AI agents for the work between client and attorney.
MatterGraph keeps the factual work moving after a client signs. Focused agents ask what is missing, build a sourced chronology, track evidence, and prepare a reviewable handoff while your attorneys keep legal judgment and control.
An illustrative matter. Client statement supports Rear-end collision on I-10. Police report supports Rear-end collision on I-10. Witness statement supports Rear-end collision on I-10. Client statement supports Physical therapy begins. Medical record supports Physical therapy begins. Text messages and the record disagree: Timing conflict. Police report and the record disagree: Timing conflict. Wage loss undocumented: nothing yet supports Physical therapy begins. Wage loss undocumented created the task: Request employer wage letter.
An agentic intake and fact-development preview for law firms
The lead converted. The case facts are still scattered.
Intake systems capture the contact, qualify the lead, and open the matter. The client’s usable factual record still arrives in fragments across calls, email, messages, and documents, and the legal team has to rebuild it before substantive case work can begin. That unfinished middle is the gap MatterGraph’s agents are designed to fill.
Result
- Important facts stay buried in correspondence
- Conflicts surface late in review
- Document requests are repeated because status is unclear
- Email threads
- Phone calls
- Messaging apps
- Scanned PDFs
- Scattered notes
- Repeated follow-ups
One paragraph from a client becomes a working record.
Nothing here is invented. Every line on the right was read out of the words on the left, and each one keeps a pointer back to the sentence it came from.
Early March, a Tuesday I think. I had just left the office when a truck rear-ended me at the light on I-10. My neck has been hurting since. I have the police report, and I think my dashcam caught part of it. It happened right as I left, maybe 5:15. My manager knows I have missed work for physical therapy.
Every line, traced back to the words it came from
- Date recorded as approximate
- Rear-end collision on I-10
- Police report and dashcam attached
- Physical therapy begins
- Timing conflict raised
- Wage loss has no support
- Task: request employer wage letter
Six AI agents keep the matter moving between client and attorney.
Once a client signs, the factual work should not stall between calls, inboxes, and review queues. MatterGraph’s agents each own one narrow step: interview, chronology, evidence, consistency, follow-up, or summary. Reliability comes from source links, limited actions, and a named human review gate at every consequential handoff.
01 / Interview agent
Asks for the next missing detail in the client’s own words.
Produces
Structured answers
Human gate
Firm interview template
The next gap gets handled
The interview stays available when the client is ready, picks up where they stopped, and asks only what is still missing.
Every agent has one job
Narrow roles, limited tools, and explicit handoffs make each output easier for your team to inspect and control.
Attorneys get a sourced handoff
Events, gaps, uploads, and replies reach one reviewable record with a pointer back to where each item came from.
Six agents, one matter
Follow one synthetic matter through each agent. Pick one to see its steps and its draft.
Interview agent
Runs the guided interview once the client has signed.
The client tells the story once, on their own time, and each question follows from what they have already said.
- Asks what happened, in the client’s own words
- Notices the time of the collision is only an estimate
- Asks one follow-up instead of sending a new form
- Saves progress so the client can stop and resume
- Hands to
- Structured answers to the timeline agent
- Gate
- Runs inside the firm’s interview template
Intake assistant for your firm. Not a lawyer.
Progress saved. The client can close this and come back later.
Agentic work, attorney-controlled.
Every agent works the same way: it proposes, a named person on your team reviews, and only then does the record change. Legal judgment, wording and final use stay with your attorneys.
- 01
The agent drafts
An event, a flag, a question or a summary, with its source attached.
- 02
Your team reviews
Approve, edit or reject. Client-facing and external steps always wait for a person.
- 03
The record updates
The decision is kept with the fact, so anyone can see who approved what.
An agentic handoff from client to attorney.
AI agents carry the factual work across intake, chronology, evidence, and follow-up. Sources remain attached and consequential steps wait for your team, so legal judgment and final use stay with the firm.
- 01
The client tells their story
A guided interview in plain language. Dates, people, locations and documents go in at the client’s own pace, with the option to pause and return.
- 02
Focused agents work the gaps
Interview, timeline, evidence, and follow-up agents propose the next useful step, with a source attached and every output kept editable.
- 03
The attorney receives the handoff
Paralegals work the follow-up list. Attorneys verify the sourced chronology, resolve open questions, and decide how the reviewed record is used.
One record, read four ways.
Each view answers a different working question. All four read from the same structured matter, so nothing has to be kept in sync by hand.
Matters
Martinez, C.
Personal injury, auto collision
Okonkwo, A.
Employment, wrongful termination
Patel, R.
