Not every IEEPA entry needs a trade attorney. Entries within the 180-day protest window under 19 U.S.C. §1514 are handled through standard PSC and protest filings — customs broker work, not attorney work. But entries outside that window need Court of International Trade litigation. This playbook shows how to scope those engagements using the data we provide at assessment.
The CIT opportunity in IEEPA recovery is large and growing. Every week, more entries cross the 180-day line and shift from the protest track to the litigation track. Trade attorneys who position themselves now capture the best cases as they mature.
Step 1: Get the Data
You do not need to pull ES-003 reports or screen clients yourself. Our assessment process does that. When a customs broker or freight forwarder submits a client for assessment, we analyze every entry and flag which ones fall outside the 180-day protest window.
The assessment output includes: entry number, entry date, liquidation date, HTS codes, surcharge amount, protest window status (inside/outside), and recommended action path. Entries flagged as “outside window — CIT required” are your potential engagements.
This assessment is free. Request it through the assessment page or have a referring broker include your client. The data arrives in 48 hours, entry-by-entry, with dollar amounts attached. That is your scoping document.
Step 2: Apply Cost-Benefit Thresholds
Not every outside-window entry justifies CIT litigation. Litigation costs — attorney time, filing fees, expert witnesses if needed — must be weighed against the recoverable amount. Here are the thresholds we recommend.
$150,000+ in outside-window exposure: Definitely litigate. The economics are clear at this level. Even at a conservative 50% success probability, expected recovery exceeds litigation costs by a wide margin. These are the clients to prioritize.
$60,000-$150,000: Likely litigate. The economics work for most engagement models, particularly contingency. The case must have clean facts — straightforward IEEPA surcharges, clear HTS classification, no complicating factors like dumping or countervailing duty overlaps.
$25,000-$60,000: Borderline. At this level, pure contingency may not be economic for the attorney. Hybrid models (reduced hourly rate + smaller contingency percentage) can work. Portfolio consolidation — grouping multiple borderline clients into a single coordinated action — makes these cases viable. More on consolidation in Step 4.
Under $25,000: Recommend claim assignment. CIT litigation costs too much relative to the recovery. These clients are better served by claim assignment through tariffbuyouts.com, which gives them partial recovery without litigation risk or cost. For China-specific exposure at any level, see chinatariffrefund.com for origin-country recovery timelines.
These thresholds are guidelines, not rules. A client with $40,000 in outside-window exposure but $800,000 in inside-window exposure (being handled through protests) may justify CIT litigation on the smaller portion to capture the full recovery. Context matters. Direct clients to the IEEPA Refund Checker for a two-minute preliminary eligibility screen before committing to a formal scoping engagement.
Step 3: Choose the Engagement Model
Three fee models dominate IEEPA CIT litigation.
Pure contingency (20-33% of recovery). The attorney bears all litigation cost risk. The client pays nothing upfront. Standard contingency ranges for IEEPA CIT work are 20-25% for straightforward cases and 28-33% for complex or precedent-setting cases. This is the most common model for clients over $150K exposure.
Hybrid (reduced hourly rate + 10-15% contingency). The attorney bills at a reduced hourly rate (50-70% of standard) and takes a smaller contingency percentage on the backend. This works well for $60K-$150K exposure cases where pure contingency is marginal. The hourly component covers the attorney’s cost; the contingency provides upside.
Straight hourly. Rare in IEEPA CIT work because clients prefer risk-sharing. Used only when the client is a very large importer with sophisticated in-house legal teams who prefer cost certainty.
One consideration attorneys overlook: the client’s referring broker often influences the engagement model choice. Brokers prefer contingency for their clients because it removes friction from the referral conversation. An attorney who insists on hourly rates will lose referrals to attorneys who offer contingency. The partner economics reward flexibility.
Step 4: Portfolio Consolidation
The most powerful strategy for trade attorneys entering IEEPA CIT work is portfolio consolidation. Rather than litigating individual cases one at a time, group multiple clients with similar fact patterns into coordinated actions.
Consolidation works because IEEPA CIT cases share a common legal theory — the same constitutional challenge, the same statutory basis (19 U.S.C. §1514 and §1581), the same government defendant. The individual facts vary only in entry dates, HTS codes, and dollar amounts. Legal research, briefing, and motion practice are largely reusable across cases.
