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 plus a draft engagement letter you can review, finalize, and send.
When to use this
Solo and small-firm lawyers lose 6–8 hours a week turning consult notes and intake questionnaires into usable matter records and engagement paperwork. This workflow compresses that into a single Claude conversation: paste the intake, get a structured summary, then a scope-appropriate engagement letter and optional fee estimate. You stay responsible for finalizing every binding term.
New-client intake is where small firms quietly bleed time. After the 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 client agree to, 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 is well suited to the first 80 percent of this work. It can read your raw notes, organize them into a clean matter summary, surface the conflicts you still need to clear, and produce a first-draft engagement letter that matches the scope you describe. That turns a 45-minute drafting slog into a 10-minute review.
Everything Claude produces here is a draft. You are the lawyer of record: you verify the facts, set the scope, fix the fee terms, and confirm the engagement letter complies with your jurisdiction's rules before anything goes to the client. Treat the output as a fast first pass, not a finished document.
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 — and tell it your practice area and jurisdiction so the framing is right. Don't clean the notes up first; messy input is fine.
PromptYou are helping a solo lawyer process a new client intake. My practice area is [PRACTICE AREA] and I practice in [STATE/JURISDICTION]. Below are my raw intake notes and questionnaire answers from the initial consult. Read them carefully and ask me up to 5 clarifying questions about anything that is ambiguous or missing before you organize the information. Do not invent facts. RAW INTAKE NOTES: [PASTE NOTES, QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS, AND ANY CONSULT NOTES HERE]
What you get: Claude confirms the practice area and jurisdiction and asks a short list of targeted clarifying questions (e.g., 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. This is the artifact you'll drop into your file or matter list.
PromptUsing the intake and my answers, produce a structured MATTER SUMMARY with these sections: - Parties (client, adverse/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) - Known deadlines or time pressures (flag any statute-of-limitations or filing concerns as items for me to verify) - Conflicts to check (list every individual and entity I should run a conflicts check against) - Open questions / 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.
Draft the scope-appropriate engagement letter
Now have Claude draft the engagement letter built around the scope you actually agreed to. Be explicit about fee structure and what is in and out of scope — this is what keeps the matter from creeping later.
PromptDraft 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 standard sections: parties, scope of representation, fees and billing, retainer/trust handling, client and firm responsibilities, termination, and signature blocks. Insert clearly marked [BRACKETED PLACEHOLDERS] for anything you are unsure about, and add a short note listing which clauses I must confirm against [STATE/JURISDICTION] rules of professional conduct.
What you get: A complete first-draft engagement letter matching your scope and fee terms, with bracketed placeholders for unconfirmed details and a flagged list of clauses to check against your state's rules (e.g., contingency-fee writing requirements, trust-accounting language).
Add an optional brief fee estimate
If 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/strategy, drafting, negotiation, filing/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 if you are unsure.
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, verify there are no conflicts, set every fee number, and check the engagement 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 letter with every bracket resolved and jurisdiction-specific terms confirmed — ready to send for signature.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
MATTER SUMMARY Parties: Dana Whitfield (client, individual) v. Cedar Ridge Property Management 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 / send itemization (client believes ~30 days) Conflicts to check: Dana Whitfield; Cedar Ridge Property Management LLC Open questions: exact lease signing date; whether any deductions were pre-agreed [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 just adds work and can strip useful detail.
- •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.
- •Always run the conflicts check yourself against the names Claude lists. Claude can flag who to check, but it cannot see your client database.
- •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
Use Claude Team or Enterprise for client matters, where inputs are not used to train models, and minimize identifying client PII in consumer tiers. You remain responsible under ABA Formal Op. 512 and Model Rules 1.6 and 1.5 for confidentiality and for fee terms that comply with your jurisdiction.
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.