WhatsApp intake that routes each inquiry to the right practice area, answers with your firm's own material and books the consultation on your calendar — while you are in a hearing, or asleep.
The first reply no longer depends on someone having the phone in hand.
Case analysis is still yours. Nothing sensitive goes out without someone accountable.
It answers from your firm's library: policy, legal theories, past filings and the client's history.
Someone looking for a lawyer has a problem that is already keeping them up at night. They message three firms at once, at eleven p.m., and hire whoever replies.
Almost everyone promises a fast reply. A fast reply drawn from your firm's own library — your policy, your legal theories, your filings — is what almost no system delivers. And the conversation is only the tip: what eats the payroll is never missing a deadline, drafting the filing and not forgetting the next step.
more likely to qualify the client when you reply within five minutes instead of thirty.
lead response studiesof lawyers make that window. The other 93% reply later — after the client has already talked to someone else.
digital legal intakeless time spent on administrative work at firms that automated their routine.
law firm managementA message that arrives at 10 p.m. on a Friday usually waits until Monday for a reply. Not out of neglect — because on the other side there is a person, and that person was living.
I replied on Monday. He had already signed with someone else.
The window is minutes, and clients usually write to three firms at the same time. Whoever answers first doesn't even need to be the best.
It wasn't incompetence. Nobody remembered.
A missed deadline turns into malpractice liability and a disciplinary proceeding. The cause is almost never technical — it is a next step that depended on someone's memory.
Only the senior partner knows which theory fits that case.
The firm's repertoire lives in two people's heads. It goes on vacation with them, and it walks out the door when they leave.
I spend the day answering what I already answered yesterday.
A lawyer's hour spent on admin is the most expensive hour at the firm — and the one the client doesn't pay for.
Each one is short, with what is live today and what is switched on through configuration.
From the 10:47 p.m. "good evening" to the booked consultation — and what runs behind every message.
See the journey 02Policy, legal theories, past filings and the client's history, read in all three places.
See the library 03A room behind a link, live transcription and a copilot only you can see.
See the consultation 04Deadlines that cannot slip, filings that start out structured, checklists nobody forgets.
See behind the scenes 05Your most cautious partner's six questions on privilege, the LGPD (Brazil's data protection law) and the OAB (the Brazilian Bar Association), with answers you can repeat in front of a client.
See the answers Try itBe a law firm's client and watch, side by side, what the firm receives. The triage is the real one.
Open the demoThe engine is the same. What changes is how many codes exist, whose calendar it is and where urgent matters go.
It works the other way too: a solo practitioner who grows into a firm doesn't start over — the new codes join the same number and each lawyer connects their own calendar.
It needs to belong to the firm and be dedicated to client intake. If today it lives on someone's personal phone, the path is moving to a firm number — the client still sees a single number, under your name.
It handles routine on its own: welcoming the person, identifying the practice area, giving general guidance, listing documents, offering time slots. Anything that affects someone's case — analysis, strategy, amounts — never comes from it.
When neither the firm's library nor the system has the answer, the conversation says it will check and hands off to the lawyer with the full history attached.
Days, not months. Connect the number, upload the documents, link the calendar and tune the tone. A solo practitioner can do it alone in an afternoon.
The lawyer, in a portal of their own: connect the calendar, set office hours and minimum notice, write the firm's tone, give the phone number urgent matters go to, turn consultation fees on or off and grab the WhatsApp link to share.
At a multi-lawyer firm, each lawyer configures their own — without going through you and without opening a ticket with us.
No. You need someone who knows client intake up close. Configuration happens on screen and the flow can be edited without code.
Yes, without waiting for a new release: you write the specialist, add the line to the registry and triage starts offering it right away. Estates, real estate, medical law — it is configuration.
One slice at a time: switch on the piece that solves the problem and measure it with real client traffic before expanding. No off-the-shelf price list — a firm that only uses intake doesn't run the same operation as one that uses the whole case flow.
No screen demo in the first conversation.
