ClaimVela
Preparing your workspace
Loading the latest information for your firm.
With your permission, we use Google and Vercel client analytics to understand selected page visits, inquiries, trials, subscription success, and performance. We never send intake, case, document, message, or portal content.
Practical automation guide
Build a controlled workflow for capture, response, fact collection, follow-up, attorney review, and retained-matter handoff—while keeping conflicts, deadlines, legal analysis, and representation decisions with authorized people.
Six controlled layers
Begin with a written process. For each layer, define the trigger, permitted system action, person responsible, exception path, evidence retained, and condition that closes the stage.
Suitable for automation
Create one timestamped inquiry from approved channels, preserve source and consent information, and send approved receipt language with a visible delivery result.
Required control
An acknowledgement should explain the next step without promising representation, an outcome, or legal advice.
Suitable for automation
Apply the firm's routing rules, assign a named owner and backup, start the appropriate response target, and surface unowned or overdue work.
Required control
Exception and urgency flags should route to an authorized person; software should not infer legal deadlines or clear conflicts.
Suitable for automation
Request the contact, incident, injury, treatment, insurance, representation, and evidence information the firm has approved for that stage.
Required control
Use progressive questions and an escape path to a person. Do not treat a completed form as proof of liability, value, or fit.
Suitable for automation
Create approved reminders, consultation requests, missing-information tasks, and document requests with an owner, due time, and delivery status.
Required control
Pause or redirect automation when consent changes, delivery fails, the person asks for help, or the record reaches a firm-defined exception.
Suitable for automation
Organize supplied facts, expose missing information and source links, and present a consistent review packet with its activity history.
Required control
A licensed and authorized reviewer remains responsible for conflicts, legal analysis, qualification, deadlines, and the representation decision.
Suitable for automation
Carry approved intake data, files, communications, assignments, and open work into the retained-matter workflow and report each stage transition.
Required control
Preserve what the source actually said, who approved the transition, and what remains unknown rather than rewriting uncertainty as fact.
Attorney-controlled boundary
Assign each gate to a role your firm authorizes, then define what information that reviewer must see and how the decision is recorded.
Route possible conflicts, duplicate matters, adverse-party information, and representation status through the firm's approved process before substantive review proceeds.
Automation may flag dates or language for review, but an attorney should determine legal significance and calculate or calendar legal deadlines.
Do not let a score, summary, or generated response decide liability, causation, damages, case value, or medical significance.
Only an authorized firm process should approve a consultation outcome, engagement, decline, referral, or other final disposition.
Require a person to check generated summaries and drafts against their sources before the firm relies on them or sends them outside the firm.
Reference workflow
| Stage | System action | Human checkpoint | Record retained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inquiry received | Timestamp the earliest receipt and preserve channel, source, consent, and supplied content. | Confirm the permitted response path and any immediate exception. | Original submission, receipt time, source, consent, and delivery status |
| Response owned | Assign a person, backup, response target, and escalation time. | Accept ownership or transfer it under the firm's policy. | Owner history, target, warning state, and transfer reason |
| Facts in progress | Present approved questions and create missing-information work. | Resolve ambiguity and decide which follow-up is appropriate. | Answers, sources, unknowns, attempts, files, and client corrections |
| Attorney review | Assemble the supplied facts, source references, gaps, and activity history. | Perform conflicts and legal review; decide the permitted next step. | Reviewer, decision, reason, approved communication, and next owner |
| Disposition or handoff | Move approved information and open work to the next controlled workflow. | Authorize engagement, decline, referral, continued review, or case conversion. | Approval, effective time, communication, transferred data, and unresolved work |
After-hours design
Information controls
Operating scorecard
Record the eligible population, exclusions, event definitions, reporting period, and data source for every measure. Do not invent a benchmark or compare periods that use different definitions.
Measure from the earliest firm-controlled receipt to two-way contact with an authorized team member—not merely to an automated acknowledgement.
Track the share of eligible inquiries that reach meaningful two-way contact, using one documented definition across reporting periods.
Measure whether the firm collected the information required for its next review stage, without treating completeness as case merit.
Count actual stage transitions and keep the eligible population and exclusions consistent when comparing sources or periods.
Surface open inquiries or promised actions that have no current person responsible or have passed the firm's target.
Review failed delivery, consent changes, manual overrides, duplicate records, unsafe outputs, and other exceptions instead of hiding them.
30-day implementation plan
Days 1–7
Days 8–14
Days 15–21
Days 22–30
Where ClaimVela fits
ClaimVela can capture structured PI facts through a Smart Intake Link, place new inquiries in a response queue with ownership and warning states, surface apparent information gaps, coordinate tasks and consultations, collect private files and messages through revocable PI client portal access, and preserve intake history when an approved matter becomes a case.
ClaimVela does not clear conflicts, calculate legal deadlines, decide liability or case value, give legal advice, or decide whether the firm should represent someone.
Official references
These sources provide general professional-responsibility, data security, and AI-risk context. They do not replace advice about the rules and facts that apply to your firm.
Context for communications and duties involving prospective clients. Firms must check the rules and authority that apply in their jurisdictions.
ABA guidance discussing professional duties implicated by lawyers' use of generative AI tools.
Business guidance on collecting only what is needed, controlling access, securing data through its lifecycle, and overseeing service providers.
A voluntary framework for governing, mapping, measuring, and managing AI risk throughout the system lifecycle.
Frequently asked questions
Personal injury intake automation uses software to move repeatable administrative work—such as source capture, acknowledgements, ownership, reminders, structured fact collection, document requests, consultation coordination, and reporting—through a defined workflow. It should preserve a reviewable record and route professional decisions to authorized attorneys rather than making those decisions itself.
Good candidates are repeatable, observable tasks with a clear owner and failure path: creating one inquiry record, preserving source data, acknowledging receipt, assigning a response target, requesting approved missing information, recording contact attempts, sending approved reminders, coordinating consultations, and preparing a structured handoff. Firms should adapt each automation to their consent, privacy, supervision, and jurisdiction-specific procedures.
Automation should not clear conflicts, calculate legal deadlines, decide liability or case value, give legal advice, accept or reject representation, or communicate a professional judgment without the firm's authorized process. AI-produced summaries and suggestions should remain reviewable, source-grounded, and subject to appropriate human oversight.
No. An answering service primarily handles a communication channel. Intake automation coordinates the broader operating path across capture, ownership, structured information, follow-up, review, consultation, disposition, and retained-case handoff. A firm may use both, but it should define which system owns the record and what happens when an integration or automated step fails.
Map the current process first, name the owner and exit criterion for each stage, and begin with a small number of low-risk administrative automations. Test normal and exception paths, document when a person must intervene, train the team, monitor the first weeks of use, and expand only after the record and escalation path work reliably.
Measure operating outcomes the firm can verify: time to first meaningful response, untouched inquiries, meaningful-contact rate, overdue next actions, consultation scheduling and completion, missing information at attorney review, disposition timing, retained-case handoff completeness, and automation failures requiring manual recovery. Compare the firm's own reporting periods rather than relying on an unsupported universal benchmark.