Intake keeps its evidence
Organise incoming material with document versions and source references before the next staff handover.
For law firm principals and practice managers in Australia
AI automation for law firmsA clearer matter file before legal work begins.
Follow parallel party, chronology and document lanes behind one permission gate. Inspect the source of an entry and what happens when two records disagree.
Built around your working day
Your matter file needs a traceable beginning.
Intake arrives through forms, documents and correspondence. We connect the administrative evidence inside permission boundaries so your lawyers can review parties, document versions and missing material without treating an AI summary as a legal conclusion.
Your current tools matter. Smokeball, Actionstep and Clio are useful starting points for scoping. We check the actual records, access and supported actions in your account before promising a connection.
What changes for you
Restricted information stays scoped
Separate a candidate party match from prior matter content and give each reviewer the access their role requires.
The chronology shows uncertainty
Keep contradictory dates and missing documents visible rather than smoothing them into a confident narrative.
Example system · Simulated business data
A matter pack you can trace back.
Follow parallel party, chronology and document lanes behind one permission gate. Inspect the source of an entry and what happens when two records disagree.
Six source documents contribute nine proposed entries to a staff-reviewed administrative pack.
LF-026 / v1 · example reviewThe complete architecture
Selected stage Conditional path Held or changed
Blue connections show the scenario path. Stage selection changes explanation only. Dashed paths need a new decision.
01 / Access gate
Set the matter boundary
Confirm the permitted intake purpose before indexing material. A party-name search must not pull restricted former matter content into a new intake view. The example authorised reviewer accepts the administrative packet. Legal decisions remain outside the example.
Prepared with an example human decision
Permission and source register / simulated
9source-linked proposed entries
LF-026-v1 · intake and chronology packet
| Source or item | Recorded value | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Source register | 6 documents | Current versions retained |
| Chronology | 9 proposed entries | Source reference on each |
| DOC-03 | v2 current / v1 retained | Version chain visible |
| Review record | STAFF-026-v1 | Administrative review only |
The example authorised reviewer accepts the administrative packet. Legal decisions remain outside the example.
- Prepare the source register and nine proposed event entries.
- Attach the staff review to LF-026-v1.
- Draft administrative tasks with the same permission scope.
Inspecting permissions · scenario output stays tied to its recorded decision
Inspect shared state, version history and event trace
Permission-scoped intake
Fictional coded organisations only. Access follows the intake role.
Six-document register
Six sources yield nine proposed chronology entries.
Superseded document chain
v2 is current while v1 stays available to permitted reviewers.
Party and correspondence evidence
Party strings and event sources are retained for review.
Candidate conflicts require authorised lawyer review. The example does not clear a conflict, determine privilege, resolve a legal date or claim a complete matter chronology.
Read the complete system walkthrough
01 / Access gate
Set the matter boundary
Confirm the permitted intake purpose before indexing material. A party-name search must not pull restricted former matter content into a new intake view.
What you receive Permission and source register.
02 / Version control
Index without erasing history
Retain current and superseded documents. Link extracted events to their document and page so a reviewer can check the text rather than trust a summary.
What you receive Document version chain.
03 / AI extraction
Run independent evidence lanes
Prepare party candidates, event entries and missing-material notes separately. A name resemblance is a candidate issue, while a contradictory date is a different evidence question.
What you receive Party and chronology evidence.
04 / Lawyer and staff
Route judgement to the right person
Only authorised reviewers assess the candidate conflict. Staff can compare date sources within their permissions; the system does not decide legal significance or privilege.
What you receive Restricted review queue.
05 / Versioned output
Prepare the administrative handover
Join the reviewed administrative evidence into a matter register and task draft. New correspondence returns through the same access and version checks.
What you receive Intake and task packet.
Candidate conflicts require authorised lawyer review. The example does not clear a conflict, determine privilege, resolve a legal date or claim a complete matter chronology.
The decision stays with your team
Useful evidence. Clear responsibility.
Candidate conflicts require authorised lawyer review. The example does not clear a conflict, determine privilege, resolve a legal date or claim a complete matter chronology.
The regulator identifies confidentiality, conflict management and sound client records as professional responsibilities. The design supports administrative review within those boundaries. Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner ↗
Primary source checked . This original example illustrates a design, not a delivered client result.
What it costs
Scope the whole handover.
Matter permissions, party aliases, document access and review responsibilities shape the build. We scope the minimum information each role can see before connecting evidence across systems.
We map the current process, agree the review points and put the scope, fixed fee and payback estimate in writing. Software and usage costs are considered separately. Your own baseline determines the business case.
Automation builds
From $3,500 AUDOne process, rebuilt to run without you. Monitoring and documentation included.
Typical projects
$3,500 to $12,000 AUDSeveral connected processes across two or more systems, where the data needs cleaning first.
Complex AI agent systems
$12,000 to $25,000 AUDAgents that read unstructured information, decide and write back, with human review and a full audit trail.
Ongoing care plans
$750 to $2,500 AUD per monthPriced on how much you run and what your business loses the day one of them stops.
When something breaks
Know what stopped and what is still safe to continue.
A failed document read must not produce an apparently complete chronology. Missing arrivals and empty extraction results need checks alongside errors, with the source and permission context retained for recovery.
We design checks for a run that fails, a run that returns nothing and a run that never starts. The care scope names the person who receives an alert, the information they need and how a held record returns to review.
You own the workflows and accounts. Handover includes the record identifiers, review rules and recovery instructions. No lock-in is required to keep your work.
See ongoing supportBefore you decide
Your questions, answered
Can AI clear conflicts for our firm?
No. A candidate match can bring relevant name evidence to an authorised lawyer. The lawyer decides the conflict position using the firm’s obligations and records. The example never exposes a restricted former matter to general intake staff.
Will it create a complete matter chronology?
It can prepare proposed entries with sources. Completeness depends on the material provided and professional review. Contradictory dates and superseded documents need to stay visible.
Can this work with Smokeball, Actionstep or Clio?
We verify the exact matter, document and permission operations in your account. The workflow cannot safely assume that a familiar platform exposes every field or preserves access rules through a connector.
Does the system decide privilege or legal advice?
No. Those judgements remain with your lawyers. We scope administrative extraction, source registers, review queues and task preparation with explicit boundaries.
How do new documents change an existing pack?
Retain the new and earlier versions, identify affected entries and return those entries to review. The released packet keeps its original review version instead of being silently rewritten.
What should we bring to an initial call?
Bring a description of the intake process, the systems involved and the roles that review it. We can map the first scope without asking you to send confidential client files in an initial conversation.
For work with several evidence lanes, version changes and explicit review gates, our n8n operating model explains the orchestration decisions. The platform choice still depends on your access, maintenance capacity and data path.
A useful first conversation
Bring one process that keeps getting stuck
Show us where the records arrive, who makes the decision and what the next person needs. We will map a useful first scope with you.
Book a call