← Back to blog

How to Write Case Studies for Business Valuation and Forensic Accounting Firms

30 August 2026·5 min read
Quick answer: A credible case study for a valuation or forensic accounting firm never names the court, the parties, or identifying financial figures — it anonymises the matter while keeping the methodology, the complexity and the outcome real enough to prove you can handle work like this. Change the industry, the numbers and any identifying detail, but keep the actual analytical approach intact. Below is the fill-in-the-blank template I use with clients, three worked examples, and where firms most often slip up on confidentiality. ✨

Business valuers and forensic accountants have a marketing problem most professional services don't: your best work is often the most confidential. A shareholder dispute valuation, a matrimonial property settlement, a suspected fraud investigation — these prove you can handle complex, high-stakes work, and they're exactly the matters you're bound never to discuss identifiably. The instinct is to either say nothing, or write something so vague it proves nothing. There's a real middle path. 💖

What most valuation and forensic accounting firms get wrong

  • Going so vague it reads as filler — "we helped a client with a complex matter" tells a referrer nothing about your capability.
  • Naming enough detail to be identifiable anyway — industry, size, region and timeframe together can re-identify a matter even without naming it.
  • Leading with the number, not the reasoning — a headline figure means nothing without the methodology that produced it.
  • Publishing without sign-off — an anonymised case study still needs a second read from whoever handled the file, checking it can't be traced back.

The fill-in-the-blank case study template

Works for a valuation engagement, a forensic investigation, or an expert witness matter — swap the bracketed detail for your own, changed enough that no one involved could identify it:

The situation: A [business type/industry, generalised] was engaged in [type of matter — shareholder dispute, family law property settlement, insurance claim, suspected fraud] requiring an independent [valuation/forensic investigation].

The complexity: [What made this harder than standard — disputed assets, incomplete records, related-party transactions, a contested valuation date, competing expert reports].

Our approach: [Methodology used — capitalisation of future earnings, net asset backing, market comparables; investigative techniques for forensic work] and why it suited this matter.

The outcome: [General, non-identifying result — report accepted, matter settled ahead of trial, findings supported a negotiated resolution] described in terms of process, not a dollar figure or name.

Three worked examples

Each proves methodology and judgement without a court name, a party name, or a traceable figure. 📈

Business valuation firm, shareholder dispute: A hospitality business with two founding shareholders needed a valuation after one sought to exit. Complexity: goodwill tied to one shareholder's supplier relationships, needing separation from business value. Approach: capitalisation of future maintainable earnings, adjusted for personal versus enterprise goodwill. Outcome: both parties accepted the methodology and the matter resolved without a court-determined valuation.
Forensic accounting firm, family law matter: Engaged by a solicitor to trace a trades business's asset growth across a 12-year marriage, where one party alleged assets were understated. Complexity: a mix of formal accounts and informal cash records. Approach: reconstructing income and asset movements via bank statement analysis and industry benchmarking. Outcome: accepted as expert evidence, avoiding a contested hearing on that issue.
Forensic accounting firm, suspected employee fraud: A manufacturing business suspected a bookkeeper of manipulating supplier payments. Complexity: years of transaction history across multiple systems, with the individual still employed. Approach: a targeted transaction review, duplicate-payment analysis and structured interviews. Outcome: findings supported termination and recovery, without alerting the individual prematurely.

How to anonymise without hollowing it out

The rule: change the identifying combination, not the substance. Industry, size, timeframe, region and party count are what re-identify a matter — change two or three (a hospitality business becomes "a professional services business"; a figure becomes "a mid-six-figure valuation"). Keep the methodology and the shape of the outcome intact — that's what demonstrates competence. If a matter is too identifiable to anonymise safely, write about your general approach instead, without claiming it as a specific past matter.

💡 Before you publish: get sign-off from whoever ran the file, not just marketing — they're the one who'll spot a detail that re-identifies it. If the engagement was under a court order or expert witness code of conduct, check those terms first; some are stricter than general professional confidentiality obligations.

Mistakes that put confidentiality at risk

  • Using real dates — even anonymised, the actual month and year can be cross-referenced against public court listings.
  • Naming the referring solicitor without their explicit permission, separate from the client's.
  • Publishing case studies as a set — several from the same period, region and industry can collectively identify a matter.
  • Forgetting LinkedIn — a detailed matter description in a personal post bypasses your website's review process.

Frequently asked questions

Do we need written client consent to publish an anonymised case study?

It depends on your engagement terms, but as practice, yes — an anonymised case study is safer with the client's sign-off, especially in a small industry where "anonymised" doesn't always mean unidentifiable to those involved.

Can we use real numbers if we round them?

Rounding helps but isn't enough alone — "$2.1 million" rounded to "around $2 million" can still match public records. A wider range, like "a mid-seven-figure valuation," is safer.

What if the matter was reported in the media?

Media coverage doesn't make it fair game to publish under your own byline — check engagement terms and any confidentiality order first.

Is it worth publishing case studies if they have to be this vague?

Yes, but be honest about what they prove — process and judgement, not a verifiable result. Pair them with a services page that goes deep on methodology.

Please note: general information, not legal or financial advice — check your firm's specific confidentiality, engagement and court obligations before publishing.


Keep reading 🤍

Share
Written by
Kate, founder of Chronically Online

I help Gold Coast and Brisbane businesses grow with branding, websites and marketing that actually works.

Work with me ✦