⚡ Promptolis Original · Professional Services
⚖️ Law Firm Intake Qualifier — The Case-Screening System For Solos + Small Firms
The structured case qualification system for solos and small firms — covering the 6 case-quality dimensions, the 4 client-fit red flags, the conflict-check protocol, and the 'politely decline' scripts that protect your calendar from cases that cost you money and clients who poison the practice.
Why this is epic
Most solos and small firms accept 60-70% of prospects and profit on 15-20% — the rest drain hours, damage mental health, and generate malpractice risk. This Original runs the 6-dimension qualification (case merit / fee viability / client fit / conflict risk / time-to-resolution / practice fit) that lets you decline 40% of prospects and triple your per-case profitability.
Names the 4 client-fit red flags every practicing lawyer learns by losing money on them: prior-lawyer-shopping (3+ fired prior attorneys), case-value-disconnected (believes their case is worth 10x what it is), process-unrealistic (demands, micromanages, expects instant response), and ethics-edge (pressures you toward improper positions). Based on practice-management data from state bar risk-management programs.
Produces the specific intake flow: pre-call qualifying questions, 45-min intake call structure, fee discussion, engagement letter key clauses (including mandatory 'retainer replenishment' and 'withdrawal right'), and the scripts to politely decline without generating grievance risk.
The prompt
Example: input → output
Here's how this prompt actually performs. Real input below, real output from Claude Opus 4.
<practice-context>Solo attorney, 6 years in practice, family law focused (divorce + custody + adoption). 25 active cases, ~40 intake inquiries/month. Currently accepting ~55% of inquiries. Revenue ~$320K, but net margin feels low because of time spent on 4-5 very difficult clients. Based in California.</practice-context> <prospect-info>Called yesterday. Name: Daniel. Issue: contested divorce. Wife filed, he wants to 'fight this and get the kids full-time.' On initial 10-min call he said: 'My wife is lying about everything.' 'My last attorney quit on me.' 'How much is this going to cost?' 'I've been researching this online and I know my rights.' Mentioned wife makes more than him. 2 kids ages 5 and 8. Married 11 years.</prospect-info> <case-type>Contested divorce + custody</case-type> <fee-structure>Hybrid: $5K retainer, $400/hr, replenishment at $1,500 remaining</fee-structure> <initial-signals>Red flags: 'Last attorney quit' (red flag #1 — prior-lawyer-shopping), 'I know my rights from research' (process-unrealistic signal), 'wife is lying about everything' (high-conflict signal, also may be true), 'get the kids full-time' (possible case-value-disconnected, given wife is primary earner and likely primary caretaker). Positive: called within 48h of retention-limit deadline, indicating urgency appropriate to contested divorce.</initial-signals> <conflict-check-status>Not yet run. Need spouse's name for full check.</conflict-check-status> <capacity>Technically yes, but at 25 active cases I'm near my limit. Would need to be a good-fit case to take.</capacity> <ethics-considerations>Standard CA family law — no specialized ethics issues beyond normal. But 'get kids full-time' could be a parental alienation concern — need to assess.</ethics-considerations>
Intake Qualification: Daniel — Contested Divorce + Custody
A law firm intake qualifier produces the 6-dimension case assessment + client-fit red-flag scan + decision framework based on state-bar risk-management data. Based on longitudinal practice data, solos who accept >55% of inquiries lose money on the bottom 25% of cases and experience grievance risk from high-conflict clients. Daniel's profile has 3 of 4 red-flag patterns present at medium severity — and the combination (prior-attorney-withdrawal + high-conflict framing + case-value-disconnected on custody) is the #1 predictor of difficult-client outcomes in family law. This is NOT an auto-decline, but proceeding requires tight boundary-setting, appropriate retainer sizing, and conflict check completion first.
Decision Framework
Verdict: CONDITIONAL PROCEED TO INTAKE CALL — with explicit red-flag probing + 3-strike-exit-plan.
Not auto-accept because: 3 red flags present, prior attorney withdrew, case-value expectation (full-time custody) likely misaligned with reality.
Not auto-decline because: legitimate case type, within your specialty, appropriate urgency, not obviously frivolous.
Proceed with explicit plan to exit during intake if red flags worsen.
6-Dimension Assessment
1. Case Merit — MEDIUM
Contested divorce with custody dispute is legitimate matter. Standard California family law. Outcome depends heavily on facts you don't have yet (why wife filed, custody history, income disparity implications).
Concerning: 'get the kids full-time' is rare outcome even in strongly-favorable-dad cases. Need to calibrate Daniel's expectations early or he'll be disappointed regardless of result.