A portfolio of 8 consolidated cases requires perhaps 40% more attorney time than a single case, but generates 8x the revenue. This is how borderline $40K-$60K cases become viable — their legal costs are spread across the portfolio.
Work with referring customs brokers to identify clusters of clients with similar exposure profiles. A broker with 10 clients who each have $50K-$80K in outside-window exposure can deliver a consolidated portfolio worth $500K-$800K in total recoverable surcharges. At 25% contingency, that portfolio yields $125K-$200K in attorney fees.
Step 5: Coordinate With the Referring Broker
The referring broker is not just a lead source — they are an operational partner throughout the CIT engagement. Brokers have the client’s ACE data, entry documentation, and HTS classification history. They can pull supplemental records that strengthen the case without adding attorney research hours.
Establish a clear communication protocol with referring brokers. They need regular status updates to maintain their client relationship. They also need to know when you need additional entry data or client authorization.
The referral fee structure should be documented at engagement start. When the case resolves, the broker’s referral fee is paid from recovery proceeds. Transparent economics prevent disputes and build long-term referral relationships that deliver cases for years, not just this cycle.
The Business Development Angle
IEEPA CIT work is a practice-builder, not just a one-time revenue event. The skills, relationships, and precedent you develop transfer to future trade remedy litigation.
A trade attorney who handles 8-12 IEEPA CIT engagements in year one accomplishes several things simultaneously. First, they build a CIT practice line with measurable revenue. Second, they establish referral relationships with customs brokers who will send future work — not just tariff recovery, but AD/CVD challenges, classification disputes, penalty cases, and compliance advisory engagements.
The referring brokers become a permanent business development channel. A broker who sends you 3 CIT cases this year sends you customs penalty work next year and forced labor compliance work the year after. The IEEPA engagement is the wedge that opens a multi-year relationship.
Third, IEEPA CIT litigation generates published decisions and case experience that position the firm for the next trade disruption. There will always be another tariff action, another executive order challenge, another CIT docket. The attorneys who built their CIT practice during IEEPA recovery will be the first call when the next one arrives.
Timeline for Action
The CIT opportunity has a longer runway than the protest opportunity, but it is not indefinite. Key dates:
Now through Q2 2026: Entries are crossing the 180-day protest window weekly. Each week creates new CIT-eligible entries. This is the period to build referral relationships with brokers who are screening clients.
Q3-Q4 2026: The first wave of CIT filings from early movers begins generating results — settlements, summary judgment motions, published decisions. Attorneys not in the market by now face competition from established practitioners with case history.
2027: CIT resolution cycle in full swing. Late entrants compete against attorneys with a 12-month head start, published briefs, and established broker referral networks. Not impossible, but significantly harder.
Start building your pipeline now. The assessment data is available at tariffresolution.com. The referring broker network is live. The cases are forming. For context on how brokers are building their screening workflows, see the ES-003 workflow guide and our referral economics breakdown. The question is whether your firm captures 8-12 engagements or zero.
FAQ
Q: Do I need CIT experience to handle IEEPA cases? A: CIT experience helps but is not strictly required. The legal theory is well-defined — constitutional challenge to IEEPA authority under established precedent. Attorneys experienced in customs law, international trade, or administrative law can handle these cases. That said, if your firm has no CIT background at all, consider co-counsel arrangements with experienced CIT practitioners.
Q: How do I connect with referring brokers who have clients with CIT-eligible entries? A: Through the partner program. When brokers submit clients for assessment, entries outside the 180-day window are flagged for CIT referral. Attorneys in our network are matched with those clients based on expertise, geography, and capacity. Register through the assessment page to join the referral network.
Q: What is the typical CIT timeline from filing to resolution for IEEPA cases? A: Based on historical CIT processing times and the anticipated volume of IEEPA-related filings, we project 18-24 months from filing to resolution for most cases. Straightforward cases with clean facts may settle in 12-15 months. Cases requiring full trial could extend to 30 months. The government may also pursue global settlement frameworks that accelerate resolution for classes of cases — which benefits attorneys with larger consolidated portfolios.