Lead Docket
Lead Docket is intake and lead management software for law firms, covering the stretch between a prospective client's first contact and a signed retainer. Leads arriving from web forms, calls, chat and referrals land in one queue, where the platform captures the contact automatically, triggers personalised follow-up emails and tasks so nothing waits on someone remembering, and tracks each opportunity through vetting to sign-up. Its AI layer, LeadsAI, reads intake documents, produces summaries of lead details, messages and notes, and scores each lead for viability as soon as it opens, so an intake team can see which matters are worth pursuing rather than working the queue in the order it arrived. Referral management is handled as its own workflow, with templates that let a receiving firm accept or reject a case and scheduled follow-ups so referral fees are chased. Reporting is the other half of the product: firms can see which advertising sources and campaigns produce signed cases and what each one costs, which is the reason many high-volume advertisers buy it. Retainers and payments can be collected inside the platform, and signed leads transfer natively into Filevine matters without re-keying. Lead Docket is a Filevine product, sold under its own name on its own site and governed by Filevine's subscription agreement, which covers Filevine, Lead Docket, Outlaw and Vinesign together. Pricing is quoted rather than published.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the engine of the prioritisation capability and sit on an intake CRM that works without them. The AI functions are described in present tense and are specific: LeadsAI reads intake documents, generates automatic summaries of lead details, messages and notes, and surfaces a Lead Viability assessment on every lead the moment it opens. The product is now marketed as Lead Docket with LeadsAI and the home page leads with the reading and scoring rather than the pipeline. Underneath sits a lead management system that predates the AI and still delivers most of what buyers describe: capture from web forms and calls, automated follow-up emails and tasks, referral tracking with accept-and-reject templates and scheduled chasing, marketing source and ROI reporting, payment collection and native transfer into Filevine. Remove the models and a firm still has a working intake CRM, which is what keeps this off the top band. Checked 4 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Nothing is published on the accuracy or the grounding of the assessments this product makes. Lead Viability decides which prospective clients a firm pursues and which it does not, and the marketing states that the AI knows the next best lead and that a team can see which cases are worth taking. No accuracy figure, no evaluation, no test set, no error rate and no statement of failure modes accompanies any of it. Nor is the grounding described: nothing says what the score is derived from, which fields or documents it reads, how a summary is tied back to the underlying message or note, or whether a user can see why a lead scored as it did. There is no accuracy page, benchmark page or research post on the estate, and the subscription agreement runs the other way, disclaiming all warranties of accuracy and providing the service as is with all faults. The consequence for a buyer is specific rather than abstract: an unexplained score that suppresses a viable claimant is invisible, because the firm never works that lead and never learns it was wrong. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Oversight appears as an implication rather than a described control. The published account of the division of labour is that AI assesses every lead the moment it opens so the team knows which cases are worth taking, which implies a human decision at the end without describing one. No review step is specified, no threshold is stated, nothing says whether a low-scoring lead is deprioritised, or auto-dispositioned, and nothing addresses what happens when a score is wrong or how a user would find out. Real unattended automation runs alongside it and is marketed as the point: personalised emails and tasks fire automatically on capture, and AI-enhanced automations summarise information and follow up with potential clients, so the system communicates with prospective clients without a person in the loop. Against that the agreement allocates responsibility rather than describing controls, making the subscriber solely responsible for its own data entry and for maintaining its own deadlines, and disclaiming responsibility for misuse of the calendar. The band above requires a written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising human with real review surfaces, and no such commitment or surface was located.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Named firms carrying figures, undated and without method. Four customers are named with attributed individuals: David Brauns of Brauns Law against 250,000 dollars a year saved in advertising costs; Kendall Knecht of Whitley Law Firm against a 49 per cent increase in converted leads, which also carries a dedicated case study; Ryan McKeen of Connecticut Trial Firm, cited as being named the tenth fastest growing firm in the country by Law Firm 500; and Joe Fantini of Rosen Injury Lawyers, who describes the product as the single most important software the firm has purchased. That is more than the band's own words contemplate, since the band describes a named customer without figures or figures without the named customer, and here both are joined on two of the four. It falls short of the band above on the two limbs that let a reader test a claim: nothing is dated, and no method is published for any figure, so the basis of the 49 per cent and the 250,000 dollars is unstated. One claim is not an outcome of the product at all and is recorded as such: a Law Firm 500 growth ranking is an award to the firm. A customers page and further case studies exist and were not opened in this pass.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Substantive commitments in a published agreement, with one clause pointing the other way and no privilege treatment. Section 2.8 commits Filevine to maintain administrative, physical and technical safeguards for subscriber data, not to disclose it except in accordance with the privacy policy or as expressly permitted in writing, and not to access it except to provide the service, address technical problems, or on the subscriber's request for support. Section 6 adds a mutual confidentiality regime surviving seven years, and section 6.4 requires third-party service providers to maintain confidentiality and bars them from using the information for any other purpose. Against that sits section 7.2, which reserves to Filevine a right to collect and analyse subscriber data and to use, store, copy, display and transmit it to improve and enhance the service and for other development purposes, and to use and share it in aggregate or de-identified form in its business, with that right surviving termination. Two limbs are missing. No privilege or work product treatment appears anywhere, on a product that holds prospective-client intake material where privilege attaches from first contact. And nothing describes separation between firms or matter-level walls inside a firm's own workspace.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point.
A real published position, undercut by the fact that its worked example belongs to a different product. Section 8.2 of the subscription agreement states in terms that Filevine is not a law firm or legal services provider and does not and cannot provide any legal advice, explanation, opinion or other recommendation, which is an express advice-line position a buyer can read before signing and is more than a marketing disclaimer. Section 8.5 adds a specific allocation on deadlines, making the subscriber solely responsible for its own calendar entries and for maintaining statutory deadlines. The limitation worth naming is scope. The operative sentence completes itself with contract strategy and the meaning of terms in any contract generated by the services, which describes Filevine's contract product rather than intake and lead scoring, so the clause that reaches this product does so through its general limb rather than its example. Nothing engages professional responsibility itself: no bar guidance, no rule of professional conduct and no ethics opinion is named, and nothing addresses a firm's obligations where an automated system communicates with a prospective client or where a viability score shapes who gets representation.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No governance position of any kind was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no accountable owner or function named, no pre-release testing regime and no management system on the surfaces read. Nothing addresses uneven output, and the omission is pointed rather than formal on this product: Lead Viability scores prospective clients and determines which of them a firm pursues, so any systematic tilt in that score falls on people seeking representation rather than on the buyer, and nothing published states whether the scoring has been tested for it or what it is derived from. The subscription agreement is silent on the subject throughout. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the full footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The agreement covers most of the ground and names no supplier. On retention and deletion it is unusually concrete: Filevine has no obligation to hold uploaded data files more than thirty days after termination, the subscriber elects within twenty days whether files are destroyed or returned in an agreed format, written certification of deletion is available on request, and retained copies are permitted only for archival, legal or regulatory purposes and for no other use. Migration copies are held ninety days and then hard deleted. On access, section 2.8 restricts Filevine's own access to providing the service, fixing technical problems and answering support requests. Incident practice is addressed obliquely through section 6.1, which requires prompt notice of any unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Availability carries a 99.5 per cent monthly commitment. What is absent is the supplier picture: section 6.4 discloses that third parties perform hosting, backup and recovery, email delivery, customer service and data analysis, and names none of them, so a buyer knows the categories of company touching intake data and not their identities.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
A real allocation of loss with a vendor-side indemnity and a warranty, short of anything reaching output. Section 8.1 warrants that the service will function in substantial accordance with its written specifications and documentation, with a remedy ladder ending in termination and a pro rata refund of prepaid fees, which is more than most agreements in this segment offer. Section 9.2 commits Filevine to indemnify and defend the subscriber against third-party claims that authorised use infringes United States patents of which Filevine is aware, copyrights or trade secret rights, with named carve-outs for combination with non-Filevine software and for trial subscriptions. Against that, section 8.2 provides the service as is with all faults outside the express warranty and disclaims accuracy expressly, and section 8.3 caps total liability at fees paid in the six months before the event, which is a shorter look-back than the twelve months this market usually writes, with claims barred after twelve months. Nothing addresses the exposure the AI creates: there is no warranty on the correctness of a viability score or a generated summary, no service credit and no insurance position.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
One integration described at the level of what it moves, and no implementer documentation located. The Filevine connection is native rather than a partnership: the subscription agreement defines the Filevine Services to include products delivered through filevine.com, leaddocket.com, getoutlaw.com and vinesign.com under one agreement, and the product material states that lead data transfers natively into Filevine to create a unified client record and eliminate double entry, with retainers and payments collected inside Lead Docket. That names both the counterparty and the object moved, which is what lifts this off the band below. Lead capture is described as reaching web forms, live chat and after-hours calls, and outbound SMS and email are sent from the platform, implying telephony and messaging connections that are never specified. What is missing is depth: no document management, calendaring or e-billing system is named, no API documentation was located on the surfaces read, and nothing states what fields map, in which direction, or what a firm must configure. A dedicated integrations page exists in the navigation and was not opened in this pass; it is named here as the limit and the grade rests on what was read.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Cloud delivery is settled and neither co-equal limb is stated. The subscription agreement defines the service as software-as-a-service delivered through named web properties, requires only a browser supporting HTTP/2 and TLS 1.2 or 1.3 at the customer end, and offers no on-premises or self-hosted option anywhere. Beyond that nothing was located. No statement says whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no dedicated or isolated option appears, no region is named for storage or processing, and no cloud provider is identified, with section 6.4 confirming that hosting is performed by unnamed third parties. The only geographic facts published are corporate and procedural rather than architectural: Utah governing law, exclusive venue and arbitration in Salt Lake County, and a Salt Lake City notice address. Those locate the company and the forum, not the data. Nothing in the material read addresses residency for a product holding intake records on prospective clients.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation was located on the surfaces read. There is no SOC 2 of either type, no ISO certification, no penetration test summary, no named auditor, no examination period and no certification claim of any kind on the Lead Docket estate, and no trust centre or security page appears in its navigation or footer, which carry only a privacy policy, terms of service and the subscription agreement. The agreement itself commits to commercially reasonable administrative, physical and technical safeguards without referencing any external examination. One qualification belongs on the record and sets the route to a better grade. The scope connector this index requires is unambiguously established here, because section 1.8 of the agreement defines the Filevine Services to include products delivered through leaddocket.com by name, so any Filevine attestation whose own scope covers that service would credit to this product rather than stopping at the parent. The parent's trust material was not opened in this pass, so nothing is credited from it and nothing is inferred against it; this row is the first candidate for amendment on this record if it is read.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The vendor refers to its AI throughout and identifies nothing underneath it. The estate speaks of LeadsAI, of AI-enhanced automations, and of AI that reads intake documents and assesses lead viability, without naming a model, a version, a provider or a hosting arrangement, and without any commitment to notify customers if those change. The subscription agreement does not close the gap: section 6.4 discloses categories of third party performing hosting, backup, email delivery, customer service and data analysis, which identifies functions rather than companies, and section 8.6 contemplates third-party services embedded in the product while disclaiming responsibility for them. No subprocessor list exists on the surfaces read. This sits in the middle band rather than at the floor because the vendor does describe a distinct AI layer as its own named component; a buyer simply cannot learn whose model reads a prospective client's intake file.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The pricing page carries no pricing, and the agreement carries the structure. The page at the pricing route in the navigation is a quote request form headed with an invitation to get a custom quote, with no rate, no unit, no tier and no range, which on its own would sit at the floor of this band. The subscription agreement is what lifts it: fees are charged per Filevine License with one named individual per licence and no sharing, quoted and payable in United States dollars, invoiced in advance with charges due ten days after the invoice date, non-cancellable and non-refundable, with the licence count unable to be decreased during a term, automatic one-year renewal unless thirty days notice is given, overdue interest at one and a half per cent per month, overage fees invoiced monthly in arrears under separately published product terms, and any increase requiring forty-five days written notice before the next renewal. A buyer can therefore establish the unit, the currency, the term and the commitment before contacting the company, and cannot establish the number. One clause cuts directly against transparency and is recorded: section 4.1 makes all prices in the sales order confidential information that the customer may not disclose to any third party without written consent.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Coverage is claimed at a level of generality that does not tell a buyer whether their practice is served. The product is addressed to law firms throughout and to intake teams within them, and the workflow described is practice-agnostic: capture, follow-up, vetting, referral in and out, marketing source reporting and conversion. No practice area is named on the surfaces read, no firm size band is stated, and nothing says where the product stops or which kinds of matter it does not suit. The only signal of the real segment is indirect, in the customer names published, which are personal injury and plaintiff firms, and in the referral-fee tracking and advertising ROI features that matter most to high-volume advertisers; that is inference from the evidence rather than a coverage statement by the vendor. Jurisdiction is never addressed, and nothing distinguishes what the product does for a consumer-facing practice from an insurance defence or in-house function. A features page and a customers page exist in the navigation and were not opened in this pass.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No located term addresses training either way, and the clause that comes closest was weighed and declined. Section 7.2 of the subscription agreement reserves to Filevine a right to collect and analyse subscriber data and content, and to be free during and after the term to use, access, store, copy, display and transmit it to improve and enhance the service and for other development, diagnostic and corrective purposes, and to use and share it in aggregate or de-identified form in connection with its business, with anonymised data expressly excluded from the customer's confidential information. That is a broad and durable improvement right over intake material. It is not recorded as a training permission because it names neither training, machine learning nor models, and reading those into a general product-improvement right would reconstruct what the clause does not say. No statement anywhere on the estate says that customer content does not train models, and no opt-out or configuration setting is described.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
Fixed periods are published, and what they cover is narrower than the signal asks. The subscription agreement states that Filevine has no obligation to retain uploaded data files more than thirty days after termination or expiry, that the subscriber elects within twenty days whether those files are destroyed or returned in an agreed format, that written certification of deletion is available on request, and that any copies Filevine keeps are permitted for archival, legal or regulatory purposes only and for no other use. Migration copies are held ninety days and then hard deleted. Two limits are recorded rather than smoothed. Those periods are end-of-relationship rather than in-service: nothing states how long generated summaries, lead viability assessments or the prompts behind them persist while a subscription is live. And the deletion regime attaches to uploaded data files, which is narrower than the agreement's own definition of data, that definition expressly including material generated by the service in response to customer input.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
No located material addresses separation between customers or between matters. The agreement is strong on who may reach data and for what purpose, section 2.8 limiting Filevine's own access to providing the service, addressing technical problems and answering support requests, and section 6.4 binding third-party providers to confidentiality; but purpose limits on the vendor's staff are a different control from partition between one firm's data and another's. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no permission or role model inside a firm's workspace is described, and no matter-level walls are addressed. The question has a specific edge on this product, because the agreement contemplates authorized users including third parties with whom the subscriber transacts business, and the referral workflow is built to pass a prospective client's details to a receiving firm, so material crosses organisational boundaries by design with no published account of how it is fenced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
A notice commitment in the confidentiality section of the published agreement, which is where this evidence belongs. Section 6.1 provides that nothing restricts disclosure of confidential information as required by law, court order or other governmental order or request, provided that in each case the party asked to disclose shall timely inform the other party, use all reasonable efforts to limit the disclosure and maintain confidentiality so far as possible, and permit the other party to attempt to limit the disclosure by appropriate legal means. The commitment reaches customer data, since the same clause treats data constituting confidential information as within the regime. Two limits hold it below the top value. The obligation is mutual and generic rather than a customer-facing law enforcement policy, and no transparency report or record of requests received is published. A separate carve-out in the same clause permits Filevine to disclose data in accordance with its privacy policy, which is a different route and is not conditioned on notice.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
