New business intake has a quiet way of becoming the most important process nobody quite owns. It sits between the new business team, the fee earners, operations and IT, touching all of them and reporting cleanly to none. That isn’t a flaw in any one firm, it’s just the nature of the work. Intake grows up around the firm, layer by layer, each layer added in answer to a real need at the time. After a few years, the picture is detailed without being easy to see all at once.
Which is why a useful intake review isn’t really about finding fault, but more so about finding shape. A way of looking at a process that’s been working (more or less) for long enough that nobody can quite remember why each piece is the way it is – and giving the firm a shared vocabulary to talk about what’s worth keeping, what’s worth tightening, and what’s quietly become more fragile than it looks.
The framework below offers one. Three areas to look at, with the questions worth asking under each. Nothing in it requires new tools, new spend or a transformation programme. Most of it can be worked through in a single morning’s conversation with the right people in the room and a decent pot of coffee.
Three Areas Worth a Closer Look
The most useful intake reviews keep coming back to the same three areas, and the order they come up in tends to matter:
-
- Compliance and control – could the process be described confidently to someone who needed to scrutinise it?
-
- Process resilience – how does the process behave when something doesn’t go to plan?
-
- Efficiency and client experience – what does the process feel like, for the people inside it and the client at the other end?
Each area opens a different kind of conversation, and each one tends to surface something the others miss. Which is also why looking at all three together gives a more honest picture than looking at any one in isolation – the truth about an intake process rarely lives in just one of them.
Compliance and Control
Most compliance reviews of intake start in a natural place: did the right checks happen? AML triggered, KYC completed, conflict search run, engagement letter issued. On a normal week, the answer is reassuring, and rightly so. These are the foundations, and most firms have built them with real care.
The more revealing question sits one layer beneath. How easily could those checks be evidenced, in a form that holds up, by someone who didn’t run them at the time? Demonstrability is part of what makes compliance real. A process that can be reconstructed in minutes has almost always been built deliberately, with the audit trail designed in rather than reverse-engineered on a Tuesday afternoon when somebody asks.
Some questions worth taking into the conversation:
-
- If the full AML and KYC pathway for the last twenty new clients or matters needed to be pulled together this afternoon, what would that take and where would the time go?
-
- Which of the mandatory checks are enforced by the system itself, and which rely on the right person remembering at the right moment?
-
- When something falls outside the standard pathway – a complex corporate structure, an unusual jurisdiction, a returning client whose circumstances have changed – how does the process accommodate it?
-
- Are engagement letters built from structured client and matter data, or assembled from templates each time? And if it’s the latter, how does the scope they describe stay aligned with the scope agreed in conversation?
There are no right answers here, only useful ones. The questions are there to move the conversation past ‘are we compliant?’ into something with more texture, where the firm can see not just whether the work is being done, but how confidently it could be shown if the moment ever came.
Process Resilience
Of the three areas, this is the one that tends to get the least attention, and partly for an understandable reason. Resilience is hard to see on a normal week, because on a normal week the process works. Its real character shows up in the unusual weeks. The holiday cover. The unexpected volume spike after a marketing push lands. The new line of work that doesn’t quite fit the standard shape and forces the team to improvise.
And so, the questions in this area are mostly about the edges. The standard week looks after itself. What’s worth knowing about lives in the cover plans, the queues, the busy quarters and the routes that haven’t quite converged with the others:
-
- Who are the key people involved in coordinating new business intake today? If one of them were unavailable for a fortnight, which parts of the process would still run cleanly, and which would need cover?
-
- How is intake handled in genuinely busy periods? Where does the queue tend to form, and what gets prioritised when capacity is tight?
-
- Looking back at the highest-volume month or quarter in the past year – what did it surface? What worked well, and what would be worth handling differently next time?
-
- How many different routes can a new client or matter enter the firm by – referral, direct enquiry, web form, panel work, returning client – and how similar are the intake pathways once they arrive?
That last question is the one that tends to reward the most patience. Different routes evolving slightly different shapes is common, and rarely a problem in itself. It becomes important the moment any future change to intake is on the table, because different starting points need different things from a redesign. Knowing where they diverge, and why, is part of how a redesign avoids needing a redesign of its own twelve months later.
Efficiency and Client Experience
Efficiency is the area most firms already measure on. Time to engagement letter, time to file open, time to first bill – the numbers exist, the dashboards are reasonably mature, the partners’ meeting has a slide for it.
What the headline numbers can quietly miss is the spread underneath them. An average time to engagement of two days is a useful number to have. The five-day outliers underneath that average, and what produced them, are usually the more useful ones. Client experience is experienced one client at a time, not in aggregate, and looking at the spread alongside the headline tends to give a more honest picture of how the process actually feels from the outside.
From there, the questions widen out – into the touchpoints, the points in the process where momentum quietly stalls, and the experience of the people running it from the inside:
-
- Across new clients and matters this quarter, what’s the spread of time between enquiry and being able to start work? How does the longest compare to the average?
-
- How many touchpoints does a typical client experience between first contact and the engagement letter being signed? Where in that journey might the same information be requested twice?
-
- Is there a particular point in the intake process where complaints tend to appear, or where clients tend to go quiet?
-
- How visible is the intake process to fee earners? Does it sit in the background, or does it intrude on time better spent on legal work?
The fee earner question is the one we find most worth dwelling on, because it sits at the heart of why intake design matters at all. Well-designed intake stays out of the way – the file simply arrives, ready to work on. When the design is doing less of the work, that work doesn’t disappear; it gets absorbed elsewhere, in places that don’t appear on any operational report but quietly shape how the firm feels to work in. We’ve explored this further in our broader thinking on legal client intake automation.
What to Do With What You Find
A morning spent on the three areas usually surfaces more findings than there’s appetite to act on at once, and that’s the right outcome. The next step is a small number of clearer ones, sorted by what they actually are. The triage that tends to hold up looks something like this:
-
- Findings that touch on risk – a check that depends on memory, an inconsistent pathway, a piece of data that lives in too many places. These are worth addressing first, because the cost of leaving them quietly compounds over time.
-
- Findings that create friction without creating risk – touchpoints that frustrate clients, steps that take longer than they need to, small irritations in the day-to-day. These tend to be better grouped and addressed as a small redesign rather than a series of patches, partly as a matter of efficiency and partly as a matter of momentum.
-
- Things that are working well and shouldn’t be disturbed – this group matters more than it sounds. Knowing what to leave alone is part of any useful intake review, and protecting what already works tends to make the case for changing what doesn’t a good deal easier to land internally.
From there, the most progress tends to come from a small, focused set of changes rather than an end-to-end redesign. Visible improvements build the appetite for the next round, and momentum becomes its own kind of business case. A firm that’s improved one part of intake noticeably is in a much stronger position to take on the next part than a firm trying to make the case for everything all at once.
A More Structured Way to Do This
If this framework has been useful, the natural next step is to take it into a room with your team. That conversation will be more useful than reading any article about it, ours included.
To make that easier, we’ve put the same three areas into a scored assessment your operations and compliance team can work through together – Is Your Client Onboarding Process Defensible? It’s a single document, designed to be marked up and revisited rather than just downloaded and forgotten. The kind of thing that becomes a reference point.
You can download it [here]. And if, having worked through it, you’d like a second pair of eyes on what came out – well, that’s why we’re here.