Qualified matters reach the partner, not the inbox.
Attorneys still clear every conflict and make every call. The system surfaces what they need to decide.
A new inquiry enters your queue.
Pulled the moment a prospective client submits a web form, sends an intake email, or leaves a voicemail. No one opens an inbox.
- 22 min ago Matter #MT-4819 Commercial dispute Graded
- 11 min ago Matter #MT-4820 Employment claim Graded
- just now Matter #MT-4821 Contract breach · web form New
Intake text becomes structured matter data.
Parties, counterparties, issue, jurisdiction, requested relief, key dates. Pulled from the form, the email body, the attachments.
[Plaintiff entity]
Issue
Breach of supply agreement, alleged non-delivery on $480K order.
Counterparty
[Counterparty], a regional distributor.
Jurisdiction & dates
Contract venue: state court, Travis County.
Alleged breach: 14 months ago.
{ "matter_type": "commercial_breach", "plaintiff": "[Plaintiff entity]", "counterparty": "[Counterparty]", "jurisdiction": "TX, Travis County", "alleged_damages_usd": 480000, "months_since_breach": 14, "requested_relief": "damages_plus_specific_perf", "contract_on_file": "yes", "channel": "web_form" }
Every party, run against the firm's full history.
Fuzzy entity matching across the firm's client roster, adverse-party log, related entities, and prior matters. Results are surfaced for attorney clearance, never auto-cleared.
As listed on intake form.
Fuzzy match, 0.92 similarity. Parent of 3 known subsidiaries.
Surfaced for attorney clearance. Not cleared by the system.
A licensed attorney clears every conflict.
Every surfaced conflict goes into a human-confirmation queue with the audit trail intact. The system never marks a matter "cleared" on its own.
[Counterparty] Holdings LLC · subsidiary prior representation
Surfaced from fuzzy match on intake-listed counterparty. Awaiting attorney review.
[Plaintiff entity] · client roster
No prior representation found. No related-entity overlap detected.
Audit trail · Matter #MT-4821
- 10:42:01Inquiry parsed, parties extracted
- 10:42:14Conflict scan run against firm history (12,847 entities)
- 10:42:18Potential conflict surfaced: [Counterparty] Holdings LLC subsidiary
- 10:42:18Status set to AWAITING_ATTORNEY_CLEARANCE
- pendingAttorney decision (cleared / declined / waiver) will be logged here
Graded on the criteria your partners set.
Matter value, practice fit, and current team capacity. The judgment layer. Output: A, B, C, or D, with the reasoning attached.
Matter #MT-4821
Commercial breach · [Plaintiff entity] v. [Counterparty]
Statute, capacity, and conflict-edge risks flagged, not decided.
Every risk an attorney would want to see before a phone call. Detection is surfaced as a flag, not relied on as a determination. The lawyer makes the call.
Statute of limitations · attorney to confirm
Alleged breach 14 months ago. Texas contract SOL is 4 years, but accrual date depends on facts. Surfaced for attorney determination, not relied on by the system.
Conflict edge · awaiting clearance
Subsidiary of counterparty was a former client (Matter #MT-2914). Cannot proceed until attorney clears or declines per Stage 04.
Team capacity
Commercial litigation group at 72 percent utilization. Capacity available this quarter.
Jurisdiction note
Contract names Travis County venue. Confirm forum-selection clause enforceability before filing posture.
Document completeness
Signed supply agreement, two invoices, and email thread provided. Sufficient for intake review.
Partners get a brief. Declines get a real letter.
A qualified matter lands as a one-page intake brief. A poor-fit matter routes to a courteous decline letter with referral language, drafted and ready for an attorney to send.
Cleared, graded matters route to the responsible partner as a one-page brief. Posture, value, risk flags, and the decisions the attorney still needs to make.
Matter #MT-4821
Commercial breach · [Plaintiff entity] v. [Counterparty]
Posture
- Alleged $480K damages on supply-agreement breach, 14 months out
- Plaintiff seeks damages plus specific performance
- Signed contract, two invoices, and email thread on file
Open risk · attorney call
- Conflict edge: counterparty subsidiary was prior client (Matter #MT-2914). Awaiting clearance.
- Statute clock: 14 months in on a 4-year TX contract SOL. Confirm accrual.
Questions for the intake call
- Has plaintiff communicated with counterparty since the alleged breach?
- Are there related entities or guarantors we should add to the conflict scan?
- Is the client open to a demand letter before filing?
Poor-fit matters get a courteous, drafted decline letter with referral language. An attorney reviews and sends. No matter slips into silent rejection.
Regarding your inquiry on Matter #MT-4821
Thank you for reaching out about the supply-agreement matter. After reviewing the facts you shared, this matter falls outside the work we are currently positioned to take on. We have prepared a short list of three firms in Travis County with deeper experience in commercial supply disputes at this value range, attached for your reference. We wish you the best in resolving this.
Same partners. The triage pile disappears.
Attorneys still clear every conflict and run every intake call. They just stop wading through inquiries that never should have reached them.
Want one for your firm?
Record a 5-minute voice memo about your practice. We'll show up to our call with a system already designed for it.
Tell us about your firm Backed by our 6-week guarantee