Most firms we talk to are not short on inquiries. They are short on the hours between an inquiry arriving and someone qualified answering it, and that gap is where the good matters go to another firm.
Someone who just got hurt, arrested or served does not wait until Monday. They call the next firm on the list. The firms that win those matters are not better lawyers, they answered first.
A partner spends twenty minutes on a call that turns out to be outside the practice area or past the statute. Multiply by a week and you have lost billable days to screening.
The attorney who sends you two cases a quarter, the one who stopped six months ago and nobody noticed. Referral relationships are most firms' best channel and the least tracked.
Stock photo of a gavel, the word "aggressive", a list of practice areas. Nothing tells a person with a specific problem that you handle their specific problem.
An agent that answers the call or the form at any hour, captures the facts that decide whether it is your matter, checks the parties against your conflict list, and books the consultation. Anything that sounds like it needs advice stops and goes to a person immediately.
Which attorneys send you work, in what volume, and whether that flow is going up or down. Most firms discover a referral source went quiet six months late, when it is much harder to repair.
One page per practice area, written for how someone with that specific problem searches, not a bulleted list on a single services page. This is the single most common structural gap we find on firm websites.
Clients call because they do not know what is happening. A simple status view, fed from your case management system, removes a large share of those calls and reads as good service rather than as automation.
We build around your case management system instead of asking you to leave it. Migrating a firm off Clio to gain a feature is almost never worth what it costs in disruption.
It can gather facts, confirm the practice area and schedule a consultation. It cannot give legal advice, quote fees, or say anything a prospective client could reasonably read as forming a relationship. That line is where the system gets designed, and the escalation path to a human is the part we test hardest before anything goes live.
Automated intake can capture the parties involved and flag a potential conflict before a consultation gets booked, which is earlier than most firms catch it. The actual conflict determination stays with an attorney. What changes is that the information arrives structured instead of scattered through an email thread.
No, and we would push back if you wanted to. The systems that work sit alongside Clio or Filevine and feed them. Replacing the system of record in a working firm is a project with a lot of downside and very little upside.
They vary by state and they are specific about disclaimers, testimonials and outcome claims. We build to the rules of the states you practice in and route anything ambiguous to your ethics counsel before it publishes.
Tell us which part is costing you the most right now. If the answer is something you can fix without hiring us, we'll say that on the call.
Tell us what you need and we'll get back to you. No commitment, no sales pitch.
Salomon Web Services