Outcome: $85,000 settlement plus reinstatement offer (which client declines in favor of a position with a competitor). Employer implements harassment training and policy changes. Client's career trajectory restored with experience and connections gained through litigation process.
Personal Injury: Comprehensive Recovery Through Coordinated Care
Case Context: Motorcycle accident victim with traumatic brain injury, representing against drunk driver and potentially liable bar that over-served.
Traditional Approach: File suit against driver and bar, conduct discovery on liability and damages, hire medical experts, negotiate settlement or proceed to trial based on economic and pain-and-suffering calculations.
Mission-Oriented Approach:
Mission Definition: Maximize client's long-term quality of life and functional capacity while securing comprehensive accountability for all responsible parties.
Integration Over Silos:
Medical-Legal Coordination: Work directly with treating physicians to ensure documentation serves both therapeutic and legal purposes
Life Care Planning: Integrate future medical needs assessment with vocational rehabilitation and family support planning
Multi-Defendant Strategy: Coordinate claims against driver and bar to maximize total recovery while avoiding finger-pointing that reduces individual liability
Example: Rather than hiring separate medical expert for litigation, work with client's treating neurologist to document both current needs and long-term prognosis in format useful for both ongoing treatment and damage calculations.
Long-term Over Short-term:
Recovery Timeline: Resist pressure for quick settlement until client's condition stabilizes and long-term needs are clear
Investment in Rehabilitation: Front-load costs for comprehensive rehabilitation assessment to demonstrate both improvement potential and ongoing needs
Future Planning: Focus on securing resources for lifetime needs rather than maximizing immediate payout
Example: Insurance company offers $200,000 six months after accident. Mission analysis: client still showing improvement in cognitive function, hasn't returned to work, family relationships stressed. Decline settlement in favor of structured approach addressing all dimensions of recovery.
Outcomes Over Inputs:
Adaptive Case Development: Let client's medical progress and rehabilitation discoveries guide damage theory evolution
Creative Solutions: Explore structured settlements, Medicare set-asides, and special needs trusts rather than simple lump-sum approaches
Holistic Metrics: Measure success by client's functional improvement and family stability, not just dollar amount
Example: Vocational rehabilitation reveals client can return to modified work with appropriate accommodations. Adjust damage theory from total disability to lost earning capacity plus accommodation costs, potentially increasing overall recovery.
Collaboration Over Control:
Team Integration: Client, family, treating physicians, rehabilitation specialists, and legal team work as coordinated unit
Family Engagement: Include spouse and children in planning process, recognizing their needs and contributions
Professional Networks: Build relationships with rehabilitation specialists, life care planners, and financial advisors who become long-term client support system
Example: Client's wife provides crucial insights about cognitive changes that medical professionals initially missed. Family's documentation of daily struggles becomes powerful trial evidence while also helping guide treatment planning.
Outcome: $1.2 million structured settlement providing lifetime medical care, vocational retraining, family support, and modified work accommodations. Client returns to productive employment, family relationships stabilize, comprehensive care plan ensures continued improvement.
Child Custody: Family Preservation Through Collaborative Problem-Solving
Case Context: Divorce with contested custody of two young children, father seeking primary custody alleging mother's alcohol abuse, mother claiming father's controlling behavior and work travel make him unsuitable.
Traditional Approach: File custody motion, conduct discovery on each parent's fitness, hire custody evaluator and expert witnesses, litigate parenting plan through adversarial process.
Mission-Oriented Approach:
Mission Definition: Establish stable, nurturing environment that serves children's long-term developmental needs while preserving their relationships with both parents.
Integration Over Silos:
Legal-Therapeutic Coordination: Work with family therapist and child psychologist to understand children's needs and develop legal strategy that supports therapeutic goals
Financial-Custody Integration: Coordinate custody and support discussions to ensure financial arrangements support optimal parenting arrangements
Extended Family Involvement: Include grandparents and other significant relationships in planning process
Example: Rather than hiring competing custody evaluators, both sides agree to single evaluator who works collaboratively with family therapist already treating children. Legal strategy designed to support therapeutic insights rather than contradicting them.