Nothing here depends on someone remembering. And no step sends anything unless the lawyer has already decided what is automatic.
"Good evening, I was fired today and I'm not sure I got everything I'm owed." Before any reply, the disclosure: this is the firm's artificial intelligence, it does not replace the lawyer, and to opt out just type STOP.
A classifier reads the message and returns a label from a closed list. The flow maps it to the employment law specialist; anything else would fall to general triage — never a guess.
What usually applies, which documents to gather, what can't be stated without seeing the case — all of it drawn from the firm's policy and legal theories, not from the internet.
Slots that actually exist on the lawyer's calendar, within office hours. It creates the event with the client as a guest and schedules the 24-hour reminder.
The case is already in the pipeline, with stage and classification, a summary of the conversation and the documents the client sent. The first task of the day is reading, not asking.
Not a widget on the website: it is the firm's WhatsApp, in the firm's tone. On the right, what happened behind each message.
labor, from a closed list. Code maps the label to a specialist, not the AI.Whoever answers doesn't know a little about everything. This is the registry triage consults.
| Label | Specialty | Recognized by |
|---|---|---|
| family-divorce | Family and Divorce | divorce · custody · child support · common-law union · property division |
| domestic-violence | Domestic Violence | assault · protective order · threats · Maria da Penha Law |
| labor | Employment | dismissal · termination · severance · overtime · FGTS · harassment |
| consumer | Consumer | warranty · wrongful charge · bank · scam · chargeback |
| social-security | Social Security | INSS (social security agency) · retirement · benefits · BPC (welfare benefit) · medical exam · review |
| tax | Tax | taxes · tax debt · installment plan · refund · fine |
| small-claims | Small Claims | small claims court · defective product · reimbursement |
| general | General Triage | when the area isn't clear yet — never guesses |
These eight cover what knocks on almost every firm's door. But what sets your firm apart from the one downstairs isn't the practice area — it is how you serve clients. You create your own, and not just by subject: by how your firm works.
The formats in which case information actually arrives — and the ones that sit untouched until someone has time.
All four paths are published and exercised. What's missing is a test with a file sent from a real phone — incoming media can't be simulated. Until then, it is a piece ready for demonstration, not a commercial claim.
You sit on both sides of the same conversation: write as someone looking for a law firm and see, alongside, what the firm receives. It is the real triage — the same engine that answers on WhatsApp, through another door.
Describe a problem — a dismissal, a defective product, child support, a social security claim. Triage picks the area, that area's specialist replies, and the panel alongside shows the decision that just happened.
You are yourself: a lawyer evaluating. The assistant answers from the material on this page and books the call on the real calendar — a slot that exists, with the invite in your inbox right away.
The difference between using generic AI and having your own comes down to one thing: where the answer comes from. Here, from what your firm has already written, won and filed away.
Upload once and it applies to the WhatsApp conversation, the video consultation and the overnight automations. Not three integrations — the same library.
You upload the file. PDF and Word go in as they are.
"The first consultation is free and lasts 30 minutes, in person or by video. Urgent domestic violence cases are seen the same day, regardless of the calendar."
Today the library belongs to the firm, not to each lawyer within it. Material shared across the firm is safe by design; material private to a single lawyer at a firm with several codes needs a partition that doesn't exist yet. We don't promise what isn't ready.
Most legal software is a well-organized archive: you upload the filing and search for it later. And most "AI assistants" answer with what the vendor trained — not with what your firm decided.
Because it isn't a feature, it is architecture: library, conversation, meeting room and automation have to be part of the same system — and almost nobody has all four. Those who only have the chat sell integration; those who only have the repository sell search.
It opens from a link, with nothing to install and no account for the client. Speech is transcribed live and the copilot writes on your screen — only yours.
Mr. Barros · you
He said he signed the same day, at the company. Ask whether a union representative or a lawyer was present when he signed.
A blanket release signed without assistance is the scenario in the brief you used in the Andrade case.
brief-blanket-release.pdf · §2The period worked and the job held haven't come up so far.
