River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
FREE TEMPLATE

Law Firm Client Intake Template

Four sheets and six documents that run intake in the order the conduct rules assume: the names, then the conflict search, then the story.

Free download  ·  No account needed

Two-Stage Intake  ·  one firm’s existing intake form, re-sorted

Eight questions, and three of them belong on the first call

Every question below is on a real intake form in use somewhere. The problem is never how many you ask. It is how much you hear before the search comes back.

Question on the form todayStageWhat hearing it early costs
Full legal name, and any name you trade underOneNothing. This is the string the search runs on
Everyone else involved, by full legal nameOneNothing
Parents, subsidiaries, guarantors, insurersOneNothing, and leaving it off is why searches come back empty
Please describe what happenedTwoThe facts of the matter, from someone the firm may end up opposite
What outcome are you hoping forTwoTheir commercial objective, which is the most useful thing the other side could have
What documents do you haveTwoCustody of material before anyone knows whether it can be received
Have you instructed anyone else on thisTwoTheir alternatives, and how far along they are
What budget do you have in mindTwoWhat they can sustain, which prices a strategy against them

Why the line falls exactly there

The screening route out of a firm-wide disqualification opens only where the lawyer who heard the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to decide whether to act. Rows four to eight are those measures, not taken.

The form does not get shorter. It gets cut in half, and the second half runs after the conflict search clears.

The intake templates competing for this query compete on completeness, and one of them advertises fifty-plus questions. The conduct rules run the other way. Washington's rule on duties to a prospective client opens one route out of a firm-wide disqualification, and it has a condition. The lawyer who heard the information must have taken reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to decide whether to act. The fifty-question first call is the fact pattern that closes it.

A lawyer must inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to decide whether it can be accepted, and this pack makes that inquiry leave a trace. Every enquiry gets a Prospective Client Record whether the firm acts or not, categorising what was heard rather than quoting it. Each one carries a proposed view on whether any of it could be significantly harmful, with the reasoning in the next cell. Undecided is a permitted answer with a named lawyer against it.

The Conflict Search Log never records the word clear on its own. It carries the exact strings run, why those strings, which systems, whether the search reached the whole firm and the count, because a hit under a party's pre-2021 registered name is a real hit that no current-name search returns. Then the engagement letter goes out, since the scope and the basis or rate of the fee must be communicated before or within a reasonable time of starting.

Ten days of enquiries, two declined before anyone heard a fact

The Intake Register, the Conflict Search Log, the Prospective Client Record and the Matter Opening Checklist.

Intake Register

Ten days of enquiries at a fictional six-partner firm. Two were declined at stage one, which is the stage working.

RefEnquirerMatter typeStage reachedSearchOutcomeDecided by
IN-2041Marisol RentonCommercial disputeStage 2 completeClearAcceptedH. Duarte
IN-2042Ferngate Estates LLPLandlord and tenantStage 1 onlyConflictDeclinedH. Duarte
IN-2043Owen AchebeEmploymentStage 2 completeClearAcceptedS. Villareal
IN-2044Northmoor BankFacility enforcementStage 1 onlyConflictDeclinedH. Duarte
IN-2045Ilse VandermeerProbateStage 2 completeClearDeclinedS. Villareal
IN-2046Cadan Group HoldingsCorporateStage 2 completeClear with a screenAcceptedH. Duarte

Read the Stage column, not the Outcome column

IN-2042 and IN-2044 are the wins on this sheet. Both were turned away knowing only the party names and the matter type. Neither caller got as far as the facts, so neither declination left anything behind that could stop the firm acting for the other side.

IN-2044 is also a pattern. Two enquiries adverse to one existing client inside a week is a conversation about the client list rather than about either enquiry, and a register is the only place that is visible.

Conflict Search Log

Six searches across three enquiries. The word clear never appears without the string it was clear for.

PartyName strings runWhy those stringsWhole firmHitsResult
Marisol RentonRenton, Marisol; M Renton; RentonIndividual, no trading namesYes0Clear
Kestrel Foods IncKestrel Foods Inc; Kestrel Foods; KestrelRegistered name plus the name on their own websiteYes0Clear
Vantail Composites IncVantail Composites Inc; Vantail; Ferngate Composites IncRegistered name plus the pre-2021 name on the certificate of amendmentYes4Conflict
Halverton Freight LtdHalverton Freight Ltd; Halverton Logistics LtdRegistered name plus a former name in the enquiry email footerYes1Clear with a screen
Cadan Group HoldingsCadan Group Holdings; Cadan Group; Cadan Holdings; CadanRegistered name plus three variants from their own correspondenceYes0Clear

Two rows carry the whole sheet

Three of Vantail’s four hits sit under the pre-2021 name. A search of the current registered name alone returns one hit and reads as marginal. The firm’s own file from four years ago is filed under the name that party had then, and only a deliberate prior-name search finds it.

Halverton’s single hit is a call that never became a matter. A person who consulted the firm is a prospective client whether or not anything followed, so a March enquiry from the other side is a live question rather than a near miss.

Prospective Client Record

One row per consultation, taken or declined. Categories of what was heard, never quotes.

