Roundup Herbicide Intake: How to Qualify Glyphosate Cancer Cases on the First Call

The Roundup Litigation Is Still Open. Your Intake Team Does Not Know What to Listen For.

The Bayer/Monsanto Roundup litigation has already produced more than $10 billion in settlements. New cases are filed every month. And yet, law firms that should be capturing these clients watch them fall through the cracks at the intake stage.

Not because the cases do not exist. Because whoever picks up the phone does not know what to listen for.

Roundup cases require precision on the first call. The exposure history, the diagnosis, the timeline — all of it determines whether a caller qualifies. Miss a question and you miss a case worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This article gives your front desk exactly what they need to run a qualifying intake call from the first ring.

What Is the Roundup Litigation?

Roundup is a widely used herbicide produced by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer. Its active ingredient, glyphosate, has been classified as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The link between Roundup exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — a type of blood cancer — has been central to thousands of lawsuits.

Since 2018, more than 165,000 claims have been filed against Bayer. The company settled approximately 100,000 cases for $9.6 billion in 2020, but thousands of cases remain in litigation. New plaintiffs continue to enter the pipeline, and courts have not closed the door on future claims.

The key point for intake: this is not a closed litigation. Cases are still viable. Your team needs to know how to identify them before callers hang up and call a competitor.

Who Qualifies for a Roundup Case?

Before the call, your front desk needs a mental model of the qualifying plaintiff. Roundup cases are strongest when:

• The caller was exposed to Roundup regularly — occupational or residential
• Exposure lasted at least one year (two or more is stronger)
• The caller has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or a related blood cancer
• The diagnosis came after a meaningful period of exposure (latency is typically 10 to 20 years)
• The statute of limitations has not expired in their state

This does not mean callers who miss one factor should be immediately declined. It means these are the data points your intake team needs to capture to give attorneys a real case evaluation. The attorney makes the call. Intake collects the facts.

The 8 Questions That Determine Qualification

Run these questions on every Roundup call. They cover exposure, diagnosis, and timeline — the three pillars of a viable case.

1. How Were You Exposed to Roundup?

Listen for occupational exposure (farm workers, groundskeepers, landscapers, golf course workers, nursery workers, parks and recreation employees) or residential exposure (regular lawn and garden use). Occupational exposure over years is generally stronger, but residential exposure is not disqualifying. The question matters because it tells you the volume and regularity of exposure without asking for a number the caller may not know.

2. Approximately How Long Did You Use or Work Around Roundup?

The threshold for case viability is typically one year or more of regular exposure. Two or more years is stronger. One-time or occasional use rarely rises to the level required. If the caller says they used it every weekend for a decade, that is significant data.

3. When Did You First Start Using Roundup?

You need this to calculate latency. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically develops 10 to 20 years after exposure begins. A caller who started using Roundup in the 1980s or 1990s fits the timeline well. Do not disqualify based on a long gap between exposure and diagnosis — that gap is actually expected.

4. Have You Been Diagnosed With Cancer or a Blood Disorder?

The primary qualifying diagnosis is non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Also ask about: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and hairy cell leukemia. If the caller says lymphoma or blood cancer, ask for the specific type. Some NHL subtypes have stronger scientific support in the Roundup literature than others.

5. When Were You Diagnosed?

The diagnosis date is essential for the statute of limitations analysis. In most states, the clock starts at diagnosis or at the point when the caller reasonably connected the diagnosis to Roundup exposure. Get a specific month and year if possible.

6. What State Do You Live In?

Statute of limitations rules vary by state. Some states allow two years from diagnosis. Others allow more. Federal MDL (multidistrict litigation) rules add another layer. Your attorneys will make the final SOL call, but intake needs to flag cases where the diagnosis was more than two to three years ago so attorneys can review them with urgency.

7. Have You Previously Spoken With or Retained Another Attorney?

A signed contingency agreement with another firm is a hard stop for representation — but it is not common. More often, a caller spoke with a firm, sent paperwork, but never signed a retainer. That is a viable lead. Capture the status clearly so your attorneys are not blind to prior contacts.

8. Are You the Injured Person, or Are You Calling on Behalf of Someone Else?

Wrongful death and survival actions can be brought by estates if the plaintiff passed away from NHL. This is not a disqualifier. Flag it and confirm whether an estate has been opened or whether the caller is the next of kin authorized to bring a claim.

Word-for-Word Intake Call Script

Here is the opener and qualification flow your front desk can use on every Roundup call.

Opening:

Thank you for calling [Firm Name]. My name is [Name]. Can I get your name and a good callback number in case we get disconnected? I want to make sure we have your information before we talk. I understand you are calling about a potential Roundup claim. I am going to ask you a few questions so our attorneys can evaluate your situation. This is not a legal consultation — it is just information gathering so the right person can get back to you.

Exposure questions:

Can you tell me how you came into contact with Roundup? Was it through your job, or more through home and lawn use? And roughly how long would you say you were using it or working around it on a regular basis?

