Route internal legal requests to the right specialist
Turn a staff member’s request into a minimal structured intake, ask only the routing questions that matter, and prepare a handoff to the appropriate legal team.
How this works
Use this to help an employee find the right internal legal service. The assistant gathers the smallest set of facts needed to route the request, such as matter type, market, counterparty, deadline and existing matter reference. It prepares a handoff without answering the underlying legal question.
A routing directory is an operational resource and may be incomplete or stale. Preserve uncertainty when ownership overlaps, and follow a designated fallback for urgent or sensitive matters. Do not ask for extensive privileged material merely to classify a request. A local intake worksheet can substitute for an unavailable form or ticket connector.
Before you start
Approved legal directory
Obtain current team ownership, intake channels, coverage and an escalation contact.
Routing decision tree
Legal operations specifies the few questions that separate teams and any exception paths.
Disclosure boundaries
Know which details may be collected in the intake channel and where sensitive attachments belong.
Prepare the inputs
- employee_request
- Required
Short free-text request
Preserve the employee’s wording and separate facts from their interpretation.
- routing_rules
- Required
Versioned decision table or tree
Each branch must end in an accountable team or explicit unresolved route.
- team_directory
- Required
Roles, channels and coverage
Check freshness; do not infer availability from a person’s job title.
- matter_context
- Required
Deadline, market and existing reference if known
Unknown fields remain unknown; missing urgency is not routine priority.
Implementation, step by step
Identify the routing objective
- Summarize what the employee wants help with in plain language.
- Capture the deadline and existing matter number before requesting attachments.
Checkpoint: The request has a clear stated objective without a legal conclusion.
Ask discriminating questions
- Follow only the approved branches needed to distinguish likely teams.
- Explain why each missing fact matters and allow the employee to say they do not know.
Checkpoint: The intake contains enough information to apply the routing rule.
Apply the current directory
- Match the request to the approved subject, market and organizational coverage.
- If several teams fit, preserve candidate routes and use the designated legal-operations fallback.
Checkpoint: The recommendation names its rule and directory version.
Check exceptional handling
- Compare the stated circumstances with the supplied urgency or sensitivity criteria.
- Use the approved escalation path for uncertain high-priority requests rather than inventing legal advice.
Checkpoint: Time-critical and sensitive requests are clearly flagged for a human owner.
Prepare the handoff
- Create a compact packet with the request, known facts, deadline, missing information and proposed destination.
- Link permitted attachments in their approved location and avoid copying unnecessary sensitive details.
Checkpoint: The receiving team can understand why the matter was routed to them.
Capture routing feedback
- Record a legal-operations correction against the original rule when one is returned.
- Propose a directory or question-tree update for its owner; do not make an anecdote a universal rule.
Checkpoint: The workflow can improve without silently changing legal responsibilities.
Decisions along the way
The request asks for legal advice during intake
Preserve the question for counsel and continue only the facts needed to route it.
No current route fits
Send the recommendation to the designated fallback queue when authorized, or return a draft handoff.
What you will produce
legal-intake.json
JSONMinimal structured intake for legal operations.
Include: request · facts · deadline · market · matter_reference · missing_information
routing-handoff.md
MarkdownA routing recommendation, not a legal opinion.
Include: proposed_team · rule_basis · directory_version · urgency_flag · next_step
Check the result
- Verify the destination exists in the current approved directory.
- Check that deadlines retain timezone and source wording.
- Ensure the packet contains no unsupported legal classification or promise of response time.
- Confirm sensitive material is referenced only through permitted channels.
When something goes wrong
Named owner has left or is unavailable
Use the directory’s team fallback and flag the stale entry.
Employee cannot answer a routing question
Record the uncertainty and escalate to the intake owner instead of forcing a guessed answer.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: route a supplier request.
Inputs
An employee needs a contract amendment reviewed before Friday but is unsure whether procurement or privacy counsel owns it. The amendment introduces a data-processing clause.
Expected result
Capture market, deadline and existing matter reference; apply the approved branch for data-processing changes and prepare a handoff. Do not interpret the clause or approve it.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Replay anonymized historical intakes with known final owners and ambiguous cases.
Record the baseline
Measure rerouting frequency and repeated questions in the current queue.
Agree success criteria
Agree accuracy and minimal-data requirements with legal operations.
Stop or revise
Stop automated routing recommendations when the ownership directory is unverified or exception rules are missing.
Keep the scope clear
- Routing cannot establish privilege, legal compliance or a lawyer-client relationship.
- Creating the packet does not submit a ticket or contact a lawyer unless that action is authorized.
Check before using
Legal operations owns the routing rules; a lawyer decides legal merits, urgency and advice.
Business activities
- Deliver recurring client work
- Support and develop employees
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: employee request · routing rules · team directory · matter context
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow