We mapped the operating challenge
New matter enquiries, conflict details, client updates, and internal knowledge requests were moving through inboxes without a consistent intake path.
Law Firms case study
New enquiries, conflict details, client updates, and matter context were moving through inboxes without a consistent path. This case study shows how intake routing and review checkpoints improved context without weakening confidentiality.
The firm received new matter enquiries, conflict-check details, client documents, matter updates, and internal knowledge requests through inboxes, forms, and phone calls.
Staff wanted AI support, but leadership needed confidentiality, permissioning, review rules, vendor clarity, and no AI-generated legal advice going unchecked.
After the starting point was clear, we moved through four practical steps: mapping the challenge, defining where AI could safely help, putting the workflow in place, and setting the handoffs and review points that kept judgement with the team.
New matter enquiries, conflict details, client updates, and internal knowledge requests were moving through inboxes without a consistent intake path.
Intake routing, client update paths, matter context capture, and internal knowledge access could be assisted, while advice-related output and confidential data needed strict review rules.
We created intake routing, client update paths, matter context capture, and permissioned access to approved internal knowledge, with lawyer review before client-facing output.
Before the workflow was treated as live, we set the ownership, handoff rules, and review points for sensitive requests. Routine work could move faster, while judgement stayed with the team.
The change showed up in the day-to-day work: fewer things slipping through, cleaner handoffs, and clearer ownership for the team.
You do not need to know the right solution yet. Share what is slowing the team down and we will help shape the next move.