See how MatterGraph fits your intake workflow.
Evaluate the full workflow with a representative synthetic or fully redacted matter, alongside the product team.
Pilot request
Tell us about your firm.
Share your practice area and who handles intake today. We aim to reply within two business days.
What a pilot actually looks like.
A bounded evaluation with the scope agreed before it begins.
- Step 01
A short setup conversation
We map your practice area, who handles intake today, and where information changes hands. The goal is to decide whether the workflow is relevant before configuring anything.
ScopingNo live data - Step 02
One matter, synthetic or redacted
You choose a representative synthetic case or a fully redacted closed matter. We set it up with an intake template reviewed for your practice area.
No live client data - Step 03
Run the intake end to end
Someone plays the client through the guided interview. The system builds the timeline, requests evidence, flags what is inconsistent, and generates the task board from the gaps.
Guided interviewTimelineTasks - Step 04
An attorney reviews the output
The question we care about: does this chronology match how you actually think through a case? Would this have saved review time, or created new work?
Attorney session - Step 05
A paralegal works the board
Separately, because paralegals and attorneys judge this on completely different criteria. Is the task list what you would have written yourself?
Paralegal session - Step 06
Compare it with your workflow
Tell us where the workflow fits, where it needs adjustment, and which parts would be useful to your team.
Feedback
What each side contributes.
A working evaluation
A representative matter run through the agreed workflow, direct access to the product team, and written scope before the evaluation begins.
Practical feedback from real users
One attorney session, one paralegal session, and candid feedback about what fits your process and what should change.
What a pilot can measure
Potential measures include intake time, missing-document discovery, repeated follow-ups, attorney confidence in the chronology, paralegal confidence in the task board, and useful conflicts surfaced before final review. The firm and product team agree on the relevant measures before the evaluation.