Client intake for a firm that bills by the hour
In a firm that bills by the hour, the unbillable hours are the problem, and a large share of them are email: chasing the documents that were requested a fortnight ago, answering "where are we with this", and taking the details of a new enquiry that may or may not become a client.
4 min read
None of that requires professional judgement. All of it requires care, because the boundary between administration and advice is the boundary of your professional liability.
The bright line
State it before anything else, because everything downstream depends on it: the agent never gives advice, never opines on a matter, and never says anything that could be read as a professional opinion.
That is not a tone preference. Advice from your firm's address creates a relationship and a liability regardless of who typed it, and "our system generated that automatically" is not a defence anyone wants to test. Make it structural: the agent's tools do not include anything that produces an assessment, and every message that edges toward one escalates instead.
The safe framing for anything at the boundary is scheduling rather than substance: "I will get [name] to come back to you on that, and can offer Thursday at 10:00 if a call would help."
What it can do
New enquiry intake. Take the details, run your conflict check inputs, confirm receipt, and route to the right person. Fast acknowledgement matters commercially here: a firm that replies in ten minutes wins work from one that replies tomorrow, and the reply itself carries no advice.
Document collection. The single biggest source of drag in most matters. Identity documents, financial records, signed engagement letters, the thing the client swears they already sent. An agent that asks precisely, tracks what is outstanding, and chases on a schedule recovers real time, per attachments.
Status updates. From your practice management system, not from memory. What has happened, what is next, what is waiting on the client.
Scheduling and reminders. Appointments, filing deadlines the client must act on, and the calls nobody has booked yet.
| Request | Handled by |
|---|---|
| "Can you send me the documents you need" | Agent |
| "Has the other side responded" | Agent, from the case record |
| "What should I do about the clause on page 4" | Person, always |
| "Is this deductible" | Person, always |
| "What will this cost" | Person, unless you publish fixed fees |
| "I want to complain" | Named person, quickly |
Claims intake has the same collect-but-never-assess shape, in taking the details of a claim.
Confidentiality is the whole risk model
Client matters are privileged, sensitive, or both. Three consequences.
One matter, one thread. Never let an agent add a recipient to a live thread, because that exposes the history to them, and in this setting the history may be privileged, per when an agent and a person are on the same thread.
Scope tightly. The agent handling intake for new enquiries does not need access to existing matters. Separate identities per function, with grants that trace to a task, per deciding what each agent is allowed to see.
Know what leaves. Message content goes to whichever model provider you chose, and for a firm that is a question the regulator and the client may both ask. Have the answer written down before you are asked, per where the mail actually goes.
The intake conversation is worth designing
Most firms take enquiry details badly, in the sense that the first exchange collects half of what is needed and the rest arrives over three more messages. An agent is good at the opposite: ask for everything needed in one structured message, accept it in whatever form it arrives, and confirm what is still outstanding.
That produces a second benefit. The enquiries that never convert consume almost no partner time, and the ones that do arrive with the information already gathered.
Retention, deliberately
Client correspondence has retention obligations, often longer than anything else in your business, and sometimes destruction requirements after a period. Decide it per category rather than inheriting a default, and make sure the agent's own record and any copies your systems keep are covered by the same policy, per the compliance floor.
Questions
- Can an AI agent handle client intake for a law or accounting firm?
- Yes, for the administrative shell: taking enquiry details, collecting documents, chasing outstanding items, giving status from your case system, and scheduling. Never for advice.
- Where exactly is the line?
- Anything that could be read as a professional opinion. The safe move at the boundary is to offer a time with the responsible person rather than to answer the substance.
- Is it safe with privileged material?
- With tight scoping and one matter per thread. The agent must never add a recipient to a live thread, since that exposes the history, which here may be privileged.
- What about the model provider seeing client material?
- That is a question your clients and regulator may ask, and it needs a written answer covering which provider, under what terms, and with what retention.
- What is the biggest time saving?
- Document chasing. It is the largest source of drag in most matters and needs precision rather than judgement.
- Should intake and existing matters use the same agent?
- No. Separate identities, so an intake agent has no access to live matter correspondence.
Give your agent an address it can answer from.
Create an inbox