The profile is assembled before the call and stays in your sidebar the whole conversation. On the other side, nobody sees any of it.
Check-ins with corporate clients, hearing preparation, partners' meetings about the portfolio: same recording, same transcript, same record. Only the copilot's profile changes — what it watches for and what it ignores.
What eats the payroll isn't talking to clients. It is checking deadlines, drafting filings, finding what has already been written, chasing documents and remembering who went quiet. None of that is conversation — and all of it is what cannot fail.
What the client sees — and what every intake tool sells — is a single sheet. Underneath it lies the whole case, and that is where the firm makes or loses money.
It is the same engine as the conversation, without the conversation. Three interventions, an escalation ladder, and nobody needing to remember anything.
They all run on the same workflow engine that is already live. Each one is a setting of your firm — the schedule, the copy and the recipient are yours — and none is switched on by default.By configuration
Three things are expensive and none of them is conversation: missing a deadline, redoing a filing from scratch and finding out too late that a document was missing. All three depend on someone's memory — the most fragile part of the operation.
The routine, trigger and escalation engine is live. You configure your firm's ruler: how many days ahead, for whom, and what happens if nobody replies.
Deadline tracking exists. Filing editors exist. AI chat exists. What almost doesn't exist is all three reading the same library and the same history — and that is where the gain is: the alert knows what is missing because it read the checklist, the draft knows the theory because it read the library, the checklist knows what the client said because it read the conversation.
Across three different systems, someone has to be the bridge. That someone is expensive — and human, which is to say, forgets.
Nobody types the numbers at the bottom: they come from what the conversation already logged.
If the firm charges for consultations, the assistant generates the payment link and checks that it was paid before confirming the slot. If it doesn't, the piece stays off and never shows up.
Write as someone looking for a law firm. Triage picks the area, that area's specialist replies — and the panel alongside shows what the firm received.
Barros & Vilela is fictional, and so is its data. What is real is the engine: the same triage, the same specialty registry and the same agents that answer on a client firm's WhatsApp. The specialists serve a Brazilian firm, so they may reply in Portuguese. Replies are general guidance — not legal advice, and none of them replaces a lawyer.
Describe the problem the way you would on WhatsApp. A dismissal, a defective product, child support, a social security claim.
No staging: it is the decision triage just made, with the time it took.
As soon as the client writes, the triage shows up here.
On WhatsApp this same triage records the case in the client's file and alerts the lawyer in charge. Here, through the web door, it only shows it — the demo firm has no number, and the page doesn't make one up.
The site assistant answers from the material on this page and books the thirty-minute call on the real calendar. The slot comes from the calendar; the invite goes to the email you type — never to one the conversation guessed.
Six questions on confidentiality and the LGPD (Brazil's data protection law), no jargon. The last one only exists in the legal profession.
On our own servers, not in a foreign cloud whose location nobody can name. If your policy requires it, even the AI engine runs in-house.
No. Each firm is a separate house, and the separation is built into how the data is stored — not into someone remembering to configure it right.
Within the firm, each conversation is bound to the lawyer + client pair: someone who talks to two lawyers has two cases that never cross.
Guidance is always general, with case analysis reserved for the lawyer. When your library has no answer, it says it will check instead of improvising.
You are the one who draws the line between what is automatic and what waits for a person.
It only does what is on the list you approved. That isn't a promise of good behavior: whatever is not on the list doesn't exist for it — the key opens one room, not the building.
It logs which conversation produced which case, when, and based on which passage of your material. If the client disputes something, you open the history instead of digging through someone's email.
It is the right question — the OAB is the Brazilian Bar Association, and its rules shaped the design rather than being patched in afterwards:
What we don't have yet: a legal opinion on this whole setup signed by outside counsel. It is written and awaiting review. Until it is signed, we say exactly this — and not that it "is compliant".
We don't claim it is 100% bulletproof — whoever says that is selling, not explaining. If anything here doesn't match your policy, we talk it through before you sign.