No located material identifies a corpus, and the question does not bite on this product class. The material the AI works on is the firm's own intake record: web form submissions, uploaded documents, messages and notes belonging to the firm and its prospective clients. The product does not retrieve or present legal content, so there is no case law source, statutory database or licensed reference set behind anything it produces. Recorded as the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product neither retrieves nor cites primary law. Its outputs are lead summaries, viability assessments, task and follow-up automations and marketing source reporting, none of which rests on a legal authority a user would need to verify. The value is the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
No located material describes what the system does when it cannot reach a reliable assessment. Lead Viability is presented as an output produced on every lead the moment it opens, with no abstention path, no low-confidence state, no confidence score exposed to the user and nothing on how the system behaves where a lead record is sparse, contradictory or in a matter type it has not seen. Nothing describes what happens when the document reading fails or returns nothing usable. The agreement addresses the same territory only as an allocation of risk, disclaiming accuracy and making the subscriber responsible for its own data entry, which places the burden rather than describing a behaviour. The gap matters more here than on a drafting tool, because an unexpressed uncertainty resolves into a score that quietly reorders which prospective clients a firm contacts. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name Lead Docket and on the corporate name Filevine. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No located material engages with bar or ethics guidance at any level. No bar association, rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion or jurisdiction-specific guidance is named or referred to in general terms on the surfaces read, and nothing addresses the professional questions this product raises: solicitation and advertising rules for automated follow-up to prospective clients, referral fee arrangements in the referral workflow, or the duties owed to a prospective client whose information the firm holds. The nearest statement is the agreement's declaration that Filevine is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, which is a position on the advice line and is graded on the professional responsibility row rather than counted here. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure.
Cost and revenue claims are published and nothing addresses the bill. The estate carries 250,000 dollars a year saved in advertising at a named firm, a 49 per cent increase in converted leads at another, and a general promise to convert more callers into clients without expanding headcount, alongside reporting built to show which marketing spend produces signed cases. All of it is directed at the firm's own economics. Nothing reaches this signal: no per-matter record of AI-assisted work is offered, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a client is told about automated handling of their first contact. The direction is worth recording, since the buyers here are largely contingency-fee firms whose clients are not billed hourly, so the live disclosure question is about the intake itself rather than about compressed billable time, and the vendor is silent on both.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No located public material would let a firm answer a client's AI clause. No subprocessor register is published, no model or model provider is named, no cloud or hosting provider is identified, and no consent or notification pack exists on the surfaces read. The agreement discloses categories rather than identities: section 6.4 states that Filevine may contract third parties for marketing assistance, email delivery, hosting, backup and recovery, customer service and data analysis, and binds them to confidentiality, which tells a firm what kinds of company touch intake data and not which ones. No data processing addendum was located on the Lead Docket estate and no route to request one is offered. The forwardable material that does exist is the published subscription agreement itself, whose confidentiality, access-limitation and deletion provisions a firm could send to a client, and which says nothing about who processes its data using what model.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
No located material addresses producing a record of AI-assisted work. Nothing describes an export covering which model produced a summary or a viability assessment, what it drew on, or whether a person reviewed it, and nothing marks any output as machine-generated. No disclosure template or guidance is published. Two adjacent facts are recorded so a reader sees they were weighed: the product keeps a lead history with status changes and communications, which records what the firm and the system did rather than attributing any output to a model, and the agreement provides for a written certification of deletion on termination, which is a record about data destruction rather than about AI use. The question is live on this product because intake records and their scoring can become discoverable in fee disputes and in bad-faith litigation, and nothing published helps a firm produce that history in an attributable form.