client intake process flow chartFrom First Contact to Matter Creation

A client intake process should move each inquiry through seven controlled stages: capture, opening controls, case-specific questions, evidence collection, follow-up, authorized disposition, and matter creation. A useful flow chart names the owner, entry criteria, exit criteria, exceptions, and required record at every stage. It also preserves what the prospect submitted so accepted matters do not start with a second round of data entry.

The primary client intake flow

The main path should be easy for staff to remember and precise enough for the system to enforce. A simple operating model is:

1. Receive and identify the inquiry.
2. Preserve consent and start firm-approved opening controls.
3. Ask questions designed for the case type.
4. Collect and review supporting records.
5. Resolve missing information and exceptions.
6. Record an engage, decline, refer, or hold decision.
7. Open an approved matter with its intake history attached.

Each stage needs a visible state, not merely a task list. "Evidence requested" and "evidence received" are different states. "Attorney review required" and "attorney reviewed" are different states. Those distinctions let the team find waiting work without reading every note.

Stage 1: Capture the inquiry once

A call, web form, referral, email, imported list, or portal submission should create one searchable lead. Capture the person's name, contact details, preferred channel, referral source, matter type, original narrative, and the source timestamp. Search for existing entries before creating a duplicate.

The intake record should retain the original submission beside later normalized values. If staff standardize a name or correct a date, the review history should show the old value, the new value, the person who changed it, and the supporting source.

Do not treat a blank field as proof that a fact does not exist. Mark whether the question was unanswered, not yet asked, or answered as unknown. Those states lead to different next actions.

Stage 2: Apply opening controls

The firm decides which controls apply and when a lead may advance. Common controls include identity confirmation, consent capture, duplicate review, and the firm's conflict procedure. The ABA's intake and conflict-check guidance notes the need to collect names for prospective clients, adverse parties, witnesses, and other involved people so the firm can conduct its chosen check.

The workflow should route possible matches to authorized reviewers. It should not let an intake worker or automated score quietly clear an uncertain result. A blocked lead needs an owner, a reason visible to appropriate staff, and a permitted next state.

Early collection also needs restraint. The comment on ABA Model Rule 1.18 says lawyers should encourage prospective clients to provide only the information reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent them. Question order, access controls, and staff scripts should reflect the firm's ethical obligations and the rules of its jurisdiction.

Stage 3: Ask case-specific questions

A good questionnaire follows the facts needed for the proposed matter. It uses conditional questions so a prospect does not have to answer irrelevant sections. It validates formats without forcing a person to invent a date, amount, medication, employer, or product detail.

For every field, define:

• why the firm asks for it
• who can view it
• whether it is required at this stage
• which formats are acceptable
• whether unknown is a valid answer
• what follow-up occurs when it is missing or contradictory

The questionnaire is one part of intake, not the whole process. A completed form can still lack a key record, contain two spellings of a party name, or require a legal decision that the form cannot make.

Stage 4: Collect and review evidence

Request the records expected for the case type and tell the prospect what will satisfy the request. For each item, preserve how it reached the firm, when it arrived, who classified it, and which stated fact it may support.

Document processing can propose a type, date, party, or other value. It should not erase the source or present an extraction as an approved fact. NIST's Data Governance and Management Profile concept paper connects data quality with metadata, provenance, lineage, and accountability. An intake workflow applies that idea by keeping each correction and proposed value linked to its origin.

Contradictions should enter a review queue. Low-confidence extraction should enter a review queue. A missing required document should remain a tracked gap. None of those conditions should disappear inside a general note.

Stage 5: Follow up and resolve exceptions

The ordinary path is only half of a useful flow chart. Add explicit routes for the cases staff encounter every day:

Exception	Required workflow response
Possible duplicate	Compare identity and source details, then merge or preserve distinct records under firm policy
Missing consent	Stop prohibited activity and assign an approved consent request
Possible conflict	Restrict advancement and route to an authorized reviewer
Missing evidence	Name the record, owner, request date, due date, and follow-up channel
Changed answer	Preserve both versions, record the source, and route material changes for review
Prospect not responding	Follow the approved cadence, then move to the permitted hold or close state
Urgent legal issue	Escalate to a lawyer or other authorized firm staff member

Every exception needs an owner, due date, allowed transitions, and enough context for the next person. If those elements are missing, staff tend to build private queues in email, chat, and spreadsheets.

Stage 6: Record an authorized disposition

The flow should lead to a named outcome. An authorized person records whether the firm engages, declines, refers, or holds the prospective matter. The record should include the decision date, the decision maker, any reason the firm permits staff to store, and the required communication or next action.

Software may assemble the review packet, detect missing material, and route the lead. Lawyers and authorized firm staff retain decisions involving conflicts, legal merit, engagement, filing, and legal advice. The workflow should make those gates visible and prevent unauthorized state changes.

Stage 7: Create the matter without rebuilding it

An accepted lead should become a matter by carrying forward identity, answers, documents, source links, call notes, permissions, corrections, review decisions, and unfinished tasks. The new matter can add case phases and permissions while preserving the record already assembled.

Re-keying the same information into a second system increases the chance of conflicting dates, detached evidence, duplicate contacts, and reporting errors. The intake record should be the first version of the case record, not a temporary copy that staff discard at engagement.

Book a demo →

How to implement the flow chart

Start with one case type and one ordinary path. Put the actual staff roles, systems, forms, and decision makers on the chart. Then review recent leads to find the exceptions that forced people into email or spreadsheets.

For each state, document:

• the event that creates the state
• the person or role that owns it
• the information required to leave it
• the next permitted states
• the timer or due date
• the escalation route
• the record produced by the work

Test the chart with a complete inquiry, an incomplete inquiry, a duplicate, a possible conflict, a changed answer, and an accepted matter. A flow that handles only the ideal submission is not ready for daily use.

Measures that expose weak handoffs

Track time from submission to first response and from submission to review-ready status. They measure different work. Add time in each state, missing-document age, overdue tasks, correction rate, duplicate rate, staff touches, and the percentage of leads reaching attorney review without remediation.

Review the measures by case type and source. A bottleneck in one document request should not be mistaken for a firm-wide staffing problem. Frequent attorney corrections in one questionnaire may point to question wording, evidence requirements, or an unclear reviewer gate.

Frequently asked questions

What belongs in a client intake process flow chart?

Include capture, opening controls, case-specific questions, evidence collection and review, follow-up, exception handling, authorized disposition, and matter creation. Show the owner, due date, entry rule, exit rule, and output for each state.

When should the firm run conflict checks?

The firm sets the timing and procedure based on the rules that apply to it. The flow should begin the chosen control early, capture the names the firm requires, and stop the lead at any gate that needs authorized review.

What happens to a lead the firm does not open?

The process should support decline, referral, and hold outcomes. Access, stored reasons, notices, retention, and follow-up should follow firm policy and applicable obligations.

When should the flow chart be revised?

Review it when case types, staff roles, qualification rules, software, or applicable rules change. Overdue queues, repeated workarounds, and frequent reviewer corrections show where to inspect first.