The law practice management platform Filevine today launched an enhancement to its Lead Docket lead intake tool that uses artificial intelligence to generate summaries of the key details of incoming leads and that help predict which leads are good matches for a law firm and which should be referred elsewhere.
The new feature, LeadsAI, generates a summary of all the information provided in a lead intake form, including lead details, message correspondence, and notes, Filevine says, enabling attorneys to get a quick and accurate summarization of the details important to the firm.
According to Filevine, features of LeadsAI include:
- Lead Summarization: This feature uses AI to synthesize relevant data points from a lead, so a firm can quickly review the major details. For a personal injury lead, for example, a summary will include the incident, injury, contact information, pain points, and current state of the case.
- Message Summarization: LeadsAI can use sentiment analysis to summarize the tone of communications between the intake professional and the potential client. In this way, Filevine says, firms can better understand engagement patterns and identify opportunities to refine their outreach.
- Notes Summarization: LeadsAI can generate consolidated timelines of all activities related to a lead, saving firms from having to sort through emails, calendars, and status reports.
LeadAI also includes a predictive analysis tool that can help firms evaluate potential cases to determine whether or not representation is advised, Filevine says. Filevine says it uses proprietary data to predict whether a new lead or case should be signed, referred out, or rejected.
As it is released today, the tool is trained only on motor vehicle accident cases, but Filevine says it will eventually expand its scope to be useful for firms that handle large volumes of cases in personal injury, mass tort or class action litigation.
Link to the rest at Lawsites
PG’s contacts within the larger legal community have atrophied to some extent since he took down his shingle. That said, he wonders if the OP describes a solution searching for a problem.
At least in the United States, clients usually come to lawyers in two ways:
They contact an attorney’s office and either:
- 1. make an appointment to see an attorney (90%) or
- 2. have a short phone discussion with an attorney so the attorney can determine if this is something he/she handles and respond accordingly (10%).
For PG, the face-to-face meeting was best, because, in addition to hearing about the prospective client’s legal concerns and deciding if it was a matter he could/would handle, it allowed PG to determine if the prospective client was a crazy person.
To be clear, the very large majority of those who contacted PG to talk about representation were perfectly normal individuals who needed some legal help. In PG’s experience, this was the case for other attorneys as well. The general populace does not produce a large number of crazy people. (Reasonable minds may differ on this topic.)
That said, PG could sometimes be fooled. “Fools can be so ingenious.”
On those few occasions when a crazy person did slip through PG’s vetting process, more than a few ended up (with identities fully protected and when PG was at least 300 miles from home) as PG’s most popular war stories shared with other attorneys only.
PG’s cats and copperheads case was one of his most popular war stories.