Family, custody modification
Views
Martinez, Carlos
Personal injury, auto collision
Rear-end collision on I-10
Downtown exit ramp
Client struck from behind while stopped at a red light. Responding officer filed a report at the scene, and dashcam footage partially captured the impact.
Physical therapy begins for neck injury
Client, ongoing treatment
Twice-weekly physical therapy. Employer aware of missed work days. Full medical file still pending from the provider.
Wage-loss documentation needed
Employer payroll department
Employer wage statement needed to corroborate lost income during recovery. Requested, not yet received.
How a fact earns its place in the file.
A client's recollection and an attorney-confirmed fact are not the same thing. MatterGraph keeps that difference on the record instead of flattening it into content.
Client stated
Document supported
Witness supported
Attorney confirmed
disputed
Two sources say different things. The conflict is on the record and routed for review rather than quietly resolved.
missing_support
Nothing corroborates this yet. It becomes an evidence gap, a client checklist item, and a task at the same time.
This structure makes gaps and conflicts visible. The system can show which document a fact still needs and place two inconsistent sources next to each other for review. See it on the timeline.
One matter, one graph.
The views are four windows onto the same structure. Underneath them, every source is attached to the fact it supports, every fact sits in order, and everything unresolved stays visible instead of being smoothed away.
Follow the event back to the actual record. The original document stays one connection away from the fact it supports.
Police reportThe responding officer’s report records a rear-end collision on I-10.
- 01 / Sources
Statements, records and files as they arrive.
- 02 / Facts and events
Ordered, dated, and carrying their support.
- 03 / Conflicts
Where two sources disagree, kept on the record.
- 04 / Follow-up
Work created by what is still missing.
Agents connect the work. People keep their roles.
Clients tell the story, focused agents structure and advance the factual work, paralegals supervise the gaps, and attorneys control legal judgment and final use.
Client
A guided experience that does not require legal vocabulary.
- Tell your story in plain language while the system proposes the structure
- Clear checklist of exactly what documents you still need to provide
- See which details and documents the firm still needs
Paralegal
Structured intake, clear tasks, and visibility across assigned matters.
- Structured intake from day one, with less re-keying from client emails
- Suggested tasks surfaced from missing evidence and follow-up needs
- Send targeted follow-up questions rather than the same intake form again
Attorney
A review-ready chronology with its sources and open questions attached.
- Chronological timeline with date confidence levels and linked evidence
- Conflicting details appear side by side for attorney review
- Export a draft declaration or case memo after reviewing the source record
Wherever the facts arrive a fragment at a time.
The structure underneath is not specific to any practice area. What changes is the intake template, and which gaps hurt most when they surface late.
The same workflow may also fit landlord-tenant disputes, debt collection, criminal defense mitigation, and other chronology-heavy intake. See all practice areas.
Personal injury
Incident and treatment chronologies, with medical and wage-loss records linked to the events they support.
Employment
A pattern of incidents over months, each with its own witnesses and written records.
Family law
Contested accounts where a clear chronology helps counsel compare statements against supporting records.
Immigration
Story-heavy matters where dates, affidavits and country conditions all have to line up.
Reliable agents need clear boundaries.
Reliability does not come from letting one model do everything. MatterGraph limits each agent to a narrow job, preserves its sources, and keeps legal judgment, review, and control with the firm.
Read the security and data-handling status, including the current pilot boundary, required product controls, and review process.
- Organized facts, not legal advice
- MatterGraph organizes facts. It does not provide legal advice.
- No legal theory, no filing
- It does not determine legal merit, choose a legal theory, or produce a filing.
- Drafts, not decisions
- Timelines, summaries and follow-up questions stay suggestions until someone reviews them.
- Everything stays editable
- Nothing is locked. Every proposed record is editable by the firm.
- Attorney review required
- Attorney review is required before any output is used in a legal proceeding.
- Every fact keeps its source
- Every fact keeps a pointer back to the answer or document it came from.
- Start without live client data
- A pilot can be evaluated on synthetic or fully redacted matters before any production data decision.
The things firms ask first.
Use the law firm client intake checklist, read the independent guide for preparing facts for a lawyer, or see more on privilege, accuracy, and data ownership.
Ready to see it on one of your matters?
Evaluate the workflow end to end before deciding whether it belongs in your firm.
What goes in
Fragmented client information
Calls, email, messages, scanned documents, and an account told out of order across several sittings.
What comes out
A structured, sourced, reviewable record
A dated chronology, evidence linked to the facts it supports, conflicts held open, and follow-up work that names the gap that created it.
What the firm keeps
Legal judgment and final control
Attorney review is required before any output is used in a legal proceeding.
A pilot can be evaluated on synthetic or fully redacted matters before any production data decision. Tell us a little about the firm and we will follow up.