Marketplace Pricing Download

Client Intake & Onboarding

Automate legal client intake and onboarding with Box MCP — review uploaded intake documents for completeness against firm requirements, assess risk levels based on client profile and document content (PEP status, conflicts, sanctions, litigation history), route incomplete or high-risk submissions to appropriate attorneys with context and risk summaries, extract structured metadata (client name, matter type, jurisdiction, value), and generate engagement letters from Box DocGen templates for approved low-risk clients. Use this skill when the user mentions client intake, client onboarding, new client review, intake documents, engagement letters, or needs to process prospective client submissions stored in Box.

ID: general.general.box-legal-workflows-intake Version: 0.1.0 License: MIT Author: box Language: en Added: 2026-06-01
⬇ Download

Client Intake & Onboarding

PREREQUISITES:

  • Read box:box for Box MCP auth, tool selection, base workflows. If missing, run: npx skills add https://github.com/box/box-for-ai --skill box
  • Read box-legal-workflows for risk frameworks, confidentiality, human-in-the-loop requirements, Box AI governance. If missing, ensure it's installed from the same skill package.

Legal client intake determines if the firm can and should take on a prospective client. This skill automates completeness checks, risk assessment, intelligent routing, and engagement letter generation.

Core principles: Completeness first, risk-based routing, transparent decisions, human oversight for high-risk.


Completeness & Risk Framework

Required Documents Checklist

[CONFIRM: What documents required for intake?]

Typical:

  • Client intake form (completed questionnaire)
  • Valid government ID (passport, driver's license)
  • Conflict check authorization
  • Source of funds documentation (certain practice areas)
  • Business entity documents (corporate: articles, operating agreement)

Optional/practice-specific:

  • Financial statements (bankruptcy, tax)
  • Prior legal proceedings (litigation)
  • Contracts or agreements (transactional)

Validation questions:

  1. Document present?
  2. Complete? (not blank, has expected info)
  3. Valid? (ID not expired, forms signed, dates current)

Risk Rating

[CONFIRM: Low/medium/high risk criteria for your firm?]

See box-legal-workflows for: General risk framework.

Low-risk: Individual client, standard matter, no litigation, clear funds, all docs complete, no conflicts, value below threshold.

High-risk: PEP, high-value, cross-border with sanctions, conflict identified, criminal with media, reputational risk.

Routing Logic

[CONFIRM: How to route intakes?]

Route based on:

  1. Practice area: Match matter to attorney expertise
  2. Risk level: Low → associate, Medium → senior, High → partner
  3. Workload: Current caseload if known
  4. Jurisdiction: Attorney bar admission
  5. Language: Attorney language capabilities

Example matrix:

Risk Route To Action
Low Auto-approve OR associate Generate engagement letter (if allowed)
Medium Senior attorney Add comment with risk summary
High Partner + Compliance Detailed analysis, block auto-processing
Incomplete Intake coordinator List missing documents

Tool Selection

Task Primary Tool Notes
List intake folder list_folder_content_by_folder_id Get all submission files
Review documents ai_qa_multi_file Completeness & validity
Extract data ai_extract_structured_from_fields_enhanced Name, matter, dates
Assess risk ai_qa_multi_file Multi-file risk analysis
Create summary upload_file Write summary doc
Write metadata set_file_metadata Record decision, risk, attorney
Tag for review create_file_comment Tag attorney with instructions
Grant access create_collaboration Give attorney access
Generate letter [CONFIRM: DocGen?] Need template access
Share with client add_folder_shared_link OR create_collaboration Provide client access

Implementation Workflow

Phase 1: Intake Review

  1. Authenticate: who_am_i
  2. [CONFIRM: Intake folder ID?]
  3. Inventory: list_folder_content_by_folder_id
  4. [CONFIRM: Map files to required checklist]
  5. Assess completeness: ai_qa_multi_file (questions for each doc)
  6. Extract info: [CONFIRM: Fields?]ai_extract_structured_from_fields_enhanced

Phase 2: Risk Assessment

  1. Risk analysis: ai_qa_multi_file (PEP, sanctions, conflicts, litigation, high value, inconsistencies)
  2. Assign rating: [CONFIRM: Match firm's criteria?]

Phase 3: Decision & Routing

  1. Determine action:

    • INCOMPLETE: [CONFIRM: Who follows up?]
    • HIGH RISK: [CONFIRM: Who reviews? Block auto-processing?]
    • MEDIUM RISK: [CONFIRM: Who based on practice area?]
    • LOW RISK: [CONFIRM: Auto-approve or needs review?]
  2. Save summary: upload_file (completeness, risk, factors, action)

  3. Write metadata: [CONFIRM: Template exists?]set_file_metadata

Phase 4: Routing & Collaboration

  1. Add comment: [CONFIRM: Who to tag?]create_file_comment
  2. Grant access: [CONFIRM: Permission level?]create_collaboration

Phase 5: Engagement Letter (If Low-Risk Auto-Approve)

  1. Generate letter: [CONFIRM: DocGen template ID?] → Use DocGen if available
  2. Save: upload_file
  3. Share: [CONFIRM: How? Expiration?]create_collaboration or add_folder_shared_link

Guardrails

See box-legal-workflows for: Human-in-the-loop requirements, confidentiality, Box AI governance.

