Everything a firm knows about a matter is decided at the front door, and the front door is jammed. New matter intake, capturing the client, clearing conflicts, opening the matter, provisioning the workspace, is where the firm's data quality, its risk posture, and its speed to revenue are all set. It is also almost entirely non-billable operational work, which makes it a textbook example of where the business of law pays off.
Why intake is the ideal place to point automation
The pillar argument is to aim automation at the bounded operational pile, not the judgment-heavy legal work. Intake is the purest version of that pile:
- It is rules-based. The steps are the same every time, in the same order.
- It is high-volume. Every engagement passes through it, so a small per-matter saving compounds fast.
- It is bounded. The inputs and outputs are countable, and the one genuinely judgment-bound step, clearing an identified conflict, is easy to hand back to a lawyer.
- It is painful by hand. Re-keying the same client details into a fourth system is exactly the tedium nobody chose and nobody bills for.
The conflicts bottleneck
Conflicts checks are where intake stalls. The search itself is mechanical, scanning parties, related entities, and prior matters across systems, but done by hand it is slow, and the clearance step then sits in someone's inbox waiting for a decision. The result is a matter that cannot open, and a client eager to start who is now waiting on paperwork. Every day of delay is billable work that has not begun.
- 1Capture and validate intake onceDetails entered once, checked, and pushed to every system.
- 2Conflicts search runs automaticallyParties and related entities checked across sources in one pass.
- 3Only ambiguous hits go to a reviewerThe lawyer clears the judgment call; clean matters proceed.
- 4Matter opens and access is provisionedPMS, accounting, folders, and permissions set up without re-keying.
The payoff is upstream and downstream at once
Fixing intake pays twice. Upstream, it compresses time-to-open, so billable work starts sooner and the client's first impression is speed, not friction. Downstream, clean and complete matter data at intake is what prevents the setup errors that turn into write-downs at billing time, one of the drivers of revenue leakage, and what makes accurate budget-to-actual reporting and matter economics possible in the first place.
| Manual intake & conflicts | Caddi | |
|---|---|---|
| Speed to open | Days, gated by manual search and inbox clearance | Hours: automated search, only exceptions routed to a human |
| Data quality | Re-keyed and inconsistent across systems | Entered once, validated, consistent everywhere |
| Risk posture | Conflicts search only as thorough as the person is rushed | Consistent, logged search every time; judgment still human |
| Downstream effect | Setup errors surface as write-downs at billing | Clean matter data feeds accurate billing and reporting |
Intake is one part of the operational lifecycle. See how it connects to billing and outside counsel guideline compliance, the metrics that show whether it is working, and why the back office is where margin moves.
Open matters faster
See the law-firm overview, browse real intake workflows Caddi runs today, or book a demo to watch intake and conflicts built from a screen recording.
Do more with less
See Caddi in action
Tell us where to reach you and the calendar opens right here. In 30 minutes we'll show you how Caddi automates the back-office work that grows with your clients—built, run, and maintained for you.
Frequently asked questions
What is new matter intake in a law firm?
New matter intake is the process of taking on a client engagement: capturing client and matter details, running conflicts checks, clearing engagement terms, opening the matter in the practice-management and accounting systems, and setting up the folders and permissions the team needs to start work. It is the front door of the firm, and everything downstream, billing, reporting, profitability, inherits the quality of what happens here.
Why is the conflicts check process a bottleneck?
Conflicts checks are rules-based but data-heavy: they require searching across parties, related entities, and prior matters, then routing anything ambiguous for review and clearance. Done by hand across multiple systems, the search is slow and the clearance sits in someone's inbox, so intake stalls, and revenue with it, precisely when a client is most eager to start.
What parts of intake and conflicts can be automated?
The bounded, repeatable machinery: collecting and validating intake data, running the conflicts search across systems, assembling the results for a reviewer, opening the matter across the practice-management and accounting systems once cleared, and provisioning folders and access. The judgment, whether an identified conflict is waivable, stays with a lawyer. The clicks around that judgment do not need to.
How does automating intake improve firm economics?
It compresses time-to-open, so billable work starts sooner, and it eliminates the setup errors that cause write-downs later. Clean, complete matter data at intake is also what makes accurate billing, budget-to-actual reporting, and matter profitability possible downstream. Because intake is non-billable, automating it removes pure cost without touching a billable task.