Turn a New Client Intake Into a Matter Summary + Engagement Letter
Paste your raw intake notes into Claude and get back a structured matter summary, a conflicts list, and a draft engagement letter (or non-engagement letter) you can review, finalize, and send.
When to use this
Turning consult notes and intake questionnaires into usable matter records and engagement paperwork is repetitive drafting that recurs with every new matter. This workflow handles it in a single Claude conversation: paste the intake, get a structured summary and a conflicts list, stop to clear conflicts, then draft either a scope-appropriate engagement letter or a non-engagement letter, plus an optional fee estimate. You stay responsible for finalizing every binding term.
After a consult you are left with a page of messy notes, a half-filled questionnaire, and the same drafting chores every time: who are the parties, what is the actual issue, what did the prospect ask for, who do you need to run through conflicts, and what does the engagement letter need to say. Doing this by hand for every prospect is slow and easy to shortcut under pressure.
Claude can read your raw notes, organize them into a clean matter summary, list every person and entity you need to clear for conflicts, and produce a first-draft engagement letter that matches the scope you describe. If you decline the matter, it can draft the non-engagement letter instead, which matters because a prospective client you consulted with is owed duties even if you never take the case.
Everything Claude produces here is a draft. You are the lawyer of record: you verify the facts, run the conflicts check in your own system, set the scope, fix the fee terms, and confirm the letter complies with your jurisdiction's rules before anything goes to the client.
The Workflow
Paste the raw intake and set the matter context
Start the conversation by giving Claude everything you have from the consult (questionnaire answers, your typed or dictated notes, emails the prospect sent) inside <document> tags, then tell it your role, practice area, and jurisdiction so the framing is right. Don't clean the notes up first; messy input is fine.
Prompt<document type="intake notes and questionnaire" consult_date="[DATE]"> [PASTE NOTES, QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS, AND ANY EMAILS FROM THE PROSPECT HERE] </document> I am a [ROLE, e.g., partner / associate / in-house counsel] at [FIRM / LEGAL DEPARTMENT]. My practice area is [PRACTICE AREA] and I practice in [STATE/JURISDICTION]. The document above contains my raw intake notes from an initial consult with a prospective client. I have not yet decided whether to take the matter. Read the notes carefully. Then ask me up to 5 clarifying questions about anything ambiguous or missing before you organize the information. Do not invent facts.
What you get: Claude confirms the practice area and jurisdiction and asks a short list of targeted clarifying questions (missing dates, unclear party roles, fee expectations). Answer them in your next message.
Generate the structured matter summary
Once you've answered the clarifying questions, have Claude turn the intake into a clean, scannable matter record with a conflicts list. This is the artifact you'll drop into your file and the list you'll run through your conflicts system.
PromptUsing the intake and my answers, produce a structured MATTER SUMMARY with these sections: - Parties (prospective client, adverse or other parties, their roles) - Matter type and one-line description - Issue presented (the legal problem in 2–3 sentences) - Client goals and priorities - Key facts (bulleted, chronological where possible; quote the notes where wording matters) - Known deadlines or time pressures (flag any limitations or filing concerns as items for me to verify; do not state a deadline from memory) - CONFLICTS TO CHECK: every individual and entity mentioned, including related companies, spouses, insurers, and witnesses, with the role each plays - Open questions and missing information Keep it factual and label anything uncertain. Do not give legal conclusions.
What you get: A tidy, sectioned summary you can skim in under a minute. Deadlines and conflict names are called out as action items, and gaps are listed rather than guessed.
Clear conflicts, then draft the engagement or non-engagement letter
Stop here and run the conflicts check in your own system against the names from Step 2. If conflicts are not cleared, do not draft an engagement letter. If you decide to take the matter, have Claude draft the engagement letter around the scope you actually agreed to; be explicit about fee structure and what is in and out of scope. If you are declining, use the non-engagement version of the prompt instead, so the prospect knows in writing that you do not represent them.
PromptCONFLICTS STATUS: [CLEARED on [DATE] / DECLINING THE MATTER] IF CLEARED, draft an engagement letter for this client based on the matter summary. Use these terms: - Scope INCLUDED: [WHAT YOU WILL DO] - Scope EXCLUDED: [WHAT YOU WILL NOT DO, e.g., appeals, related matters] - Fee structure: [HOURLY at $[RATE] / FLAT FEE of $[AMOUNT] / CONTINGENCY at [%]] - Retainer/deposit: [AMOUNT, or "none"] - Billing frequency: [e.g., monthly] - Firm name and signatory: [FIRM NAME], [YOUR NAME] Write it in plain, professional language addressed to the client. Include: parties, scope of representation, fees and billing, retainer and trust handling, client and firm responsibilities, termination, and signature blocks. IF DECLINING, draft a short non-engagement letter instead: state that the firm will not represent the prospect in this matter, that no attorney-client relationship was formed, that any applicable deadlines may be running and they should consult other counsel promptly (do not state the deadline), and that the firm will keep information shared in the consult confidential as [APPLICABLE RULE ON DUTIES TO PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS, e.g., the state's version of ABA Model Rule 1.18] requires. For either letter: insert clearly marked [BRACKETED PLACEHOLDERS] for anything you are unsure about, and add a short list of the clauses I must confirm against [STATE/JURISDICTION] rules of professional conduct (for example, written-fee and contingency-fee requirements and trust-accounting language). Do not cite a rule number unless you are certain; use [APPLICABLE RULE] otherwise.
