Mass Tort Intake Process: From Lead to Review-Ready File

A mass tort intake process turns an inquiry into a review-ready file through controlled stages for lead capture, consent, conflicts, case-specific questions, evidence, qualification, exceptions, and authorized review. Each stage should preserve its source and status so an accepted file can become the case record without re-entry or lost decision history.

Why mass tort intake needs a defined operating process

Mass tort intake repeats one campaign model across many prospective claimants, but each person still has a distinct identity, history, evidence set, and legal posture. A team cannot safely treat the work as a large contact list. It needs a governed record for each inquiry and a shared campaign definition that tells staff which questions, documents, criteria, and review gates apply.

The process also begins before the firm decides whether to represent someone. ABA Model Rule 1.18 addresses duties to prospective clients even when no client-lawyer relationship follows. The firm's lawyers should decide how applicable ethics rules, jurisdictional requirements, and firm policy shape the intake design. A system can enforce their approved procedure, but it cannot decide what those obligations require.

The mass tort intake process at a glance

Every stage should have an owner, entry event, exit rule, allowed next states, and durable output. This table describes a practical operating path.

Stage	Required record	Control before advancement
1. Lead capture	Original source, timestamp, campaign, contact details, and submitted narrative	Duplicate search and source preservation
2. Notice and consent	Notice version, permitted contact channels, response, timestamp, and source	Required permissions are present for the next activity
3. Conflict procedure	Names and entities required by firm policy, match results, and review state	Possible matches go to an authorized reviewer
4. Case-specific questions	Structured answers, answer states, question version, and corrections	Required questions are answered, unknown, or assigned for follow-up
5. Evidence collection	Requested items, received files, provenance, classification, and gaps	Evidence status is visible and contradictions are queued
6. Criteria application	Criteria version, machine or staff proposals, and exceptions	No automated result becomes a legal or engagement decision
7. File assembly	Facts, sources, evidence, gaps, communications, and review history	Packet is complete enough for its assigned review path
8. Authorized review	Reviewer, date, disposition, rationale fields, and next action	Only permitted roles record legal or engagement decisions
9. Engagement boundary	Approved communication and signed documents when required	Intake status cannot imply representation without firm authorization
10. Matter handoff	Accepted intake record plus open tasks and permissions	The case record retains the full intake history

Stage 1: Capture the lead without losing its origin

A web form, referral, phone call, event list, or campaign response should create one prospective-claimant record. Store the original source, campaign identifier, capture time, submitted values, and any source-specific notice. Normalize phone numbers and names for searching, but retain the original values beside the normalized fields.

Run a duplicate search before creating another person record. A likely match should enter a comparison queue where staff can merge, link, or preserve separate records under firm policy. A shared phone number or address is not proof that two inquiries are the same person.

Lead capture should collect only what the firm has approved for that stage. The comment to ABA Model Rule 1.18 explains that invited submissions and warnings can affect whether a consultation occurs. It also says lawyers should limit an initial consultation to information reasonably necessary to decide whether to undertake a matter. That makes notice text, question order, and data scope part of the intake control design.

Stage 2: Preserve notice, consent, and communication permissions

Consent is not a single checkbox with no context. The record should show which notice the person saw, its version, what action they took, when they took it, and which channel produced the response. Keep contact permission separate from document authorization, electronic signature, or any other approval that serves a different purpose.

Do not infer consent from a lead source or from a completed contact field. If a required permission is absent, the process should stop the affected activity and create a permitted follow-up task. Firm counsel should approve the language, timing, retention rule, and effect of each consent state.

Stage 3: Run the firm's conflict procedure

The conflict record should collect the names and entities the firm requires, which may include the prospective claimant, defendants, employers, health providers, witnesses, family members, or other involved parties. Preserve aliases, former names, and entity relationships in searchable fields rather than burying them in a note.

The comment to ABA Model Rule 1.7 calls for reasonable procedures, appropriate to the firm and practice, to identify the people and issues involved when determining conflicts. Software may find possible matches and assemble context. A lawyer or other person authorized by the firm decides how to resolve a match and whether the inquiry may proceed.

Possible matches belong in a restricted queue with an owner and permitted next states. Intake staff should not be able to clear an uncertain result by changing a spelling or skipping a party.

Stage 4: Ask campaign-specific questions with explicit answer states

A mass tort questionnaire should follow the facts and evidence expected for that campaign. Conditional logic can ask product, exposure, use, diagnosis, treatment, timing, location, and prior-claim questions only when relevant. Each question needs a stable identifier and a version so reviewers know exactly what the person was asked.

