Law Firm Matter Automation: A Case Study in Intake-to-Close Efficiency

A 45-lawyer litigation firm in the US Southeast came to Akili Global with a familiar brief: matters were profitable on paper, but partners felt buried in coordination — intake handoffs, template selection, calendar entries, client "any update?" emails. Associates spent Friday nights on administration instead of drafts.

They did not need more lawyers. They needed matter automation that respected conflicts workflow, ethics walls and how litigators actually work. This case study walks through what we built and what changed.

Baseline pain points

• Average 41 hours from signed engagement to fully opened matter file
• Three different templates for the same engagement type depending on who opened the matter
• Client status requests consumed ~6 partner hours per week firm-wide
• Deadline tracking lived in paralegal spreadsheets outside practice management

Phase 1 — Intake and engagement

We connected web intake, CRM and practice management. Qualified leads auto-created conflict check tasks. Upon clearance, an engagement letter generated from matter-type templates with fee structure pulled from CRM. E-signature completion triggered matter creation, folder structure in the DMS and a welcome email sequence.

Results after 60 days

• Engagement-to-opened-matter time dropped from 41 hours to 14 hours median
• Template variance eliminated for four core engagement types
• Intake coordinator role redeployed to client experience, not copy-paste

Phase 2 — Document assembly and task templates

For recurring litigation milestones — initial disclosures, standard motions, client reporting — we built interview-style assembly: attorneys answer branching questions, system produces Word drafts from locked clause libraries. AI suggested first drafts; partners kept final authority.

Phase 3 — Client communication portal

Clients received proactive milestone updates pulled from practice management dates — not ad hoc emails. An AI layer drafted plain-language summaries; paralegals approved before send. Partner "status call" volume fell 38% in the first quarter post-launch.

Technology stack

• Practice management API as system of record
• Power Automate for orchestration and notifications
• SharePoint + iManage for documents
• Azure OpenAI for draft client updates and internal matter briefs
• Client portal on secure SharePoint with Entra external ID

Governance and training

Litigation partners sceptical of automation cared about malpractice exposure. We implemented review gates on every client-visible output, maintained human ownership of calendaring for court deadlines, and ran practice-group training with live matters — not slideshows.

Aggregate outcomes at month six

• 32% reduction in non-billable matter admin hours per matter
• 18% increase in matters per paralegal capacity
• Client satisfaction scores up 11 points on communication dimension
• No increase in malpractice incidents or write-offs attributable to automation

Lessons for other firms

1. Automate the repeatable spine of a matter before exotic AI experiments
2. Measure per matter, not firm-wide vanity metrics
3. Keep attorneys in the loop on anything client-facing
4. Phase releases so the floor staff are not overwhelmed

Matter automation is not glamorous. It is margin — and partner sanity. Firms of similar size can replicate this pattern starting with engagement workflow alone.