Normal path
Show the request, required context, configured action, system result, confirmation, and completed state.
For PI, family law, immigration, IP, and general-practice firms
AI for law firms — built for client intake, conflicts, and matter management without breaking privilege.
Claire handles the front-of-firm work that loses cases when it slips: intake, conflicts, engagement letters, triage. Reasoning, not scripts. ABA Model Rules compliant. Privileged-data architecture. Goes live in 2–4 weeks.
- Picks up every prospect call — 24/7, in multilingual workflows, subject to deployment validation
- Runs conflicts check before the call ends
- Generates engagement letters from intake conversation
- Routes hot leads to attorneys; nurtures cold ones
- ABA Model Rule 5.3 supervision controls built in
- No client data used for model training. Privileged-data architecture.
ABA Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.3 aligned
No data used for training
Privileged-data architecture
multilingual workflows, subject to deployment validation
See Claire on your firm workflow.
30 minutes. Scripted around your practice area.
The economics of legal intake have flipped
Marketing spend is up. Conversion is down. The bottleneck moved from leads to intake speed.
5 min
Average winning law firm response time on PI leads
Firms that respond in 5 minutes win 7× more than firms that respond in an hour. Claire responds in 30 seconds.
$3,400
Avg cost per signed PI case (paid acquisition)
Losing 30% of leads to slow intake means burning 30% of your marketing budget. Claire intakes every one.
2.3 days
Avg conflicts check turnaround at mid-size firms
Two days is a deal-killer for time-sensitive matters. Claire runs conflicts during the intake call.
How Claire works in a firm
Privilege-aware. Conflicts-aware. Designed for operational review for every interaction.
1
Intake by conversation
Claire picks up, listens for matter type, collects facts, identifies parties, and runs preliminary triage.
2
Conflicts + qualification
Runs conflicts against your matter database in real-time. Qualifies the matter on retainer fit, statute of limitations, jurisdiction.
3
Engagement + handoff
Generates engagement letter, sends for e-signature. Routes qualified matters to the assigned attorney with full context.
What Claire handles for law firms
Client intake
Personal injury, family, immigration, IP, criminal, estate. Practice-area-specific intake flows. Multilingual.
Conflicts check
Real-time against your matter database. Flags issue parties, opposing counsel, related matters.
Engagement letters
Generated from intake conversation. Practice-area-specific templates. Sent for e-signature.
Matter triage
Routes by practice area, urgency, retainer fit. Qualified matters to the right attorney; unqualified to a polite decline.
Hearing reminders
Outbound reminders to clients on hearings, depositions, mediation. Confirmations and reschedules in-call.
Multilingual access
Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Russian — natively. Critical for PI and immigration practices.
Built for ABA Model Rules.
Privileged-data architecture. No model training on client data. Supervision controls per Rule 5.3.
ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence)
ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
ABA Model Rule 5.3 (nonlawyer supervision)
No client data used for training
Encryption requirements reviewed
Privileged-data isolation
Frequently asked questions
Does this break ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)?
No. Claire is architected for privileged data — client content is isolated per matter, never used for model training, and the audit trail meets Rule 1.6 documentation requirements.
How does Rule 5.3 supervision work with AI?
Claire surfaces every AI-assisted action for supervising attorney review. You define the matters Claire can engage on, the actions she can take, and the escalation thresholds. Audit trail captures every decision for review.
What about state bar ethics opinions on AI?
Florida Bar Op 24-1, California Bar Op 2024-1, New York Bar Op 2024-3 — we've architected against all of them. Each requires (1) supervision, (2) confidentiality, (3) competent use. Claire's design assumes all three apply.
Can it draft pleadings or memos?
Claire's intake/triage layer is what we ship. Drafting work product is a separate consideration — we partner with firm-side drafting tools rather than replace them. Claire feeds matter context to them.
Will it generate hallucinated case citations?
Claire doesn't generate legal arguments or citations. She handles intake, conflicts, triage, and client communication — workflow, not work product. Mata v. Avianca taught us where consumer LLMs fail; we're architected around it.
What does it cost?
Per attorney seat + matter volume tier. Pricing depends on practice areas, integration scope, and language coverage. Quote within 24h of demo.
Win the leads your slower competitors are losing.
30 minutes. We benchmark Claire against your current intake response time and conversion.
Built around the people doing the work
What Law-firm owners, intake leaders, and legal operations should verify.
Law firms lose time when every inquiry, status request, document chase, scheduling change, and billing route starts with manual triage. Claire can collect structured facts, retrieve permitted matter context, send approved communications, schedule where authorized, and prepare the next task for staff.
Legal advice, conflict clearance, matter acceptance, settlement authority, trust-account decisions, and deadlines remain governed by the firm and its professionals. Workflows must state when the system is providing administrative information and when a person must review.
Map practice-area language, adverse parties, jurisdictions, limitation dates, client identity, privilege boundaries, and escalation ownership. Test urgent deadlines, existing matters, declined matters, language needs, and incomplete records before expanding automation.
Exception path
Show missing information, conflicting records, unavailable systems, policy boundaries, failed actions, and the named owner.
Human path
Keep approval, judgment, safety, relationship risk, and unresolved ambiguity with the accountable person.