Illustrative record · Finance agreement · p.6
Dealer payment: $8,750.00
The proposed amount links to page 6.
Consumer Arbitration case management from structured intake to programmatic statement of claim.
2:51 product walkthrough
From lead to attorney review
Case-type intake sequenceOBE runs every matter through a case-type-defined intake pipeline.
- 01 · AcquireMeta Ads / Sales funnelCampaign entry point
- 02 · QualifyLead QuizInitial screening
- 03 · StructureIntake WorkflowDocument upload
Intake parses their documents and communications, extracts the facts with source citation location. OBE then maps the facts against legal issues, supporting facts, relevant legal rules, and potential remedies for attorney review.
Your team starts with structured case data and a review-ready legal issue map.
01 · THE WORK BEFORE REVIEW
Before a lawyer sees the file
Every new matter needs the same groundwork.
Staff have to find missing documents, work out what each upload is, read the contracts, pull the material facts, compare answers that do not match, and tell the lawyer what is still missing. Campaign volume multiplies the work.
Bennett Legal's annual comparison was $44,000 for Filevine, $21,000 for Moxo, and $22,000 for data extraction pipelines, totaling $87,000. Staff and lawyer time were separate, and the firm still had to reconstruct accepted files. Read the Bennett Legal case study.
ChaseCancellation disclosureStill missing
IdentifySeven claimant uploadsSorting
ExtractPrice, payment, clause, signaturesManual
ReconcileClaimant answer differs from contractReview
OutputAttorney-reviewable case packageWaiting
Illustrative document review18 proposed facts · 5 fields
PartyAcme Solar LLC
Date2024-03-18 · signing
Amount$48,500.00
Clause§9.2 Arbitration
Signaturep.6 · source linked
Workflow check
One matter typeMeasure the path to lawyer review
- Current intakeAnswers, files, and calls
- Record preparationSources, gaps, and follow-up
- Lawyer reviewAnswers, sources, and open items
- Elapsed time
- Intake → review
- Staff work
- Touches per matter
- Open items
- Gaps at review
02 · CASE-TYPE INTAKE WORKFLOW
Case-type rules
Your attorneys set the standard for review.
Your attorneys set the questions, required documents, material facts, source-priority rules, screening criteria, and review gates before a claimant enters each case-type workflow. OBE follows them through intake and case work.
01
Ask the questions this matter needs
Start with screening questions. The firm's criteria decide who enters the full intake.
02
Request the evidence
Claimants use one portal for every request and reminder.
03
Pull facts from each document
Extract the parties, dates, amounts, clauses, and signatures your firm needs, then link every fact to the exact place it came from.
04
Show where sources disagree
Apply the firm's source rules. Keep each conflicting value for review.
05
Prepare the file for a lawyer
Review facts, issues, gaps, and open questions together.
06
Keep the accepted record intact
The signed claimant's intake becomes the active matter record.
Accepted-lead handoff
Firm controlledCarry the intake record into lawyer review
- 01Accepted leadAnswers and files
- 02Source reviewFacts linked
- 03Firm follow-upGaps routed
- 04Lawyer reviewDecision stays with firm
03 · SOURCE-CITED FACTS
Review the fact
Open the source when you need it.
Each kind of document has its own processing rules. OBE extracts the material facts your firm named. Every proposed value includes the original record and exact source location, so the reviewer can check it without hunting through the file.
Proposed fact · E-014
Dealer payment proposed as $8,750.
Source: Finance agreement, page 6 · Review: Attorney pending.
Source review
Source linkedOpen the page behind the proposed fact
Dealer payment: $8,750.00
Source region 6.4$8,750.00
04 · WHEN SOURCES DISAGREE
Choose the working value
Show why that source controls.
Your firm decides which source controls. OBE follows that policy when it proposes a working value, and the lawyer can still see every conflicting value, source, and correction.
Illustrative value 01 · Intake answer
$43,000
The claimant's original answer stays in intake history.
Illustrative value 02 · Sales agreement
$48,500
The signed record remains available for comparison.
Illustrative value 03 · Approved value
$52,430
Firm policy uses the finance agreement's final financed amount.