What you get: Either a complete first-draft engagement letter matching your scope and fee terms, or a non-engagement letter, with bracketed placeholders for unconfirmed details and a list of clauses to check against your state's rules.
Add an optional brief fee estimate
If you are taking the matter and the client wants a ballpark, ask Claude for a short estimate based on the scope. Keep it framed as an estimate, not a quote, unless you're using a flat fee you've already set.
PromptBased on the included scope and the [HOURLY/FLAT/CONTINGENCY] fee structure above, draft a brief fee estimate I can share with the client. Break it into the main phases of work (e.g., intake and strategy, drafting, negotiation, filing or hearing), give an estimated hours or cost range per phase, and total it. Add a one-paragraph disclaimer that this is a good-faith estimate, not a cap, and that actual fees depend on how the matter develops. Leave the numbers as [RANGES] for me to set; do not invent rates or hours I haven't given you.
What you get: A phase-by-phase estimate with ranges and a clear not-a-cap disclaimer. Numbers you haven't supplied appear as bracketed ranges for you to fill in.
Review, verify, and finalize before sending
Read everything as the responsible attorney. Confirm the matter summary's facts and deadlines against your notes, confirm the conflicts check was actually run and cleared, set every fee number, and check the letter's required terms against your jurisdiction's rules before you sign or send. Claude's output is a draft; the binding terms are yours.
What you get: A matter summary you trust, a conflicts check actually run, and an engagement or non-engagement letter with every bracket resolved and jurisdiction-specific terms confirmed, ready to send.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
MATTER SUMMARY (fictional) Parties: [Client A] (prospective client, individual) v. [Landlord LLC] (former landlord) Matter type: Residential security-deposit dispute Issue presented: Client moved out March 1 and has not received the $2,400 security deposit. Landlord claims deductions for "cleaning and damage" but has provided no itemized statement. Client goals: - Recover the full deposit - Avoid litigation if a demand letter resolves it Key facts: - Lease term ended Feb 28; keys returned March 1 - Move-out walkthrough done; client has dated photos - No itemized deduction statement received as of today Deadlines / time pressure: - VERIFY: [STATE] deadline for landlord to return deposit or send itemization (client believes "about 30 days") Conflicts to check: [Client A]; [Landlord LLC]; [Landlord LLC]'s owner (named in notes as "[Owner B]"); property manager "[Manager C]" Open questions: exact lease signing date; whether any deductions were pre-agreed NEXT: Run conflicts before drafting the engagement letter. [Draft. Verify all facts and the statutory deadline before relying on this.]
Tips
- •Keep your raw notes raw. Claude organizes messy input well, and cleaning notes up first adds work and can strip useful detail.
- •Treat the conflicts list as the gate. Claude can flag who to check, but it cannot see your client database; run the check yourself before drafting any engagement letter.
- •Send a non-engagement letter whenever you decline. It documents that no relationship formed and reminds the prospect that deadlines may be running.
- •Be specific about scope exclusions: appeals, related matters, post-judgment collection. A clear not-included list is your best defense against scope creep and fee disputes.
- •Save your finalized engagement letter as a reusable template, then in future intakes ask Claude to adapt that template to the new matter instead of drafting from scratch.
A note on confidentiality
Intake notes contain a prospective client's account of their problem, often with financial details, health or family information, and the names of adverse parties, and you owe duties of confidentiality to prospective clients even if you decline the matter. Leave out Social Security numbers, account numbers, and dates of birth, use roles instead of names where the summary doesn't need them, and run intake on a commercial plan (Team or Enterprise) whose terms exclude your content from model training. On Pro or Max, disable model training in Privacy settings; a commercial plan's contract terms are the stronger answer for client work. You remain responsible under ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Model Rules 1.6, 1.18, and 1.5 for confidentiality, prospective-client duties, and fee terms that comply with your jurisdiction. Every output is a draft for attorney review: verify each fact, deadline, and any rule citation before sending.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Claude run a conflicts check for me?
No. Claude can list every party and entity you should screen, but it cannot access your client or matter database. Run the actual conflicts check in your own records against the names it surfaces before you accept the engagement or draft the letter.
What if I decide not to take the matter?
Use the non-engagement version of the Step 3 prompt. It drafts a short letter confirming you do not represent the prospect, that deadlines may be running, and that you will keep the consult information confidential. Confirm the content against your jurisdiction's rule on duties to prospective clients before sending.
Is the engagement letter Claude drafts safe to send as-is?
Treat it as a first draft only. You must set the final fee terms, resolve every bracketed placeholder, and confirm the required clauses against your jurisdiction's rules of professional conduct, for example written contingency-fee requirements and trust-accounting language. The binding terms are your responsibility.
How do I protect client confidentiality when pasting intake notes?
Use a commercial plan (Team or Enterprise), where your inputs aren't used to train models, or at minimum disable model training on Pro or Max, and remove identifiers the summary doesn't need. This supports your duties under ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Model Rule 1.6.
Prompts used in this workflow
Get New Workflows Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.