Distinguish these states:

• Answered: the person supplied a value.
• Unknown: the person was asked and does not know.
• Unanswered: the question was presented but no response was recorded.
• Not asked: logic or process stage did not present the question.
• Not applicable: a prior answer made the question irrelevant.
• Needs confirmation: the response conflicts with another answer or source.

Unknown and unanswered require different work. An unknown implant date may call for a records request. An unanswered implant date may call for a follow-up question. Forcing either person to invent a date damages the file.

Stage 5: Build an evidence record, not an upload folder

For each campaign, define expected evidence by category and stage. A request should name the item, why it is needed operationally, acceptable substitutes, owner, request date, response status, and follow-up rule. A received file should retain its original filename, source channel, receipt time, submitter, and relation to the prospective claimant.

Classification and extraction can propose a document type, date, provider, product, or other fact. Preserve that proposal separately from a confirmed value. Link every correction to the source that supports it and retain the prior value.

NIST's Data Governance and Management Profile concept paper connects data quality work with defined policies, roles, responsibilities, metadata, provenance, and lineage. In mass tort intake, those controls let a reviewer trace a material fact back to the submission, record, interview, or staff correction that produced it.

Stage 6: Apply a versioned criteria set

Campaign criteria change as facts, litigation posture, firm capacity, and lawyer instructions change. Store criteria as a versioned object with an identifier, effective date, approval record, required inputs, allowed outputs, and retirement date. Each evaluated intake should retain the version used at the time.

Rules can identify missing inputs, route likely matches, and flag exceptions. They should not present a score as a legal conclusion or engagement decision. When a rule changes, do not silently overwrite earlier results. Record whether the firm requires reevaluation, who approved it, and what changed.

Stage 7: Make exception queues first-class work

Mass tort volume makes edge cases routine. Define separate queues for possible duplicates, conflict matches, missing consent, contradictory dates, missing evidence, criteria exceptions, identity concerns, and urgent issues. Each item needs a reason code, owner, creation time, due date when appropriate, access rule, and permitted resolution.

A general status such as "needs review" hides the nature of the work. A precise state lets the team assign the right reviewer and measure where files wait. It also prevents an unresolved exception from disappearing when another task is completed.

Stage 8: Assemble the review-ready file

A review-ready file should give the authorized reviewer a concise record without hiding source detail. Include the original narrative, structured facts, question and criteria versions, evidence index, unresolved gaps, contradictions, consent record, conflict state, contact history, and all material corrections.

Readiness is a defined entry condition, not a promise that the firm will accept the matter. The firm should specify which gaps block review, which can remain open, and which trigger a different review path. Staff and software may prepare the packet. Lawyers and authorized firm staff retain decisions involving conflicts, legal merit, deadlines, advice, disposition, and engagement.

Book a demo →

Stage 9: Keep the engagement boundary visible

Intake, qualification, and review do not by themselves establish that the firm has accepted a matter. The system should use distinct states for inquiry received, under review, approved for engagement, engagement documents sent, and engaged. External messages should come from firm-approved templates and reflect the actual state.

Only an authorized person should advance a file across the engagement boundary. Decline, referral, hold, and no-response outcomes also need approved communications and retention handling. This guide describes an operating model, not legal advice. Firm counsel should adapt it to applicable rules and the firm's representation process.

Stage 10: Carry the intake record into the case

Once the firm accepts a matter, the intake record should become the first case record. Identity, answers, evidence, permissions, provenance, corrections, criteria history, reviewer decisions, and unfinished tasks should travel forward. Matter creation may add teams, phases, deadlines, and case permissions without rebuilding the underlying facts.

This continuity protects the work already completed. It also lets later reviewers see whether a value came from the claimant, a document, a staff correction, or a system proposal. A disconnected handoff removes that context precisely when the file begins to carry greater operational weight.

How to test the process before launch

Test the ordinary path and the exceptions. Use fictional records for a complete inquiry, duplicate, possible conflict, missing consent, unknown answer, unanswered question, contradictory document, criteria change, declined inquiry, and accepted matter. Confirm that each scenario reaches the correct owner and cannot bypass a required gate.

Then inspect the resulting record. A reviewer should be able to identify the source of every material value, the criteria version applied, open gaps, prior corrections, and who made each controlled decision. If that history lives in private email, loose notes, or a discarded lead system, the process is not ready.