Legal Request Intake Workflow

How is this audited across the legal request lifecycle?

Every status transition—New, Triaged, Info Requested, In Progress, Closed—is timestamped and logged automatically within assess.one, creating a complete audit trail for each request. Legal operations teams can review who triaged, assigned, or actioned a request at any point without relying on email threads. This supports internal compliance reviews and external audit requests for legal matter governance.

Who has access to legal request records and outcomes?

Access is role-based and configured directly within assess.one, so only assigned lawyers, legal operations administrators, and designated reviewers can view or act on sensitive request details. Requesters typically see only their own submissions and closure notifications, preserving confidentiality. Permissions can be adjusted at any time as team structures or matter sensitivity change.

How does this integrate with our existing email and Slack tools?

Notifications such as requester closure alerts and information requests are configured within assess.one to send via email or Slack directly, with no third-party development work needed. Teams simply set up the integration inside the platform's notification settings. This keeps requesters informed without legal staff manually drafting status update messages.

How long does implementation take?

The template is ready to use and can be published within minutes, after which your legal team can begin processing live requests immediately. There is no multi-week rollout or IT project involved. Any customisation of steps, roles, or notification logic is done directly in the platform before or after go-live.

Can we customise the triage and prioritisation logic?

Yes, the AI prioritisation step, confidence thresholds, and manual review triggers can all be adjusted within assess.one to reflect your organisation's risk categories and escalation criteria. Legal operations administrators can edit assignment rules, add approval steps, or change routing logic without needing developer involvement. This allows the workflow to evolve as legal request volumes or policies change.

What happens if the AI prioritisation confidence is low?

When the AI prioritisation confidence falls below the configured threshold, the request is automatically routed to a manual triage review step rather than being auto-assigned. A designated reviewer then confirms or adjusts the priority and assignment before the request proceeds to a lawyer. This safeguard ensures ambiguous or high-risk requests always receive human oversight.

How are requests for additional information from the requester handled?

If the assigned lawyer determines more detail is needed, the workflow routes the request into an Info Requested status and automatically notifies the original requester. The request pauses in this state until the requester responds, at which point it returns to active work. This prevents requests from being actioned on incomplete information while keeping requesters clearly informed of what is needed.

Who is responsible for recording the final outcome and closure?

The assigned lawyer records the outcome directly within the request record as part of the 'Lawyer Works Request and Records Outcome' step, ensuring a consistent, structured closure record for every matter. Once persisted, the system automatically notifies the requester that their request has been closed. This ensures no request is closed without a documented resolution.

Is this workflow suitable for organisations with multiple legal teams or jurisdictions?

Yes, roles, assignment rules, and notification routing can all be configured per team or jurisdiction within assess.one, allowing multiple legal groups to use the same governed intake process with appropriate segregation. Administrators can scale the workflow to additional teams by adjusting permissions and routing logic rather than building separate systems.