prospective client
“I was served today. Is this something your firm handles?”
Legal Services · high-intent workflow
Legal client intake automation that carries the work forward.
A prospective client should not have to repeat their story while the firm chases party names, dates, documents, conflict inputs and consultation availability.
Buyer search language
“legal client intake automation”
That phrase gets the buyer to the page. The real evaluation is whether the system can handle the request, rules, systems, communications and exceptions behind it.
Product truth: Claire's multi-step workflow primitives are built. The exact customer workflow and external system actions require configuration and, where needed, validated integration work.
How people actually ask
The request arrives in operational language.
People do not speak in software categories. They describe what happened, what is blocked and what they need next.
intake specialist
“I need every opposing-party name before I can prepare the conflict check.”
attorney
“Do not promise we will take the case—give me the facts and documents.”
conflicts analyst
“I uploaded the agreement. Who owns the next step?”
Request to outcome
One conversation. A governed multi-step workflow.
Claire maintains the context as the request moves through collection, rules, systems, communication, waits and human decisions.
Identify caller and relationship to the matter
ClaireResolve the person, account, asset or job using the identifiers this operation trusts; preserve ambiguity for review instead of choosing a convenient record.
Capture matter type, jurisdiction and stated urgency
ClaireAsk only for the facts this workflow needs, keep the requester’s language in context and mark required information that is still missing.
Collect parties for conflict-check preparation
ClaireAsk only for the facts this workflow needs, keep the requester’s language in context and mark required information that is still missing.
Request configured facts and documents
ClaireUse configured state, rules and permissions to choose the next action; route uncertainty instead of silently guessing.
Apply practice-area and office routing rules
ClaireApply the operation’s configured categories, boundaries and escalation rules; do not let conversational confidence substitute for policy.
Escalate conflicts, advice and representation decisions
HumanPass the collected facts, attempted actions and reason for escalation to the accountable person; keep ownership visible until acknowledged.
Offer only a permitted consultation or callback
ClairePerform only the authorized system action, capture whether it succeeded and avoid confirming completion until the system of record accepts it.
Confirm ownership without promising representation
ClaireTell the right person what is known, what happened and what comes next through the configured channel—without inventing an ETA or result.
People stay accountable
Different roles care about different failure modes.
Prospective client
Needs fewer dropped requests and clearer ownership without losing control of policy exceptions.
Intake specialist
Needs complete, structured context so the work does not begin with another round of phone tag.
Attorney
Needs accurate status and an honest next step, not a confident promise the operation cannot keep.
Conflicts analyst
Needs automation to handle routine coordination and surface the moments that require judgment.
Why orchestration matters
Answering is an event. Resolution is a chain of work.
| Basic answering product | Claire workflow |
|---|---|
| Takes a message or produces a transcript | Collects the fields required for this specific operational request. |
| Books against a generic calendar | Applies permitted availability, routing, urgency and approval rules. |
| Ends when the call ends | Can send follow-up, wait, resume, route exceptions and record the outcome. |
| Transfers without context | Hands a person the request, collected facts, attempted actions and reason for escalation. |
Failure cases to design before launch
The exception path is part of legal intake.
Test incomplete party names, claimed deadlines, an existing opposing-party contact, ambiguous practice-area fit, a missing document, an unavailable calendar, a requested legal opinion and a handoff no one acknowledges.
The conflict input is incomplete
Ask for another identifier or route the intake for staff review. Claire should not declare that a conflict does or does not exist.
The caller states a deadline
Preserve the exact statement and escalate according to firm policy. Do not interpret the deadline or imply that the firm is protecting it.
The matter needs legal judgment
Hand an attorney or authorized staff member the collected context. Advice, merit, conflicts and representation decisions remain human responsibilities.
The system action fails
Keep the intake state visible, avoid false confirmation and route the failed scheduling, record or document action to the named owner.
Systems and implementation
Connect only what the workflow needs.
A deployment may work around practice-management records, conflict-check processes, document storage, calendars, email and intake queues. Claire does not claim those connections exist merely because the vendors are common in legal services.
Implementation sequence
- Map the current workflow and language.
- Define required fields, rules and human owners.
- Validate API access and permitted actions.
- Build normal, failure and exception paths.
- Test with representative scenarios.
- Launch with runtime and quality review.
Buyer questions
What teams need answered before a pilot.
Is this just an answering service?
No. Answering is only the trigger. The configured workflow can collect structured information, retrieve permitted context, branch on rules, call APIs, send messages, wait for events and hand exceptions to a person.
Can Claire automate every decision?
No. The operation defines where Claire acts and where a person approves, decides or takes over. Consequential, ambiguous and policy-sensitive decisions should remain visibly owned.
Does this mean every system is already integrated?
No. practice-management records, conflict-check processes, document storage, calendars, email and intake queues describe the systems the workflow may need. A named system requires API-access and implementation validation; no native integration is implied.
How would implementation begin?
Start with one bounded workflow, its real inputs, rules, systems, failure paths and human owner. Test normal cases and exceptions before expanding scope.
Show us where this workflow breaks today.
Bring the calls, messages, rules, systems, handoffs and exceptions. We will map what Claire can configure and what requires integration.