Intake notes turned into structured matter summaries
Raw intake-call notes pile up fast, and turning them into something an attorney can act on — parties, dates, documents, conflicts list — is repetitive formatting work. AI structures the notes in seconds, and a well-built prompt forces out the two things that matter most: the missing questions and the dates that could start a limitations clock.
You are helping a paralegal turn raw intake notes into a structured new-matter summary for attorney review. Practice area: {{practice_area}}. Raw notes from the intake call (names replaced with placeholders): {{intake_notes}} Output, in this order: 1. Parties: each placeholder name and the relationship between them. 2. Key dates: every date mentioned, labeled with what happened. Flag the earliest date that could start a limitations period as "POSSIBLE SOL TRIGGER — attorney to confirm." 3. Claim summary: 3-5 sentences of what the potential client says happened, in neutral language. 4. Documents mentioned: everything the caller referenced, as a collection checklist. 5. Missing information: every question a {{practice_area}} attorney would want answered that the notes do not cover, phrased as follow-up call questions. 6. Conflicts-check list: every person and entity named. Rules: - Use only what is in the notes. Do not infer facts, fault, or damages amounts. - Do not assess whether the claim has merit and do not calculate any deadline — label date math for the attorney. - Under 400 words.
Fill in your details and the prompt updates live — then copy.
Key dates: - 02/11/26 — Rear-end collision at Route 9 intersection. POSSIBLE SOL TRIGGER — attorney to confirm. - 02/12/26 — ER visit; caller has discharge paperwork. - 03/03/26 — First settlement call from adjuster. Documents mentioned: police report (number provided); ER discharge papers; photos of both vehicles; two adjuster voicemails. Missing information: Was the caller working at the time of the crash? Any prior neck or back injuries? Has a recorded statement been given to the insurer? Conflicts-check list: [ADVERSE DRIVER], GEICO (adverse insurer), Route 9 Diner (caller's employer).
The full workflow
- Take intake notes using placeholder names instead of real ones
- Run the prompt and verify every extracted date against your notes
- Run the conflicts-check list through the firm's conflicts system
- Deliver the summary to the attorney for the engagement decision and deadline calendaring
Watch out for
Prospective-client information is confidential even before an engagement letter exists. Use placeholder names in general-purpose tools, or keep intake inside a firm-approved platform (ABA Formal Opinion 512, NALA Canon 7).
Never let AI calculate a limitations deadline. A human calendars the SOL after the attorney confirms the trigger date — a missed deadline is a malpractice claim, not a tooling error.
Accepting or declining a case and quoting fees are attorney-only acts. The summary supports that decision; a paralegal telling the caller 'you have a case' is unauthorized practice of law (NALA Canon 3).
Where this comes from
Every use case on this site is grounded in real reports from working paralegals — not invented by us.