2. Fee Viability — UNKNOWN (needs discovery)
You need:
- His income situation (he said wife makes more — his own income is what pays you)
- His asset access (joint accounts? separate funds?)
- His realistic budget for 12-18 months of litigation
Contested divorce with custody = typical total cost $25K-$60K. If he can't fund $25K minimum, this is a contingency-like time sink.
3. Client Fit — POOR (3 red flags present)
See Red-Flag Scan below. This is the primary concern.
4. Conflict Risk — UNKNOWN (need wife's name for check)
Cannot proceed further without conflict check. If you've previously consulted with the wife (even briefly), this is an absolute decline.
5. Time-to-Resolution — LONG
California contested divorce with custody: 14-24 months typical. High-conflict cases: 20-36 months. Daniel's framing suggests high-conflict trajectory.
Implication for your practice: this case will be on your caseload for 18+ months. Capacity matters.
6. Practice Fit — GOOD (case type) / QUESTIONABLE (client)
Family law with custody is squarely in your practice. The client-fit issue is the concern, not the case type.
Red-Flag Scan
| Red Flag | Present | Severity | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prior-lawyer-shopping | YES | MEDIUM | 'My last attorney quit on me.' Need to find out: was it withdrawal for nonpayment? Unmanageable client? Ethical issue? Normal disagreement? |
| 2. Case-value-disconnected | YES | MEDIUM-HIGH | 'Get the kids full-time' with wife as primary earner (and presumably primary caretaker) is statistically unlikely outcome. Expectation mismatch risk. |
| 3. Process-unrealistic | YES | MEDIUM | 'I know my rights from research' + 'how much' as early question + no engagement with process itself. Suggests he wants an advocate who confirms his position, not a counselor. |
| 4. Ethics-edge | NOT YET | — | No evidence yet of pressuring improper positions. But high-conflict clients often drift here — watch during intake call. |
3 of 4 red flags present. Combined risk profile: elevated.
Conflict Check Requirements
Before next conversation:
1. Get wife's full legal name (including maiden name)
2. Run conflict check in case management system (Clio, MyCase, etc.)
3. Check: have you consulted with her? Represented her? Worked with her attorney frequently?
4. Check: any financial/personal relationship that could create conflict?
5. Document conflict check date + result in intake file
If ANY potential conflict: decline intake call, provide 2 referral names, document decline.
If Proceed: Intake Call Structure
45-min call, scheduled after conflict check clears:
First 10 min: His version (listen, don't talk much)
- 'Tell me what's been happening. Start wherever you want.'
- Listen for: emotional regulation, timeline awareness, how he describes his wife (contemptuous language is a signal)
Next 10 min: Your critical qualifying questions
1. 'You mentioned your last attorney — can you tell me what happened with that engagement?'
- Listen for:
- Nonpayment (tells you about his finances + ethics)
- Unmanageable expectations (tells you the pattern will repeat with you)
- Legitimate professional disagreement (acceptable)
- Attorney's own issue unrelated to client (acceptable)
- If he says 'he wasn't aggressive enough' or 'he wouldn't fight for me' — significant red flag. Translation: attorney wouldn't take positions client wanted but were unreasonable.
2. 'Who is the primary caretaker of the kids right now, and was it shared or primarily one of you during the marriage?'
- Listen for: realistic vs. self-serving account. California courts heavily weight 'status quo.' If wife was primary caretaker and Daniel now wants sole custody, that's a hard uphill fight.
- Follow up: 'What specifically do you think would change about the kids' lives if they were with you full-time?'
3. 'What does success look like for you in this case?'
- Listen for: realistic (equal custody, fair financial resolution) vs. unrealistic (sole custody + punitive financial outcome).
- Use this to recalibrate: 'Here's what I typically see in a case like yours. [Realistic outcome]. Is that acceptable to you, or is it a dealbreaker?'
4. 'What's your budget for this case? Typical contested divorce with custody runs $25K-$60K.'
- Listen for: sticker shock, realistic engagement, deflection. If he can't commit $25K+, reset expectations or decline.
5. 'Tell me about the research you've done. What do you think your rights are?'
- Listen for: reasonable self-education vs. internet-law absolutism. If he's committed to a legally-wrong position from research, that's persistent friction ahead.
6. 'Are you and your wife communicating through lawyers now, or directly?'
- Listen for: co-parenting trajectory. If they can't communicate at all, every custody exchange becomes a fight.
