A thoughtful first response.
A clearer staff handoff.

Legal intake automation — also called automated legal intake or ai legal intake — is software that captures inquiries across forms, chat, voice, and documents, then structures the information for a staff handoff. It differs from off-the-shelf legal intake software in that the questions, routing, and case-management connections are built around your firm's own process rather than a vendor's preset template. The firm defines every information and review requirement.

No. The workflow described here prepares information for staff and attorney review. The firm remains responsible for legal merit, potential conflicts, representation, and the next action.

We inspect the platform’s supported APIs, permissions, and exports before committing to an integration. The scope identifies the exact records and actions that can be connected.

No. Compliance depends on the specific data, deployment, agreements, configuration, and operating practices. Those requirements must be assessed for the actual project; a technology choice or website claim alone does not establish compliance.

It depends on how standard your intake process is. Off-the-shelf legal intake software — Clio, MyCase, Lawmatics, Gavel, and similar platforms — gets a firm live in days at predictable per-seat pricing, and is the right call when a template covers your questions and handoffs. A custom-built workflow costs more upfront and takes longer to launch, but the questions, scoring, and routing match your firm's actual criteria instead of the closest preset in a vendor's form builder, and it connects directly to whatever case-management system you already run. High-volume, multi-practice-area, and corporate legal-ops intake is where a generic template usually stops fitting cleanly.

A configured voice workflow can provide an intake channel outside office hours, subject to the deployment and service setup. Its script, assistant identity, escalation path, and limits need to be agreed with the firm.

Yes. We scope the questions and information requirements with your attorneys and intake staff. The assistant should gather the information you specify while leaving legal conclusions and decisions with the firm.

A typical intake workflow moves through four stages: first contact (the inquiry arrives by phone, form, chat, or referral), information gathering (facts, dates, documents, and the story behind the request), triage (organizing what staff need against the firm's criteria), and handoff (a structured summary reaches the right person for review). Automation can support the first three stages; the firm decides qualification, conflicts, and representation at the handoff.

Channels, source systems, document handling, sample evaluation, review requirements, and deployment constraints all affect the plan. We define a bounded first workflow and its acceptance criteria during discovery.

The assistant applies criteria your firm sets—jurisdiction, practice-area fit, statute-of-limitations flags, or any threshold you define—to surface a case's likely priority. That score supports staff judgment; it is not presented as a legal conclusion, and every routing decision remains reviewable before it reaches an attorney.

An answering service takes a message for staff to follow up on later. Legal intake automation gathers structured information during the first contact, checks it against what your criteria require, and prepares a reviewable handoff—so staff open a case file, not a phone slip.

No. Law firm automation is the broader category—billing, document assembly, e-signature routing, calendaring, and case management. Legal intake automation is the layer before any of those matter: a case has to be answered, organized, and routed before there's a matter to bill, document, or calendar.

Past intake, workflow automation for a law firm typically covers document assembly and e-signature routing, deadline and calendar tracking tied to matter type, time-entry and billing connections, and status updates written back to the case-management system. We scope that as a separate workflow automation engagement—the intake work on this page is what happens before any of it starts.

Yes. Engagements are remote-first—Moon Sherpa Labs is based in Austin, but firms in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and elsewhere get the same scoping, build, and support process, with in-person availability locally when it adds value.

Yes. The same conflict-check and routing pipeline adapts to a practice area's deadline structure—employment intake captures the incident timeline and any prior agency filings; immigration intake captures case history and pending hearing or filing dates. Both flag time-sensitive matters for same-day review; your attorneys define the qualification criteria.