Client Intake Summary

Converts raw intake materials into an evidence-tagged, team-ready brief for attorney review and matter activation.

Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

• Intake packet: forms, engagement data, identity/contact details, entity structure
• Communications: emails, call/meeting notes, preliminary documents
• Jurisdiction cues: governing state, filing location, corporate governing documents
• Conflict inputs: firm CRM/conflict database or prior-representation list (or note that none was available)
• Fee framework: hourly/flat expectations, retainer status, billing constraints, payor source
• Time-sensitive facts: deadlines, hearings, board dates, contract expirations
• Scope notes: permission and confidentiality scope for each source document

Quick Start

1. Collect and tag all source documents.
2. Run conflict/ethics check (or note gap).
3. Draft the brief using the section order and template below.
4. Mark every unknown field Unknown and every unverified legal point [VERIFY].
5. Route to assigning attorney with urgency classification.

Output Sections

Produce in this fixed order:

| Section | Content | Format | |---|---|---| | Executive Overview | 2–3 sentences: matter, client objective, urgency | Plain text | | Client Profile | Names, roles, contacts, communication prefs, confidentiality sensitivity | Bulleted fields | | Matter Snapshot | Type, legal issue, key parties, factual timeline, status, governing entities | Chronological table | | Preliminary Legal Considerations | Governing law cues, implied claims, jurisdiction questions, privilege/authority risks, SOL flags | Checklist | | Financial Notes | Fee discussion, retainer, budget constraints, funding source, billing risk | Bullets; standardize dollar amounts | | Risks and Red Flags | Inconsistencies, credibility issues, unrealistic outcomes, complexity indicators | Risk table (Low/Med/High) | | Conflicts and Ethics | Conflict search status, adverse-party overlap, confidentiality conflicts, privilege boundaries | Status table | | Follow-Up Queue | Missing facts, documents, and answers needed | Numbered action list | | Immediate Next Steps | 24h actions, 7-day actions, owner, dependency | Prioritized checklist |

Header Template

Client:
Matter ID:
Matter Type:
Jurisdiction:
Intake Sources:
Date Received:
Status: New / Pending / Urgent

Core Drafting Rules

1. Facts vs. inferences — every Fact row must cite at least one source.
2. Dates — use YYYY-MM-DD throughout.
3. Client quotes — preserve only when materially relevant.
4. Names — verify spellings against source materials; do not over-edit.
5. Uncertainty — flag with [VERIFY] and list what must be checked.
6. Order — address conflict/confidentiality posture before legal merits.

Pitfalls and Checks

• No legal advice. Tone is internal and professional; no counseling recommendations.
• Urgency required. Every brief must classify as Immediate, This Week, or Routine.
• SOL / filing deadlines. If mentioned, include the governing trigger rule + [VERIFY] for jurisdiction-specific requirements.
• No fabricated timelines. Missing dates go in the Follow-Up Queue, not invented.
• Confidentiality. Avoid unnecessary sensitive disclosures in shared summaries.
• Corporate governance. Capture entity authority limits, board/committee roles, and document governance references.
• Closing line. End with: recommended assignment owner, recommended first task, and estimated start date.