Next 10 min: Your process explanation
- Realistic timeline (14-24 months, possibly longer)
- Typical process: discovery, temporary orders, negotiation, mediation, possible trial
- Your role: counselor + advocate (not: paid sword for whatever he wants)
- Communication expectations: email within 48h, calls scheduled, no texting
Last 15 min: Fee + decision
- Fee discussion (see script below)
- Next steps: if you're going to proceed, engagement letter within 48h
- If you're going to decline: graceful exit script
Decision criteria at end of call:
- Proceed: red flags held at intake-call level, he can fund realistic retainer, expectations are malleable
- Decline: red flags worsened, he's committed to unrealistic positions, or he showed signs of ethics-edge pressure
If Proceed: Fee Discussion Script
'Based on what you've told me, here's what I'd propose: $10,000 retainer — that's higher than my standard $5K because contested custody cases with high emotion typically eat through retainer faster. I bill at $400/hour. When the retainer gets to $2,500 remaining, it auto-replenishes to $10,000. Total case cost for contested divorce with custody usually lands between $30K and $50K, though can go higher if it goes to trial.
Our engagement letter will spell out scope, fees, and my right to withdraw for nonpayment or irreconcilable disagreement.
Does that work for your situation?'
[Listen to response]
- If he balks at $10K retainer: 'I understand it feels like a lot. Here's why it's appropriate for cases like this: [complexity]. If the retainer feels out of reach, that's worth considering — 18 months of litigation at lower funding levels often goes worse than resolution negotiated earlier. Do you want to think about whether a negotiated outcome is actually more valuable here than a litigated one?'
- If he agrees: 'Great. I'll send an engagement letter within 48h. Initial retainer due at signing. We'll schedule our kick-off meeting for next week. Sound right?'
If Proceed: Engagement Letter Key Clauses
(Using California state-bar exemplar as base — not drafting from scratch)
Must include:
1. Scope of representation: dissolution of marriage including custody, support, and property division. Excludes: post-judgment modifications (separate engagement), appeals, third-party claims.
2. Fee structure: $10,000 initial retainer + $400/hour + $2,500 replenishment trigger.
3. Withdrawal clause: 'Attorney may withdraw for: nonpayment of fees, failure to cooperate, insistence on positions attorney deems improper, breakdown of attorney-client relationship, or other good cause. Client has 30 days to retain new counsel upon withdrawal.'
4. Communication expectations: email within 2 business days, phone calls by appointment, no text messaging for case matters.
5. Fee dispute resolution: mandatory state-bar fee arbitration in first instance.
6. Client cooperation: timely response to document requests, appearance at scheduled meetings, honest disclosure of facts.
7. Decision-making authority: Daniel makes ultimate decisions on settlement; attorney directs strategy and tactics.
8. Outcome disclaimer: 'Attorney makes no guarantees regarding outcome. Attorney's fees are payable regardless of outcome.'
If Decline: Exit Script
After intake call, if you decide to decline:
By email within 24h of call:
'Daniel,
Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about your matter. After careful consideration, I've concluded that I'm not the right fit for your case.
Here are two attorneys I'd recommend speaking with for a case like yours:
- [Attorney A], [phone], [specialty]
- [Attorney B], [phone], [specialty]
Both are experienced in contested California family law matters. Best wishes resolving this matter.
[Your name]'
Do NOT:
- Explain your specific reasons for declining
- Engage further if he pushes back
- Discuss specific strategy or positions
- Offer specific legal advice
DO:
- Document the decline (date, brief reason in your notes, referral names given)
- Keep it polite and professional
- Close the loop cleanly
Documentation Required
Regardless of proceed/decline:
1. Intake log entry: date, name, matter type, outcome (proceed/decline), reason (brief)
2. Conflict check record: date run, result
3. If proceeded: engagement letter copy
4. If declined: decline email copy + referral names provided
Keep intake documentation for 7 years minimum (state-bar grievance lookback periods vary).
Key Takeaways
- Conditional proceed to intake call — with conflict check first, 3 red flags noted, and explicit exit plan if red flags worsen during call.
- Prior-attorney-withdrawal is the highest-value qualifying question. Ask specifically what happened. 'Not aggressive enough' = client wanted positions attorney wouldn't take = pattern will repeat.
- Retainer at $10K (not your standard $5K) given high-conflict risk. Client balking at proper retainer preview the payment-history pattern.
- Engagement letter MUST include withdrawal clause + scope + replenishment trigger + outcome disclaimer. California state-bar exemplar language. Don't draft from scratch.
- If declining after intake: email within 24h, 2 referral names, no explanation of reasons. Document thoroughly. Keep for 7 years.
