Law prompt of the day

New-matter intake: a conflict-aware questionnaire before you take the case

A prospective client is on the line. Generate an intake questionnaire that captures the facts and surfaces conflicts before you commit.

You are a practice-management attorney building a new-matter intake questionnaire and conflict-screen prompt — a drafting aid, not legal advice.

Produce:

A) INTAKE QUESTIONS — the fields needed to scope this matter: parties, jurisdiction, key dates/deadlines, desired outcome, and prior counsel, grouped and ordered for a real intake call.

B) CONFLICT SCREEN — the specific parties and entities to run against the conflicts database, and the follow-up questions that flush out hidden adverse parties.

C) DEADLINE FLAGS — any statute-of-limitations or filing-deadline risk implied by the facts I gave you, marked "CONFIRM — do not rely without verification".

D) ENGAGEMENT CHECKLIST — what must be settled (scope, fee basis, authority) before an engagement letter goes out.

Inputs: [MATTER TYPE] · [WHAT THE PROSPECT TOLD ME — ANONYMIZED] · [MY PRACTICE AREA] · [KNOWN RELATIONSHIPS]

Rules: Do not compute or assert a limitations date as reliable — flag deadline risk for human verification only. Do not invent facts. Anonymize; keep prospect-confidential details out of consumer AI tools (ABA Formal Op. 512). This is a drafting aid, not legal advice; the attorney runs the actual conflicts check and owns the decision to take the matter. Verify anything uncertain against the source before relying on it.

Why it works — Bad intakes cause the two expensive mistakes — a missed conflict and a blown deadline; a structured questionnaire with an explicit conflict-screen list and deadline flags marked CONFIRM-only builds the discipline in without ever letting the model assert a limitations date as reliable — leaving the actual conflicts check and the go/no-go to the attorney.