AI prompts for law firm client intake summaries
Intake notes arrive unstructured, so the fee earner redoes the interview. These five prompts structure them without offering any legal view.
A client intake call produces two pages of notes in the order the client happened to say things, which is rarely the order anyone needs them. The fee earner then spends the first fifteen minutes of a chargeable meeting reconstructing a chronology the client has already given once.
Restructuring is exactly what a model is good at, and it is safe to do provided the model restructures and nothing else. These five prompts are built with that boundary enforced throughout: a core intake summary, a chronology builder, a conflicts and risk screen, a review prompt that checks nothing was added, and a batch prompt for an intake queue. None of them offers a view on the matter, because that is advice and it belongs to a person with a practising certificate.
Why does client intake create rework?
Because the client tells their story emotionally rather than chronologically. The most upsetting event comes first, the relevant dates come out in fragments, and the document that matters gets mentioned once in passing.
The second reason is that intake is often taken by someone who cannot know what will turn out to be material. A paralegal recording an employment enquiry cannot reliably tell that the date of a particular conversation determines whether a claim is in time, so it gets noted the same as everything else.
Third, intake notes rarely separate what the client asserts from what they have evidence for. By the time the file is live, an assertion has hardened into a fact, and nobody remembers which was which.
What should a client intake summary contain?
A chronology with dates and sources, and an explicit marker wherever a date is approximate — because limitation runs on real dates and a client’s “around March” is not one.
A clean separation of asserted facts, evidenced facts, and things the client believes but has not observed. That distinction is the foundation of every later assessment and it can only be captured at intake.
The parties, all of them, with enough detail to run conflicts. The client’s actual objective in their own words, which is often not the remedy they have asked for. The documents that exist and where they are. And the deadlines that are already visible.
The core prompt for client intake summaries
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
You are structuring notes from a client intake call for a law
firm. You are an organiser of information. You do not analyse,
advise, characterise, or express any view on the merits.
Matter type: {{area of law}}
Intake taken by: {{name, role}}
Date of call: {{date}}
Notes: {{paste verbatim}}
Client: {{name, individual or entity}}
Produce:
1. PARTIES — everyone mentioned, with role and relationship
to the client. Include entities, individuals, employers,
insurers, other advisers. Mark incomplete names
[NAME INCOMPLETE].
2. CHRONOLOGY — every dated event, in order. Each with:
DATE | EVENT | SOURCE | DATE CERTAINTY
Certainty is EXACT, APPROXIMATE (the client hedged), or
INFERRED (the order is implied but no date given).
3. WHAT THE CLIENT ASSERTS — facts stated by the client, as
stated, with hedging preserved.
4. WHAT IS EVIDENCED — facts the client says are supported by
a document, with the document named and its location noted.
5. WHAT THE CLIENT BELIEVES BUT DID NOT OBSERVE — anything
the client has been told, assumes, or infers. Keep this
strictly separate from section 3.
6. DOCUMENTS — every document mentioned, whether the client
has it, and where it is.
7. THE CLIENT'S OBJECTIVE — in their own words, quoted.
8. VISIBLE DEADLINES — any date mentioned that appears to be
a deadline, flagged for a fee earner to assess. Do not
calculate or characterise limitation.
9. NOT ASKED — the obvious factual questions the notes do not
answer.The boundary rules
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
Rules:
- Do not state or imply any view on merits, prospects,
liability, quantum or strategy.
- Do not identify causes of action, legal issues, or which
law applies.
- Do not calculate limitation or characterise any date as
in or out of time. Flag dates only.
- Preserve every hedge exactly: about, around, I think,
roughly, sometime in, he told me.
- Never convert an approximate date into a specific one.
- Never resolve an inconsistency in the client's account.
Record both versions and flag the inconsistency.
- Do not tidy the client's objective into a legal remedy.
Quote what they said.
- Absence of information is not information. Never record
that something did not happen unless the client said so.
- Do not draft any communication to the client or any third
party.