Long-term Over Short-term:
Developmental Perspective: Structure parenting plan to evolve with children's changing needs rather than rigid current arrangement
Relationship Preservation: Prioritize maintaining children's relationships with both parents over "winning" maximum custody time
Healing Focus: Design process to minimize trauma and promote family healing rather than maximizing leverage
Example: Mother's alcohol treatment progress becomes asset rather than liability in custody determination. Frame recovery as demonstration of commitment to children rather than evidence of unfitness.
Outcomes Over Inputs:
Flexible Planning: Create parenting arrangements that can adapt to changing work schedules, children's activities, and family circumstances
Problem-Solving Mechanisms: Establish ongoing communication and decision-making processes rather than detailed rules covering every contingency
Success Metrics: Measure success by children's adjustment and family stability rather than custody percentages
Example: Instead of fighting over exact holiday schedules, create framework for annual planning that prioritizes children's relationships with extended family and accommodates both parents' traditions.
Collaboration Over Control:
Co-Parenting Partnership: Help parents develop collaborative relationship focused on children's needs rather than past grievances
Professional Support Network: Create team of family therapist, financial planner, and parenting coordinator who work together long-term
Child Voice: Include age-appropriate mechanisms for children to express preferences and needs without forcing them to choose sides
Example: Parents agree to monthly co-parenting meetings with family therapist to address emerging issues collaboratively rather than returning to court for modifications.
Outcome: Joint custody arrangement with flexible scheduling, shared decision-making protocols, ongoing family therapy support, and annual review process. Children maintain strong relationships with both parents, family conflict significantly reduced, parents develop collaborative problem-solving skills.
Conclusion: From Case Processing to Mission Leadership
The mission-oriented approach represents a fundamental shift in how lawyers can conceptualize their role in the legal system. Rather than simply processing cases through established procedures, lawyers become mission leaders—coordinating complex, multi-stakeholder efforts toward ambitious outcomes that serve clients' deepest needs.
This approach recognizes that legal problems are rarely just legal problems. Employment discrimination cases involve career restoration, workplace culture change, and economic justice. Personal injury cases involve medical recovery, family adaptation, and long-term life planning. Family disputes involve child development, relationship healing, and community stability.
Mission-oriented litigation provides a framework for addressing these complex, interconnected challenges through coordinated action that breaks down traditional silos, maintains long-term focus despite short-term pressures, adapts tactics based on emerging evidence, and engages all participants as active partners in achieving meaningful solutions.
For practicing lawyers, this means developing new capabilities: strategic thinking that integrates legal and non-legal factors, collaborative skills that engage clients as partners, project management that coordinates diverse professionals, and outcome measurement that goes beyond traditional legal metrics.
The reward is legal practice that is both more effective and more meaningful—achieving better results for clients while contributing to broader social goals of justice, healing, and community well-being. In an era when public trust in institutions is declining and social problems are becoming more complex, the legal profession has an opportunity to demonstrate its value through mission-oriented approaches that tackle the challenges our clients and communities actually face.
The mission framework offers a path toward legal practice that is strategic rather than reactive, collaborative rather than adversarial, and focused on meaningful outcomes rather than process completion. It's not just a better way to practice law—it's a better way to serve justice.
Thomas Fox, J. D.
This material is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. I am not an attorney and do not offer legal representation.
Legal information is general and applies broadly; legal advice, by contrast, is tailored to the unique facts of your situation and requires a confidential, attorney–client relationship. No such relationship exists here. Communications with me are not privileged or protected by law.
Because laws vary by state and legal outcomes depend on specific facts, you should consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction to understand your rights and obligations. If you are currently involved in litigation, I strongly encourage you to seek professional legal counsel.