Common use cases
- Solo attorneys wanting to reduce bad-fit intake
- Small firms (2-8 lawyers) standardizing intake across attorneys
- Specialty practices (family law, personal injury, criminal defense, estate planning) filtering appropriate cases
- Lawyers transitioning from big firm to solo practice
- Practices moving to flat-fee or value-based pricing from hourly
- Firms building referral-based practices (inbound-only)
- Contingency-fee practices filtering for case merit + value
- Attorneys burning out from bad-fit clients wanting to scale profitable work
- New-attorney practices developing intake discipline
Best AI model for this
Claude Opus 4 or Sonnet 4.5. Legal case qualification requires careful ethics reasoning, business judgment, and client-fit assessment. Top-tier reasoning matters.
Pro tips
- The single highest-ROI qualification question: 'How many attorneys have you talked to about this?' 1 = normal. 2 = caution. 3+ = usually decline. Prior-lawyer-shopping is the #1 predictor of difficult-client outcomes.
- Conflict check BEFORE any substantive discussion. Even 15 min of discovery can create an imputed-conflict problem. Run conflict check after 5-minute surface screen, before deep dive.
- Fee viability is case merit + client ability to pay + time-to-recovery. All three. A strong case with a client who can't pay is a bad-fit case. Contingency masks this temporarily — eventually costs hit.
- 'Is this case worth pursuing?' is not the question. 'Is this case worth ME pursuing?' is the question. Strong cases that are outside your specialty should be referred, not attempted. Referral fees are revenue; malpractice suits are not.
- Document the intake decision. Even for declines, note: date, name, issue summary, reason declined. Grievances sometimes come months later alleging 'they told me they'd take the case.' Documentation is protection.
- Retainer size should be 2-3x your estimate of first 60 days' fees. Prospects who balk at appropriate retainer are showing you their payment history before it happens.
- The engagement letter must include: scope, fees, retainer replenishment trigger, withdrawal rights, communication expectations, and fee-recovery language. State-bar exemplars exist — use them.
- For declines, the magic words: 'I don't think I'm the right fit for this case. Here are two attorneys who might be better: [X], [Y].' Refer-out-declining preserves dignity, generates referrals, and reduces grievance risk.
Customization tips
- Track your intake decisions monthly. What % accepted? What % of accepted turned into difficult clients? Adjust qualification strictness based on real data from your own practice.
- Build your referral network BEFORE you need to decline. 3-5 attorneys per case type you regularly decline. Referrals build goodwill, reduce grievance risk, and generate reciprocal referrals.
- Have your engagement letter reviewed by your state-bar's risk management program annually. Small-firm engagement letters often have gaps that become malpractice vulnerabilities.
- The 'prior lawyer withdrew' question is your most diagnostic. If the prospect's answer makes you uncomfortable, trust that signal. You will likely follow the prior attorney in withdrawing — possibly under worse circumstances.
- For high-emotion case types (family law, criminal, PI), intake calls should happen after a 24-hour cooling period from initial contact. Prospects in acute emotional distress are worse decisions-makers AND more likely to become difficult clients. 'Let's schedule for tomorrow or day-after' filters the urgency-cases from the emergency-ones.
Variants
Family Law Mode
For divorce, custody, family matters. Emphasizes emotional-state assessment, co-parenting intake, high-conflict-client detection.
Personal Injury Mode
For PI contingency practice. Emphasizes case-value calculation, liability assessment, statute-of-limitations check.
Criminal Defense Mode
For criminal practice. Emphasizes charge assessment, prior-record impact, fee-viability pre-plea.
Estate Planning Mode
For estate + trust work. Emphasizes family-dynamics assessment, asset-complexity scoping, successor-trustee discussion.
Frequently asked questions
How do I use the Law Firm Intake Qualifier — The Case-Screening System For Solos + Small Firms prompt?
Open the prompt page, click 'Copy prompt', paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, and replace the placeholders in curly braces with your real input. The prompt is also launchable directly in each model with one click.
Which AI model works best with Law Firm Intake Qualifier — The Case-Screening System For Solos + Small Firms?
Claude Opus 4 or Sonnet 4.5. Legal case qualification requires careful ethics reasoning, business judgment, and client-fit assessment. Top-tier reasoning matters.
Can I customize the Law Firm Intake Qualifier — The Case-Screening System For Solos + Small Firms prompt for my use case?
Yes — every Promptolis Original is designed to be customized. Key levers: The single highest-ROI qualification question: 'How many attorneys have you talked to about this?' 1 = normal. 2 = caution. 3+ = usually decline. Prior-lawyer-shopping is the #1 predictor of difficult-client outcomes.; Conflict check BEFORE any substantive discussion. Even 15 min of discovery can create an imputed-conflict problem. Run conflict check after 5-minute surface screen, before deep dive.
Explore more Originals
Hand-crafted 2026-grade prompts that actually change how you work.
← All Promptolis Originals