- Where the notes are unclear, write [UNCLEAR IN NOTES]
rather than choosing a reading.A worked example: keeping the distinction
From a set of intake notes: “He was dismissed in March after the meeting with HR — he thinks they’d already decided because his manager mentioned a restructure in January. Has the letter somewhere.”
What the prompt produces:
CHRONOLOGY
Jan (approx) | Manager mentions a restructure | Client | APPROXIMATE
Mar (approx) | Meeting with HR | Client | APPROXIMATE
Mar (approx) | Dismissal | Client | APPROXIMATEASSERTED: Client was dismissed in March, following a meeting with HR. Client states his manager mentioned a restructure in January.
BELIEVED, NOT OBSERVED: Client believes the decision to dismiss had already been taken before the HR meeting. Basis given: the January restructure comment.
DOCUMENTS: Dismissal letter — client says he has it, location uncertain (“somewhere”).
VISIBLE DEADLINES: Date of dismissal is approximate (March). Flagged for fee earner: an exact date is required.
NOT ASKED: Exact date of dismissal. Exact date of the HR meeting. Whether the client appealed, and when. Whether ACAS early conciliation has been started.
The belief is not converted into a fact, no view is offered on whether it matters, and the “not asked” list is a call the paralegal can make this afternoon.
The chronology prompt
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
You are building a chronology from mixed sources on an existing
matter.
Sources: {{paste each, labelled with what it is and its date}}
Known key dates: {{any already established}}
Produce a single chronology:
DATE | EVENT | SOURCE DOCUMENT | CERTAINTY | CONFLICTS WITH
Rules:
- Every entry cites its source document.
- Where two sources give different dates for the same event,
create two entries and populate the CONFLICTS WITH column
on both. Never choose between them.
- Preserve the distinction between when something happened
and when it was recorded.
- Where a document is undated, mark it [UNDATED] and place it
by reference to what it mentions, noting the basis.
- Do not infer that an event happened because a later
document assumes it.
- Do not characterise gaps.
- Output separately: DATES REQUIRING VERIFICATION — any date
that is approximate, inferred or disputed and appears
material to sequence.The conflicts and risk screen prompt
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
You are producing a client intake screening list. You are
extracting data for a person to run checks against. You are
not clearing anything.
Intake notes: {{paste}}
Firm's screening requirements: {{what must be checked}}
Extract:
1. ALL NAMES — every individual and entity mentioned, in every
variant spelling given, with their role. Include people
mentioned in passing.
2. ENTITIES — company names, registration numbers if given,
trading names, former names.
3. OTHER ADVISERS — any solicitor, accountant, broker or
adviser mentioned, current or previous, with which party
they act for.
4. FUNDING — anything said about how fees will be paid,
including third parties, insurers, or a relative paying.
5. SOURCE OF FUNDS INDICATORS — anything said about where
money involved came from. Quote verbatim, do not
characterise.
6. IDENTITY EVIDENCE — what has been provided, what is
outstanding.
7. CAPACITY OR VULNERABILITY INDICATORS — anything in the
notes suggesting the client may need adjustments or may
have difficulty giving instructions. Quote, do not
diagnose.
8. RISK FLAGS FOR HUMAN REVIEW — anything a compliance
officer would want to look at. Flag only.
Rules:
- Never state that a check is satisfied or that no conflict
exists. You are producing inputs.
- Include every name, however peripheral.
- Do not assess whether anything is suspicious. Extract and
quote.
- Do not omit an item because it seems minor.Rule one is the important one. Conflicts and anti-money-laundering checks are regulated obligations under the SRA Standards and Regulations, and a model producing a candidate list is helpful while a model producing a clearance is a serious problem.
The review prompt: checking nothing was added
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
You have the original intake notes and a structured summary.
Audit the summary.
Output, quoting both texts:
1. ADDED FACTS — anything in the summary not in the notes.
2. LEGAL CHARACTERISATION — any place the summary names a
legal concept, cause of action, or duty that the notes do
not. Include implied characterisation.
