I think it would be very helpful to have the ability to remove a checklist from a case. On the case header, you can see all of the "litigation titles" aka auxiliary checklists. Once added, you DO NOT have the ability to remove the header information. You can remove each checklist item by hand, but that will not remove the checklist from the header. This could create an issue if a "LIT" checklist is added by mistake. The case will always show up as a LIT case. This is just my two cents :)
Guest
Commenting hoping this moves this back up toward the top as it's been around for a long time and Neos has shipped other ideas that wouldn't be necessary if we could just delete an aux checklist when it no longer applies (or worse, when someone inadvertently adds the wrong one).
Being able to delete an aux checklist from a case would address many "ideas" here and mitigate user frustration over ideas related to litigation titles/headers, "In Litigation" back to "Open" etc.
we created a work around for this issue
The dilemma is that once you've added an AUX checklist that is tagged as LIT, the only way to [remove] that FLAG/ Checklist is to DELETE each checklist item associated w/ that Aux list. So, if you have several auto-add (on opening AUX) items, you'd have to delete each of those for the AUX list to [go away]. * We do have a single item (OPEN LIT CHECKLIST) that gets dropped when we add the LIT AUX that has to get marked DONE before any other items are added to the checklist - so in a pinch we could just delete that 1 item and remove the LIT Flag
OUR Solution:
Create an AUX Checklist "LIT ON/OFF" , mark it as a Litigation Aux List
add 1 item in the Checklist "TURN ON LIT HEADER FLAG" - when marked DONE, it will add the In Litigation header to the case - when the LIT portion of a case is completed, go in & DELETE that item, the LIT Flag will be removed.
BUILD your AUX Litigation Checklist ** DO NOT MARK IT AS A LIT AUX CHECKLIST ** - that way it won't add the FLAG until you use the LIT ON/OFF aux list.
This is also necessary for cases that may have LIT on 1 claim and once resolved pursue a non-LIT resolution for supplemental claims (we are in PI).
Hope this helps someone else... it's been a bit of a struggle to find something that works & why it wasn't a NEOS thought on the front end I don't understand.