Workflow at a glance
Time (with AI)
10–18 min for a complete intake package
Without AI
35–55 min for the same process
Difficulty
Low — prompts are reusable across clients
Key tools
Clio, Claude, Grammarly
Best for
New matter onboarding, engagement letters, intake summaries
Expected outcome
Draft engagement letter, matter summary, and follow-up checklist ready for review
Before AI

Read through intake questionnaire, manually summarize key facts, draft engagement letter from template adjusting details, write follow-up email listing outstanding documents. 40–55 min across all tasks.

After AI

Paste intake responses into AI, generate matter summary and engagement letter draft in 3–4 min, review and edit both documents, send follow-up with AI-generated document checklist. Full process in 10–18 min.

Intake is underestimated as an AI opportunity in legal practice. Most lawyers think of AI in terms of research or drafting — but intake is where the pattern-matching is most obvious. Every new client provides the same categories of information. Every engagement letter follows the same structure. Every follow-up asks for the same types of documents.

AI doesn't make judgment calls about whether to take the matter. It makes the preparatory work around that judgment significantly faster.

Where AI fits in the intake process

Intake task AI role Attorney role
Summarize intake questionnaire responses Generate structured matter summary from raw responses Review for accuracy; add context AI doesn't have
Draft engagement letter Generate first draft from matter summary + template Review, customize scope/fee terms, sign
Follow-up document request Generate checklist of documents needed for matter type Review and send; add any matter-specific items
Welcome communication Draft a clear onboarding email explaining next steps Personalize and send
Conflict check summary Organize names and entities from intake for conflict search Run actual conflict check; AI structures the list

Step-by-step: AI-assisted intake

1

Collect intake information

Use a structured intake form (Clio Intake or any web form) to collect client information before the consultation. The more structured the input, the better the AI output. Phone-only intake can be transcribed with Otter.ai or similar tools and then summarized.

2

Generate a matter summary

Paste the intake form responses into Claude or a similar AI tool and generate a structured one-page matter summary. This becomes the working document for the engagement. See Prompt 1 below.

3

Draft the engagement letter

Use the matter summary plus your standard engagement letter structure to generate a first-draft letter. Specify fee arrangement, scope of work, and any intake-specific terms as context. See Prompt 2 below.

4

Generate the document checklist and onboarding email

For the matter type identified in the summary, generate the standard document request list and a welcome email explaining process and next steps. See Prompt 3 below.

5

Attorney review and send

Review the engagement letter, matter summary, and onboarding email. Edit any terms, personalize where appropriate, and send. The engagement letter should always go out under attorney review — do not send AI drafts directly without reading them.

Time note

Steps 2–4 together take 5–8 minutes with well-constructed prompts. The time investment is in Step 5 — attorney review. That review time is unavoidable and appropriate. The AI handles the preparation; you handle the judgment and verification.

Prompt templates for client intake

Prompt 1 — Matter summary from intake responses
Here are the responses from a new client intake form:

[PASTE INTAKE FORM RESPONSES]

Please generate a structured matter summary with the following sections:
1. Client information (name, contact, entity type if applicable)
2. Matter overview — what they are seeking help with, in 2–3 sentences
3. Key facts and background — relevant dates, parties, prior actions
4. Stated goals — what the client wants to achieve
5. Potential conflicts — list all individuals, entities, and opposing parties named
6. Documents needed — list what documents should be requested for this matter type
7. Initial assessment — flag any obvious complexity, urgency, or unusual aspects

Keep language neutral and factual. This is an internal working document.
Prompt 2 — Engagement letter draft
Please draft an engagement letter for the following matter:

Client: [NAME]
Matter type: [e.g., business formation / employment dispute / estate planning]
Scope of work: [describe what you will do — e.g., advise on and prepare articles of incorporation, operating agreement, and initial resolutions]
Fee arrangement: [flat fee / hourly rate — amount]
Retainer required: [amount, if applicable]
Estimated timeline: [if known]

Use a professional but clear tone. The letter should include:
- Introduction and scope of engagement
- Fee and billing terms
- What is NOT included in this engagement
- Client responsibilities (providing documents, timely communication)
- Termination provisions
- A signature block for client acceptance

Base the structure on a standard legal engagement letter. I will review and edit before sending.
Prompt 3 — Onboarding email + document checklist
I have just signed a new client for a [matter type — e.g., residential real estate transaction / business acquisition / employment matter].

