AI Client Intake for Commercial Litigation_

Litigation firms use AI-scored intake systems to assess prospective commercial disputes on merits strength, claim quantum, cost proportionality, opponent profile, and urgency indicators, then route viable cases to the appropriate fee earner with a structured case summary and preliminary costs estimate before the first consultation takes place. This replaces the unstructured process of phone calls and email exchanges that consumes partner time on cases the firm will ultimately decline.

The commercial litigation intake problem

Commercial litigation enquiries require more qualification than most practice areas. A prospective client describing a contractual dispute needs assessment on multiple dimensions before a firm can determine whether to take the case: Is there a viable cause of action? Is the claim within limitation? What is the realistic quantum? Are the costs proportionate to the claim value? Can the opponent satisfy a judgment? Is there urgency (limitation about to expire, assets at risk of dissipation, need for injunctive relief)?

In most firms, this assessment happens during an initial consultation with a partner or senior associate. The fee earner listens to the client’s account, asks questions, reviews any key documents the client has brought, and forms a view. This consultation typically takes 30-60 minutes. If the case is not viable, that time is unrecoverable. If the case is viable but straightforward, a senior associate rather than a partner should have handled it.

For firms receiving 20-40 new enquiries per month, the partner time consumed by initial consultations is substantial. If half of those enquiries result in instructions, the other half represents hundreds of hours annually spent on cases the firm declines.

The unstructured intake process also means that the quality of the initial assessment depends on which fee earner happens to take the call. A partner with deep experience in shareholder disputes will spot viability issues that a generalist might miss. Without structured scoring, this inconsistency is invisible.

How the scored intake system works

The client questionnaire

The prospective client completes a structured questionnaire, accessed via the firm’s website or a dedicated link. The questionnaire adapts based on the dispute type selected:

Contractual disputes: contract type, written or oral, breach alleged, loss claimed, documents available, limitation date, previous correspondence.

Shareholder and partnership disputes: company details, shareholding structure, the conduct complained of, relief sought (unfair prejudice, derivative claim, winding up), company value estimate.

Professional negligence: profession of the defendant, the retainer, the alleged negligence, the loss, limitation date, the defendant’s insurer (if known).

Debt recovery: amount owed, basis of the debt, age of the debt, payment history, debtor’s financial position (if known), any disputes raised by the debtor.

Property disputes: the property, the parties’ interests, the issue (boundary, right of way, lease dispute, nuisance), urgency indicators.

The questionnaire is designed for intelligent lay people. Legal jargon is avoided. Each question explains why it matters to the assessment.

Merits scoring

Each response feeds the scoring model. The merits score weighs:

Positive indicators: written agreement, clear breach on the face of the documents, quantifiable loss, contemporaneous documents supporting the claim, independent witness evidence, opponent has previously acknowledged the issue.

Negative indicators: oral agreement with disputed terms, limitation risk (approaching or already expired), contributory conduct by the client, mixed facts requiring credibility findings, the claim depends on expert evidence that may not support it.

Neutral factors: the complexity of the legal issues (not a merits factor, but affects costs), the number of parties, cross-border elements.

The merits score is not a legal opinion. It is a structured assessment of the indicators visible at the intake stage. Cases with strong indicators are routed for efficient engagement. Cases with mixed indicators are flagged for partner assessment. Cases with predominantly negative indicators are assessed for decline.

Quantum and proportionality assessment

The system estimates claim value from the client’s responses: contract value, loss period, consequential losses claimed, and any cap on liability in the contract. It then estimates likely costs based on the dispute type, complexity indicators, and whether the case is likely to resolve at pre-action, after issue, at mediation, or at trial.

The proportionality check compares estimated costs to estimated recovery. A £50,000 contractual claim that will cost £80,000 to litigate through trial is flagged as disproportionate. The system does not reject these cases automatically; it ensures the client understands the economics before the first meeting and the fee earner can discuss cost-effective strategies (pre-action settlement, mediation, adjudication where available).

Opponent assessment

Where the client provides details about the opposing party, the system performs basic checks: Companies House filing status (for corporate opponents), any insolvency indicators, and public information about the opponent’s size and resources. This feeds the recoverability assessment. A strong merits case against an insolvent opponent has a different commercial value than the same case against a solvent corporate.

Conflict checking and routing

The system runs automated conflict checks against all identified parties: the opponent, their directors, connected companies, and any individuals named. Conflicts are checked against the firm’s case management database. Potential conflicts are flagged with the specific connection for a partner to assess before the matter proceeds.

Routing depends on the combined scores:

• High-value, complex disputes (shareholder disputes, professional negligence claims above £500k) route to partners
• Mid-value contractual disputes with clear merits route to senior associates
• Debt recovery and straightforward breach claims route to the appropriate team
• Cases flagged as commercially unviable receive a structured decline with referral options

Pre-meeting briefing pack

The assigned fee earner receives a structured briefing before the first meeting: case summary, merits score with supporting factors, quantum estimate, costs estimate, proportionality flag, conflict check results, and the client’s uploaded documents. The fee earner walks into the first consultation already informed rather than starting from a blank slate.

Results from deployment

Litigation firms using scored intake typically see:

• Partner time on unviable consultations drops 40-60%
• Enquiry-to-instruction conversion rate improves because viable cases are engaged faster
• Client satisfaction increases because they receive structured assessment rather than a vague “we’ll look into it”
• Costs estimate accuracy improves because the estimate is based on structured data rather than a phone impression
• Conflict check completion reaches 100% at intake (versus ad hoc checking later)

Integrates with LEAP, Clio, Proclaim, Smokeball, and PracticePanther. UK-hosted infrastructure. SRA-compliant data handling.

Typical timeline: 5-7 weeks. Typical investment: £12-22k / $15-28k.