Intake-specific:

ALWAYS confirm before:

  1. Auto-approving any client (even low-risk)
  2. Generating engagement letters without attorney review
  3. Sharing engagement letters with clients
  4. Assigning risk ratings
  5. Routing to specific attorneys
  6. Copying files to externally-accessible folders (if file was NOT already externally accessible)

CONFIRM if uncertain: 7. Document completeness (if missing docs or validity is ambiguous) 8. Extracted metadata (if values are unclear or contradictory)

Proceed autonomously when confident:

  • Writing metadata when extraction is clear and unambiguous
  • Copying/organizing intake files between folders (internal-only to internal-only, or external to external)
  • Creating intake summary reports
  • Extracting client information with high confidence
  • Assessing document completeness when criteria are clear

NEVER auto-approve without authorization:

  • High-risk clients
  • Matters above value threshold
  • Clients in sanctioned jurisdictions
  • Matters with conflicts
  • Any category requiring human review per firm policy

Decision transparency:

  • Document WHY (risk factors, missing docs)
  • Cite which documents reviewed
  • Record WHO decided (human or automated)
  • Timestamp
  • Make summary available to assigned attorney

Box AI usage:

  • Pace 1-2 seconds apart
  • Context: "Assessing risk for law firm intake. Identify red flags..."
  • Surface specific passages supporting assessment
  • Human attorney must review final decision

Example Workflows

Example 1: Complete Low-Risk

Request: "Review John Smith intake, ready to approve?"

Flow:

  1. [CONFIRM]: "Folder ID?"
  2. list_folder_content_by_folder_id
  3. Inventory: intake_form.pdf, drivers_license.jpg, conflict_check.pdf
  4. [CONFIRM]: "Required: form, ID, conflict check. All present. Assess?"
  5. ai_qa_multi_file: "Form complete? ID valid? Conflict check signed?"
  6. ai_extract_structured_from_fields_enhanced: name, matter, value, jurisdiction
  7. [CONFIRM]: "$5K estate planning - low-risk?"
  8. [CONFIRM]: "Auto-approve or route to Sarah?"
  9. Create summary, set_file_metadata, create_file_comment, create_collaboration
  10. Report: "Docs complete, low-risk. Routed to Sarah."

Example 2: Incomplete

Request: "Review Acme Corp, what's missing?"

Flow:

  1. Get folder ID
  2. list_folder_content_by_folder_id
  3. Inventory: intake_form.pdf, business_license.pdf
  4. [CONFIRM]: "Required: form, articles, operating agreement, officer ID, conflict check. Only have form and license. Confirm?"
  5. ai_qa_multi_file verify
  6. [CONFIRM]: "Missing: articles, agreement, ID, conflict check. Who follows up?"
  7. Create summary, metadata, comment, collaboration
  8. Report: "Incomplete. Missing 4 docs. Routed to Maria."

Example 3: High-Risk

Request: "Review International Trading LLC."

Flow:

  1. Get folder ID
  2. list_folder_content_by_folder_id
  3. [CONFIRM]: "Check PEP, sanctions, cross-border, high value?"
  4. ai_qa_multi_file: "Red flags? PEP? Cross-border? Sanctions jurisdictions? Value > $500K?"
  5. AI: "Cross-border OFAC country, $2M, former gov official (PEP)"
  6. [CONFIRM]: "HIGH RISK: OFAC, $2M, PEP. Partner + compliance. Who?"
  7. Create risk memo, metadata, comment, collaboration
  8. Report: "HIGH RISK. Routed to James + Rachel. Recommend sanctions screening."

Example 4: Low-Risk + Engagement Letter

Request: "Review Jane Doe, generate engagement letter if approved."

Flow:

  1. Complete Example 1 steps (completeness, risk)
  2. Determine: low-risk, complete
  3. [CONFIRM]: "Auto-approve for estate planning?"
  4. [CONFIRM]: "DocGen template ID?"
  5. Generate via DocGen OR [CONFIRM]: "DocGen unavailable. Draft or manual?"
  6. upload_file (save letter)
  7. [CONFIRM]: "Share with Jane? Collaboration or link?"
  8. create_collaboration, set_file_metadata
  9. Report: "Approved. Letter generated and shared."

Related Skills

GENERAL · general

Academic Bluebook Citation Skill

Citation formatting rules for law review articles using The Bluebook (21st ed.) academic style

diegosouzapw
GENERAL · general

Action Items from Client Alert

Use when the user provides a client alert, regulatory bulletin, law firm memo, or similar legal update and wants the time-sensitive action items, dea…

LegalQuants
GENERAL · general

Аналитическая справка

Создание профессиональных аналитических справок в формате DOCX. Использовать при запросах на создание аналитических справок, информационных записок, …

diegosouzapw
GENERAL · general

مصطلحات قانونية عربية

مصطلحات قانونية عربية — ترجم واشرح مصطلحات قانونية، ساعد في فهم العقود والمستندات القانونية بالعربي

Moshe-ship
GENERAL · general

Legal Article Summary

Generates structured 500-800 word summaries of legal articles distilling thesis, methodology, arguments, authorities, conclusions, and significance. …

CaseMark