Assemble attorney-ready legal intake context

Why use this

1. Counsel receiving a new request may need to reconstruct which deal, conversation and prior guidance actually apply. A collection of excerpts without dates or provenance can make tentative discussion look like an agreed business position.

2. A bounded intake record could organize relevant facts and unresolved questions before legal review. It should help counsel locate context while avoiding legal conclusions, privilege assumptions or commitments on the company’s behalf.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Connect related records and expose factual contradictions or missing context.

Simpler alternative

Use an intake form when the request is standard and supporting records are already assembled.

Unsuitable when

The task requires deciding legal strategy or sharing material beyond authorized counsel.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Legal request

   Owner

   Request owner

   Minimum scope

   Issue description, requested decision and relevant deadline

   Quality check

   Distinguish factual background from the requester’s interpretation.

2. Name

   Approved context set

   Owner

   Business and legal owners

   Minimum scope

   Relevant conversation excerpts, deal identifiers and prior guidance

   Quality check

   Check dates, applicability and permitted audience.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read-only scoped records and a restricted intake preview.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: exact runtime, source connectors and confidentiality controls.

External actions requiring approval

1. Updating shared trackers, sending messages or disclosing privileged or sensitive material.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Chronological intake summary, source index and questions for counsel.

Critical checks

1. Every material assertion links to a dated source.

2. Prior guidance is attributed and not presented as automatically applicable advice.

Missing output evidence

No new intake-system update or attorney review has been performed here.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Earlier guidance concerns a different contract or jurisdiction.

   Why it matters

   The summary could imply a conclusion counsel never gave for this matter.

   Proposed response

   Label the mismatch and ask counsel about relevance.

2. Signal

   A negotiation message is presented as an executed agreement.

   Why it matters

   Counsel could assess the wrong factual baseline.

   Proposed response

   Separate proposals from signed or otherwise confirmed records.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define matter scope and approved reviewers.

Ongoing review

1. Resolve factual gaps and maintain source chronology.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: access setup, confidentiality requirements and counsel-review effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional request includes an unsigned proposal, later revised terms and guidance from a different matter.

Acceptance checks

1. The versions remain distinct.

2. No legal conclusion is inferred from the unrelated guidance.

Stop conditions

1. Privilege, disclosure permission or legal interpretation requires counsel’s decision.

Limits

1. Editorial intake organization; no legal advice or authorized external communication is implied.