Picture a litigation matter where the paperwork is ready when the lawyer sits down to read it. The conflicts clerk has the names to search on one record the day the inquiry arrives. The handling attorney reads the events in date order, each with its source and page. Before the hearing, the pack is assembled in the same order every time. That is what we mean by 10X the ROI of your existing AI.
Each workflow template below is written for the AI the firm already uses: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
These workflows prepare supporting records for a lawyer to review. They are not legal advice and have not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Eight stages, eight workflow templates.
| Stage | What goes in | What the workflow prepares | Who decides | Workflow template |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Intake | The web form, call notes and emails | One packet: parties, facts as stated, missing items and who supplies each | The intake coordinator sends every message; the responsible attorney decides whether the firm takes the client | Inquiry handoff |
| 2. Conflict search | The party list, conflicts export and the firm’s search rule | A draft record of names searched, possible matches and limits | The conflicts clerk runs the search; the responsible attorney decides | Conflict search record |
| 3. Chronology | The document set the attorney approved | Each event with its source and page, conflicting accounts, gaps | The handling attorney | Case chronology |
| 4. Incoming production | A cleared production and counsel’s screen list | An index of every document and a summary of each one read, with held and missing documents listed | Review counsel | Document production index |
| 5. Written discovery | Requests, responses, the production log and correspondence | Each request with its responses, productions and promises, quoted | The handling attorney | Discovery requests and commitments register |
| 6. Deposition | The transcript and the attorney’s topics | A page-line summary by topic, with differences flagged | The attorney who will use it | Deposition transcript summary |
| 7. Filing | The package, the firm’s checklist, the docket and service list | Every checklist item marked pass or open | The responsible attorney decides and signs | Filing package check |
| 8. Hearing | The notice, docket, orders, witness statements, exhibit tracker and checklist | One pack in a fixed order, with an open-items list | The arguing attorney | Hearing preparation pack |
The matter: Client A and Company B.
Illustrative example with invented data. An invented 22-person litigation firm. Client A, Company B and Witness C are invented.
Client A, a small equipment maker, calls about a dispute with Company B, its former distributor. According to Client A, Company B stopped paying invoices and sent back stock Client A never agreed to take. A litigation paralegal prepares most of the paperwork for the handling attorney.
Intake and the conflict search.
Illustrative example with invented data.
The intake coordinator runs the inquiry handoff after the call.
Inquiry packet: Client A
- Names to search
- Client A; Company B. Source: call notes.
- Facts as stated
- Company B stopped paying and returned stock; Client A disputes the return. Source: call notes.
- Flagged
- Client A said Company B “belongs to a group” but did not name the parent. Supplier: Client A. Listed as a missing item.
Once Client A names the parent, the conflicts clerk runs the export, and the conflict search record reads it against the firm’s written search rule.
Conflict search record: draft for the responsible attorney
- Names searched
- Client A; Company B, also as “Company-B”; Company B’s parent, as Client A named it.
- Possible match
- “Company B Supply”, adverse party in a closed matter for another client, matched under the firm’s rule. The export’s note is copied word for word, marked not assessed.
- Stopped on
- A request to mark the search clear. The record replies that this is for the responsible attorney, named, and points to the match line.
The clerk opens the match and the responsible attorney decides whether it is a conflict. The questions behind the packet are in law firm intake questions by practice area, and From new inquiry to open matter follows the path from there.
Building the record.
Illustrative example with invented data.
The handling attorney approves the document set. The case chronology first asks how it was screened for privilege and records the answer word for word.
Draft chronology: Client A and Company B
- Events
- A meeting about the returned stock, from an email (A-000340) and a meeting note (A-000356), merged into one entry.
- Conflicting accounts
- The email and the meeting note give different quantities returned. Both quoted side by side; neither preferred.
- Dates to place
- Company B’s email says the stock left “last Thursday”. Left as written for the handling attorney.
Company B’s first production arrives. The handling attorney, as review counsel, clears it for review in writing and supplies a screen list.
Production index: Company B, Volume 1
- Index
- One line per document by Bates range, with type, date, sender and recipient.
- Missing documents
- An email at B-000877 refers to “the attached credit schedule”. The production does not contain it.
- Flagged
- NOT READY FOR COUNSEL. Pages B-001502 to B-001519 are listed in the export but were not supplied.
Discovery and a deposition.
Illustrative example with invented data.
The paralegal runs the discovery register again after each production and each call. It quotes and locates; it never calls a response deficient.
Discovery register: Client A and Company B
- Request 4
- Company B’s response, quoted with its page. Volume 2 logged against it, as its cover letter names Request 4.
- Promise
- On a call, Company B’s counsel said a supplemental production would follow. It is only in the firm’s own call note; no letter or email from Company B repeats it.
- Flagged
- Volume 3’s cover letter names no request. Listed as not tied to a request, with no guess at which one it answers.
The handling attorney deposes Witness C, Company B’s former sales manager, and names two topics: how orders were confirmed, and the returned stock.
Deposition summary: Witness C
- Orders
- Witness C says orders were confirmed by email, quoted, p. 14, ll. 3–9.
- Returned stock
- The quantity at p. 31, ll. 2–5 differs from p. 22, l. 11. Both quoted together, with no label.
- Follow-up
- Witness C refers to “the monthly sales spreadsheet” at p. 40, ll. 6–8. It is not an exhibit and was not supplied.
Before the hearing.
Illustrative example with invented data.
A hearing is set. The paralegal assembles the filing and runs the check against the firm’s own checklist for that court and judge.
Filing package check: draft for the responsible attorney
- Caption
- Pass. Every party and the case number match the docket.
- Exhibits
- Open. Exhibit 4 is referred to on page 6 and is not attached.
- Flagged
- Company B’s second counsel, shown on the docket, is not on the service list. Open.
The arguing attorney then asks for the pack, naming Witness C, the topics and the orders.
Hearing preparation pack: draft for the arguing attorney
- Hearing
- [date as the notice states it], with the time, courtroom and judge in the notice’s own words.
- Witness C
- Deposition passages quoted under the attorney’s two topics, each cited to page and line.
- Open item
- An order on the docket was not among the orders supplied. Listed with its docket entry as the source.
Prepared for the arguing attorney to review. It writes no argument and states no legal standard.
What stays with people.
Every record above is a draft for a person to confirm.
- The conflicts clerk runs the conflict search.The clerk runs the export, opens every match and runs each further search. The responsible attorney decides whether a match is a conflict and whether the firm takes the matter.
- The handling attorney decides.Strategy, what to file, what to ask for and what every document means are the attorney’s calls, along with relevance and privilege.
- Nothing is filed, served or sent by a workflow.At intake, the coordinator sends every message; later, people write and send whatever the attorney decides on. People file and serve once the attorney signs and authorises it. Every date here is copied from the paper that states it; the attorney owns every deadline.
- The firm sets the measure.The search rule, screen list, topics and filing checklist are the firm’s own, used exactly as written.
Where to start.
Every law-firm example and template is on the law firms page, and the workflow templates are free to read with a free account.
Start with the case chronology, the draft that paralegals and associates assemble on nearly every disputed matter.