ThomasMoreAI 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
- Collect and tag all source documents.
- Run conflict/ethics check (or note gap).
- Draft the brief using the section order and template below.
- Mark every unknown field
Unknownand every unverified legal point[VERIFY]. - 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
- Facts vs. inferences — every
Factrow must cite at least one source. - Dates — use
YYYY-MM-DDthroughout. - Client quotes — preserve only when materially relevant.
- Names — verify spellings against source materials; do not over-edit.
- Uncertainty — flag with
[VERIFY]and list what must be checked. - 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, orRoutine. - 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.