Conflicting values
History preservedShow the reviewer why they differ
Use the final financed amount
05 · LAWYER REVIEW
OBE prepares the file
Your lawyers decide what happens next.
OBE compares assembled facts with firm-approved screening criteria and points out the support, missing evidence, or questions a lawyer needs to review. Lawyers control qualification, engagement, analysis, filing, and advice.
01Firm criteria supported by the record
02Possible issues and the facts behind them
03Evidence or elements still missing
04Conflicting facts for the lawyer to review
09:41:08Read finance agreement, pages 1–18Allowed
09:41:12Linked assertion E-014 to source regionValidated
09:41:18Flagged potential fee-shifting issueReview
09:41:21Advance matter to detailed intakeApproval required
Assigned matter
Firm policyShow what the agent may do
Illustrative matter 0241Authorized records and tools
- Read authorized recordsAllowed
- Prepare a source-linked draftReview
- Request external submissionApproval required
Authorized reviewerConsequential action paused
06 · CASE CONTEXT THAT LASTS
Keep control of the case context
Your case context stays put when the AI changes.
Case-scoped workspaces and MCP access let firm-approved AI work with authorized case context while OBE keeps its source links, permissions, review state, and workflow controls attached.
01 · Firm systems
The systems your team already uses.
Intake, documents, matters, and deadlines stay in daily use.
02 · OBE evidence layer
The case context stays governed.
Facts keep their sources, permissions, approvals, and workflow state.
03 · Firm-approved AI
Your firm chooses the tools.
Compatible AI tools read authorized evidence from the case.
Source links, permissions, and review history stay attached when your firm changes models.
07 · TEXAS SOLAR WORKFLOW
Start with the short intake
Ask for more after the first review.
A Texas solar-fraud firm wanted its lawyers to see facts that might matter to statutory fee-shifting before the detailed intake began. OBE used the firm's criteria to start with a short screening step, then opened the detailed intake for matters that reached the review gate.
| Stage | Claimant experience | Firm result |
|---|---|---|
| Initial intake | Answer the questions needed for the firm's first look. | A focused first set of facts |
| Firm review gate | Wait while the firm screens the matter. | Attorney-approved criteria control advancement |
| Detailed intake | Answer the longer questions and send the requested records. | More evidence for matters that pass the gate |
| Engagement | Finish open tasks and sign the agreement electronically. | A signed claimant with the intake record intact |
| Case handoff | Stay in OBE or move into the firm's existing process. | Files, structured facts, source links, and the legal issue map move forward together |
The firm sets the legal criteria and makes every determination. OBE structures the evidence and the handoff around those decisions.
08 · START WITH ONE CASE TYPE
Choose a starting point
Pick the case type your staff sees every week.
Your staff already knows the usual documents, material facts, common conflicts, missing evidence, screening rules, and review gates for a familiar case type. OBE turns that working knowledge into the intake pipeline.
001
Solar disputes
Agreements, finance terms, disclosures, production records, representations, signature context.
002
Home improvement
Scope changes, contractor records, financing, inspections, communications.
003
Consumer finance
Loan terms, fees, notices, payment history, and arbitration provisions.
09 · TEST IT ON PAST MATTERS
First-case benchmark
Compare OBE with the way your team works today.
Pull 25 to 50 representative historical matters. Record how those files moved from intake to attorney review, set up the same case type in OBE, and compare the work using measures your firm can inspect. The result depends on the documents, workflow, integrations, rules, and staff involved.
01 · Cycle time
How long the file took to reach a lawyer
Measure the time from first contact to review.
02 · Labor
How many times staff handled it
Count re-entry, searches, follow-up, and corrections before lawyer review.
03 · Completeness
What the lawyer still needed
List each gap still open at review.
04 · Corrections
What the lawyer corrected
Record every fact or source page the lawyer corrects.
Begin with one familiar case type
See what a review-ready case file looks like for your firm.
Bring the questions, records, decisions, and exceptions your team deals with now, and we'll trace one matter from the claimant's first response to the case package your lawyer reviews.