Clients tell it once, in their own words.
A guided flow lets clients answer in plain language, add documents, and return later. The result is a review queue of proposed events with dates and sources attached.
What the record surfaces
Illustrative
- Timeline
- Evidence
- Conflicts
- Tasks
People do not remember in chronological order.
Clients may describe complex or sensitive events in fragments. They start in the middle, forget dates, mention a person once and never again, and reference documents that have not been collected.
A static intake form does not fix this, because it cannot ask the next question. It collects whatever the client thought to write down and stops.
- Dates arrive as “early last year,” not as 03/14
- People get mentioned without a relationship or contact
- Documents are referenced but never attached
- The same question gets asked again weeks later
Raw client answer
“A debt collector came to my family home and threatened my brother and mother after I left.”
What the system asks next
- What date did this happen?
- Who was present?
- What exactly did the collector say?
- Was there any written notice?
- Can your brother provide a notarized affidavit?
Follow-up rules your team can inspect.
The system suggests follow-ups from explicit gaps in an answer. The firm can review the rule and decide whether the question belongs in its template.
A date is missing
Ask for a month or an approximate period rather than forcing a precise date the client does not have.
A person is mentioned
Ask their relationship to the client and how they can be reached.
A threat is described
Ask for the exact words used and whether anyone witnessed it.
A document is referenced
Create an upload task instead of hoping it arrives later.
Harassment of family is described
Suggest a request for a family statement, subject to the firm’s review.
A fact has no support
Flag it as a gap on the evidence checklist and surface it to the paralegal.
Built for people who have never filled out a legal form.
Plain-language answers
Free text, in the client’s own words, with no legal vocabulary required and no formatting rules to get wrong.
Dates they actually know
Exact, approximate, a range, or unknown. The uncertainty is recorded rather than papered over.
People and places
Who was involved and where it happened, captured as records that can be linked to other events.
Documents
Uploads attached to the event they relate to, so nothing arrives as an unlabelled file.
Save and resume
Long stories do not have to be told in one sitting. Progress is kept between sessions.
A clear checklist
The checklist shows what is still outstanding without requiring the client to reconstruct prior requests.
Attribution is preserved
The data model records whether a question came from the system, a template, a paralegal, or an attorney. Answers stay linked to the proposed events they produced so a reviewer can return to the source wording.
Where this leads next.
Evaluate the guided interview on a representative matter.
Use a synthetic or fully redacted matter to review the proposed questions, events, sources, and handoff with your legal team.