3. MERITS LANGUAGE — anything suggesting strength, weakness,
likelihood or prospects.
4. HARDENED DATES — any approximate date recorded as exact.
5. HARDENED BELIEFS — anything the client believed or was
told, recorded as an asserted fact.
6. RESOLVED INCONSISTENCIES — anywhere two accounts became
one.
7. LOST HEDGING — every hedge word dropped.
8. DROPPED PARTIES — any person or entity in the notes
missing from the parties list.
9. INVENTED DEADLINES — any date characterised as a deadline
where the notes do not say so.
Categories 2, 3 and 5 are the ones that matter most.
NOTES: {{paste}}
SUMMARY: {{paste}}Running an intake queue
Click any highlighted blank to fill it in before you copy.
You are processing {{n}} client intake enquiries.
Firm's areas of work: {{list}}
What we do not take: {{list}}
Screening requirements: {{list}}
Enquiries: {{table — reference, matter type, intake notes,
date received, date of first contact}}
For each enquiry, produce the structured summary and the
screening extraction.
Rules for the batch:
- Never carry a party, date or document between enquiries.
- Output a triage table: reference | matter type | days since
received | visible date flags | missing identity evidence |
incomplete notes.
- Sort by the earliest visible date flag, so anything
potentially time-sensitive surfaces first. Do not
characterise anything as urgent or out of time — sorting is
not advice.
- Flag any enquiry whose subject matter appears to fall
outside the firm's stated areas, for a person to decide.
- Flag any enquiry where the notes are too sparse to
structure, rather than producing a thin summary.
- Do not respond to any enquiry.Common mistakes with client intake summaries
Letting the summary tidy the client’s objective. A client who says “I want him to admit what he did” has told you something important, and converting it to “the client seeks damages” loses the only sentence in the file about what would actually satisfy them.
Accepting hardened dates because they read better. “March 2024” is not what the client said if the client said “around March”, and the difference can decide whether a claim is in time.
Treating the “not asked” list as optional. It is the cheapest output in the workflow — a fifteen-minute call closes most of it, before anyone chargeable opens the file.
Using these prompts on anything beyond structuring. The moment the output identifies an issue or comments on prospects, it has produced legal advice, and the boundary is much easier to hold at the prompt than to police in the output.
What to check before relying on an intake summary
Confirm the summary contains no legal characterisation at all. It is the failure that matters most and the easiest to miss, because a well-organised summary with the right legal labels feels more useful rather than less safe.
Check every date marked EXACT against what the client actually said, and treat every APPROXIMATE as an action rather than a record.
Run conflicts and identity checks against the extracted names by the normal process. The extraction is a candidate list, not a check.
Finally, satisfy yourself about confidentiality before any intake notes go near a model, including whether the client has been told and whether the arrangement is compatible with the firm’s obligations. Legal professional privilege and the duty of confidentiality are the constraints here, and they are decided before the first prompt is run, not after.
Frequently asked
Questions this article answers
Why does client intake create rework?
Because the client tells their story emotionally rather than chronologically. The most upsetting event comes first, the relevant dates come out in fragments, and the document that matters gets mentioned once in passing. The second reason is that intake is often taken by someone who cannot know what will turn out to be material. A paralegal recording an employment enquiry cannot reliably tell that the date of a particular conversation…
What should a client intake summary contain?
A chronology with dates and sources, and an explicit marker wherever a date is approximate — because limitation runs on real dates and a client's "around March" is not one. A clean separation of asserted facts, evidenced facts, and things the client believes but has not observed. That distinction is the foundation of every later assessment and it can only be captured at intake. The parties, all of them, with…
What to check before relying on an intake summary?
Confirm the summary contains no legal characterisation at all. It is the failure that matters most and the easiest to miss, because a well-organised summary with the right legal labels feels more useful rather than less safe. Check every date marked EXACT against what the client actually said, and treat every APPROXIMATE as an action rather than a record. Run conflicts and identity checks against the extracted names by the…