Please draft:

1. A welcome email to send to the client explaining:
   - What they can expect from the process
   - How to communicate with our office
   - What happens next (reviewing the engagement letter, scheduling an initial call)
   - Tone: professional but warm

2. A document request list for this matter type, formatted as a numbered checklist.
   Include only documents that are typically needed for this type of matter.
   Group by category if there are more than 8 items.

Keep the email to 3–4 short paragraphs. I will personalize before sending.
What Prompt 1 actually produces
Generated from intake form responses · 90-second run · Attorney reviewed and sent in 4 minutes total

Internal Matter Summary — Draft


1. Client Information
Rachel Okonkwo, individual. Contact: r.okonkwo@email.com / (312) 555-0182. No entity.

2. Matter Overview
Client seeks representation in a wrongful termination dispute against former employer, Meridian Analytics Inc. Client was terminated on March 4, 2026 after reporting a billing discrepancy to her direct supervisor. She believes the termination was retaliatory.

3. Key Facts
Employment dates: June 2021 – March 4, 2026. Role: Senior Financial Analyst. Client filed an internal complaint on February 19, 2026. Termination notice received 13 days later with stated reason of "performance concerns." No prior disciplinary record documented.

4. Stated Goals
Client seeks lost wages and emotional distress damages. Open to settlement; prefers to avoid jury trial if possible.

5. Potential Conflicts
Meridian Analytics Inc.; James Carver (direct supervisor); HR Director (name unknown). Check conflicts for all three.

6. Documents Needed
Termination letter · Offer letter / employment contract · Internal complaint submission (Feb 19) · Any written performance reviews · Pay stubs (last 6 months) · Email correspondence with supervisor post-complaint

7. Initial Assessment
Timeline strongly suggests retaliation. Absence of prior disciplinary record is significant. Recommend Illinois Whistleblower Act research alongside federal Title VII claim. Urgency: statute of limitations review needed — EEOC charge may be required within 300 days of termination (deadline approx. Dec 30, 2026).

Attorney added one paragraph from memory and removed one hallucinated detail about a union. Conflicts check run manually. Total time from intake form to usable summary: 4 minutes.

Tools that support this workflow

The intake workflow works with general-purpose AI tools like Claude. Clio adds practice management structure — intake forms, matter creation, and document storage — that makes the AI step more efficient because information is already organized.

Clio

Legal practice management with built-in intake forms (Clio Grow). Structured intake data feeds directly into matter creation — cleaner input means better AI output.

Visit Clio →

Claude (general-purpose)

Strong for all three intake prompts. Handles the full context of an intake form well and produces clean, editable drafts.

Visit Claude →

Grammarly

Useful for reviewing the tone of client-facing communications before sending. Catches passive voice and overly formal phrasing that can feel cold.

Visit Grammarly →

Where this workflow pays off most

High-volume intake practices — personal injury, estate planning, family law, immigration — benefit most from this workflow because the pattern-matching is highest. A 20% time reduction per intake across 10 new matters per month is meaningful overhead reduction.

For lower-volume practices with complex, novel matters, the AI setup time is less justified per engagement — though the engagement letter and onboarding email prompts still save time regardless of volume.

Professional responsibility reminder

AI-generated engagement letters must be reviewed by the supervising attorney before sending. Scope of work, fee terms, and non-engagement language are legally and ethically significant — these should never go out as AI drafts without attorney review and approval.

← Contract Review Workflow Back to Lawyers Workflow Stack →

Also in the Lawyers Workflow Stack

AI Contract Review Workflow for Lawyers →
First-pass contract review, issue lists, redline drafting — a step-by-step process.

AI Tools for Lawyers — Full Overview →
CoCounsel, Harvey, Spellbook, and Clio — evaluated for real legal workflows.