Diagnosis questions:

Have you been diagnosed with any type of cancer or blood disorder? What is the specific diagnosis, if you know it? When did you first receive that diagnosis — do you have an approximate month and year?

Location and prior contact:

What state do you currently live in? Have you spoken with any other law firm about this, or is this your first call?

Closing:

Thank you — that gives our attorneys everything they need to start an evaluation. I am going to flag this for priority review given your exposure history and diagnosis. You can expect to hear from someone at our firm within 24 to 48 hours. Is this the best number and the best time to reach you?

Common Intake Mistakes on Roundup Calls — and How to Fix Them

Several mistakes appear consistently across law firms handling Roundup intake. Most are easy to fix once you know to look for them.

Asking a Closed Question Instead of an Open One

Open questions produce more information than yes/no questions. Asking how someone was exposed gives you their job history, their daily routine, and the scale of their exposure — all of which matters to case evaluation. Asking whether they used Roundup gives you a one-word answer. Train your intake team to lead with open questions on every Roundup call.

Stopping at Lymphoma Without Getting the Specific Diagnosis

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a broad category. Subtypes vary in how well-established the scientific literature is for Roundup causation. Your attorneys need the specific diagnosis. Train whoever picks up the phone to ask for the specific type of lymphoma or blood cancer the caller was diagnosed with.

Assuming Old Exposure Dates Are a Disqualifier

Some intake teams hear that a caller stopped using Roundup in 2002 and mentally close the file. That is wrong. Plaintiffs with primary exposure in the 1980s and 1990s represent a large portion of qualifying cases. The latency between exposure and diagnosis is often 15 to 20 years. Do not screen out based on the end date of exposure alone. Capture the data and let attorneys evaluate it.

Applying a Hard Rule on Diagnosis Date Without Escalating

Statute of limitations analysis in mass tort cases is fact-specific and state-specific. A diagnosis that happened four years ago may or may not be time-barred depending on when the caller first connected the diagnosis to Roundup. Do not reject these calls at intake. Flag them as time-sensitive and route them for attorney review immediately.

Not Getting the Callback Number Before Starting Questions

If the call drops mid-intake, you lose the lead. Get the name and number in the first 30 seconds. Two seconds of friction at the start protects the entire call.

How to Handle Objections on Roundup Calls

If the caller is unsure whether they used enough Roundup to qualify:

Tell them that is something the attorneys will determine. What you need from them is how often they used it and over what period of time. That is what attorneys look at — not the caller’s self-assessment of whether they qualify.

If the caller believes the lawsuits are over:

Clarify that Bayer reached a large settlement in 2020 but that settlement did not cover all claims, and new cases are still being filed. Whether they qualify depends on their specific exposure and diagnosis, which is what the attorneys will evaluate.

If the caller was turned down by another firm:

Acknowledge that different firms evaluate these cases differently and some are more selective. Ask to take a few minutes to gather the details about their exposure and diagnosis. Your attorneys will make their own determination.

If the diagnosis was a long time ago:

Explain that the statute of limitations analysis depends on several factors, including when the caller first connected their diagnosis to Roundup exposure. That is a legal question, not an intake question. Get the details to the attorneys and let them determine where things stand.

What the Handoff Note Should Look Like

Once your front desk completes the qualifying questions, the case should move to attorney review without delay. A complete intake handoff note for Roundup cases includes:

• Caller name and phone number
• Exposure type (occupational or residential) and duration
• Years of exposure (start and end if known)
• Specific diagnosis (type of lymphoma or blood cancer)
• Diagnosis date (month and year)
• State of residence
• Any prior attorney contact and status
• Whether the caller is the injured party or calling on behalf of a decedent
• Any time-sensitive flags (diagnosis date exceeds two to three years)

If you use intake software, build a Roundup-specific template. If you do not, a shared intake form that whoever picks up the phone fills out on every call is the minimum you need to stop losing these cases at handoff.

Why Real-Time Coaching Changes Roundup Intake

Roundup calls are technically specific. Your front desk can learn a script. What they cannot always do on their own is notice the moment they missed a critical data point and recover in real time.

That is the difference between a script and a coaching system.

When intake is supported by real-time AI coaching, the system listens for missed questions, qualifiers the caller mentioned that were not captured, and signal language that should trigger a follow-up question. Coaching prompts appear on screen immediately, not after the call ends, not during a weekly review, but in the moment when it still matters.

For a case category like Roundup, where the difference between a qualifying call and a lost lead is often one follow-up question, that real-time layer is not optional. It is how you stop leaving six-figure cases on the table.

Law firms using real-time coaching on specialized intake calls like these report catching missed qualifiers on a significant percentage of calls that would otherwise have been routed incorrectly or dropped. The cases were there. The callers were on the line. The intake team just needed one prompt at the right moment.

See how eNZeTi works in a real law firm — Book a Free Call Analysis at enzeti.com.