Who consultedWhat was learnedAdvance consentCould it be harmfulScreenNotice
Ferngate Estates LLPParty names and matter type. Nothing about the dispute, because stage one was not passedNoNoNot requiredNot required
Northmoor BankThe borrower, and that enforcement was contemplated. Call ended thereNoUndecidedUnder considerationNot yet
Halverton Freight LtdThe counterparty, the transaction type, and their commercial objective for itNoYesYesSent 12 Jun
Ilse VandermeerThe estate, the beneficiaries and the nature of the dispute between themYesYesNot requiredNot required

Rows three and four heard the same category of thing and landed in opposite places

Halverton volunteered their objective before the call could be stopped. That is the information most useful to the other side, so the firm is screened, the notice went out, and both facts are dated on the row rather than living in somebody’s memory of a March phone call.

Vandermeer heard everything and cost the firm nothing. A short advance-consent notice was given before she spoke, so the firm is not prohibited from acting for another party in the matter. The decline was capacity.

Undecided on row two is a real answer with a partner’s name against it. Yes or No with nothing behind it is a guess somebody relies on later.

Matter Opening Checklist

One accepted matter. Every Done cell carries a date and the evidence behind it, because a tick on its own is a claim.

ItemOwnerDoneDateEvidence
Conflict search complete across the whole firmIntakeYes3 JunCS-01, CS-02
Prospective Client Record createdIntakeYes2 JunPC entry
Acceptance decision by a named lawyerPartnerYes3 JunIN-2041
Scope and fee basis communicatedResponsible lawyerYes3 JunEngagement letter
Client identity verifiedIntakeYes3 JunPassport, utility bill
Engagement letter signed and returnedResponsible lawyerNoSent 3 Jun, not returned
Key dates and limitation diarisedResponsible lawyerNo
Source of funds recordedResponsible lawyerNot applicableFirm handles no money on this matter
Screen implemented and documentedResponsible partnerNot applicableNo screen on this matter

Two rows are blocking and seven are not

The last row of the red pair causes a claim entirely on its own. Nothing else has to go wrong. An undiarised limitation date on an accepted matter is the single most common way a well-run file turns into a negligence file.

Not applicable is a real answer and it carries its reason. Left blank, those two rows look outstanding forever, and a checklist that is permanently amber stops being read.

What's in the pack

01

Two-Stage Intake

Which questions belong on the first call and which wait for the search, with the rule text that puts the line there.

02

Conflict Search Log

Strings run, why those strings, systems searched, whole firm or not, date, who ran it and the hit count.

03

Prospective Client Record

One row per consultation, taken or declined, with a reasoned view on whether anything heard could be significantly harmful.

04

Intake Register

Every enquiry with the stage it reached, the outcome, and the named lawyer who decided it. No blank Decided By closes.

05

Conflict Search Standard

Who gets searched, which name strings, which systems, and the legacy database from a merged practice that nobody migrated.

06

Advance Consent Note

Wording for the notice given before a caller speaks, so what they say does not stop the firm acting for someone else.

07

Engagement, Declination and Notice letters

Scope written in terms that can be checked, a declination that explains nothing, and the written notice a screen depends on.

08

Matter Opening Checklist

Every row with an owner, a date and an evidence reference, and the two rows that block substantive work marked as blocking.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Open in River, or take it blank

    Open the pack in River and hand it your client list and your current intake form, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets from the template library and run it yourself.

  2. 2

    Cut your own form in half first

    Sort the questions you already ask into stage one and stage two before changing anything else. Most firms find three or four belong on the first call.

  3. 3

    Fix the list the search runs against

    A conflict search is only worth what the index behind it is worth. Former clients, closed matters and enquiries that never became matters all belong in it.

  4. 4

    Open a record for the calls you turn away

    The enquiries a firm declines are the ones somebody asks about later, and that record only exists if it was made at the time. A privilege log entry works the same way.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes, and there is no account or card. The download is Word documents and CSV sheets in a zip. Edit with AI is the second half of it: the agent sorts your existing intake questions into the two stages, builds the name strings, and fills the registers. More packs in the template library.

What am I actually downloading?

Six Word documents and four CSV sheets, zipped. The sheets open in Excel, Numbers or Google Sheets straight off the download, and the letters and protocol documents open in Word or Pages. Nothing in the zip needs River to be useful.

Doesn't asking fewer questions just mean a second phone call?

It means one short call and one long one instead of one long one. That is a real cost and it buys back the screening route out of a firm-wide disqualification, which is only available where the lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid hearing more than was necessary.

What if the enquiry form already collected everything?

Then say so on the record and stop treating the form as neutral. A firm that invites a description of a potential matter without a clear warning attached is inviting a consultation. Everyone who fills that box in becomes a prospective client, including the party the firm is about to be adverse to.

Does it decide whether the firm can act?

No. It describes the hit, names the matter and the side the firm was on, and stops. Acceptance, declination and any view on whether something heard could be significantly harmful take a named lawyer and a date, and the Intake Register has a column for each.

Which jurisdiction's rules is this written to?

The rule text quoted throughout is Washington's, because it publishes the full current text of every rule as a free PDF. Adoption differs by state, and the imputation and screening provisions in particular are not uniform, so the documents tell you to check your own before relying on the wording.

How does this fit with the other legal packs?

This one covers whether the firm can act, and on what terms. Those terms get their number from the budget built from your closed matters. Once open, applying your recorded positions to an inbound contract and reading a data room against a deal structure pick it up. A hit the search returns gets sorted by which rule disqualifies it.

Run intake in the order the rules assume

Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or open this exact pack in River and hand it your current intake form.

Edit with AI