Workflow template for legal and contracts
Contract intake brief
When another party's agreement arrives, counsel gets a one-page intake brief: what it is, read from its titles, the parties as named, what is missing, the requester's purpose and date, and the reviewer your own routing rules name. It comments on no term; counsel decides.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
Every incoming agreement reaches counsel in the same shape, on one page, before anyone has read a clause. Counsel sees what arrived and what did not, who is named and where the names disagree, what the business needs it for and by when, and whose desk the company's own rules put it on. The chasing that usually eats the first day of a review, for the missing exhibit, the unsigned signature page or the right company name, is already a short list of questions for the requester.
The brief reads what a document is from the title on its first page and the title of every exhibit and schedule, never from the words in its clauses and never from what the requester calls it. A services agreement stamped confidential on every page and sent over as "their NDA" is listed as what its first page says it is, and routed that way.
This is preparation for a lawyer, and it stays preparation. It gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines, and nothing about whether the agreement is acceptable or worth signing. It does not comment on a single term or offer any wording. It sends, signs, files and calendars nothing, and nothing goes to the other party. Every brief is headed as a draft for the named lawyer, with a line for each point that lawyer confirms.
Who starts the work, and when
The contracts manager, the legal operations lead, or the operations person who routes contracts starts it when a supplier, customer or partner sends its own agreement for the company to sign. The intake owner confirms the routing. The named lawyer decides everything else: in-house counsel, or, where the company has no lawyer of its own, the outside counsel it uses. In that case the brief is addressed to outside counsel and goes to them; it is never handed back to the business as an answer. If the company has no lawyer at all, the brief is marked not ready for counsel and waits for one; it is not a review of the agreement and says nothing about whether to sign.
It is not for a law firm's new-client inquiries, which inquiry handoff prepares, or for deciding whether to answer a buyer's request for proposal, which is bid or no-bid and RFP response plan. Letters, claims, notices and court papers go straight to counsel as received. A question such as "is this fine to sign?" is recorded in the brief for counsel and not answered, and the reply to it points to counsel without picking out any of the brief's findings as bearing on the answer.
What they supply
- The agreement as received: every page and every attachment the other party sent, as text or a PDF with readable text, with the file name it came under.
- The request: the requester's email, ticket or intake form, saying what the agreement is for, when it is needed and why, which of your companies is meant to sign, the expected value, and any earlier agreements with the other party.
- Your routing rules: written, dated and approved by counsel, saying which title words and which facts send an agreement to which reviewer, and what happens when no rule or two rules apply.
- The named lawyer who receives the brief.
- Your list of your own legal entities, if you keep one.
What comes out
One brief, marked as a draft for counsel, in seven parts:
- What arrived: the main title, each attachment's title and page count, every attachment the clauses mention that did not arrive, anything mentioned that lives elsewhere, and the markings on the document's face.
- Parties, as named: each name copied from the opening, the signature blocks and the attachments, with every difference set out.
- Signature pages: each signature block as found, and any party without one.
- The request, in the requester's own words.
- Proposed routing: each of your rules shown as matching, not matching, waiting on a missing attachment, or not yet applicable for want of a fact, and the reviewer the rules name.
- Ask the requester for: factual questions only, each tied to the line it fills.
- Counsel to confirm: one line for each point counsel settles, including the review scope and the requester's date.
A check block closes it: pages read against the document's own footers, the tally of attachments, the routing rules used with their dates, and a statement that no term was read for its meaning. The intake owner confirms the routing and sends the questions personally. The brief goes to counsel, not to the requester.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Company A, Supplier B, their people, the agreement, the routing rules and the entity list below are all invented. The routing rules are one invented company's; they are not a recommendation for how any company should route its agreements.
Fully Powered AI writes no contract wording, even invented. So the agreement below shows each clause only by its heading, with a note in square brackets, written for this example, saying whether that clause mentions an attachment and quoting the mention if it does. Everything the workflow template reads is shown: titles, the opening lines, mentions of attachments, signature blocks, page footers and face markings.
The intake owner's five inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the intake owner's note
From Ines Marlowe, contracts manager, on Tuesday 10 November 2026.
Please prepare the intake brief for the Supplier B agreement Tobias sent
today. It is saved, unchanged, in the incoming agreements folder.
Named lawyer: Clara Fennimore, General Counsel.
Intake reference: CI-2026-118.
Today is Tuesday 10 November 2026.
Attached: Tobias's email, the agreement as he sent it (one file,
SupplierB_NDA_v3.pdf), our routing rules, our entity list.
Input 2: the request
From: Tobias Renfrew, Head of Data Platform
Sent: Tuesday 10 November 2026
To: Ines Marlowe
Subject: Supplier B NDA, need it signed Friday
Hi Ines,
Supplier B sent over their NDA (attached). It covers a pilot of their
data-cleaning service for the Europe analytics team.
We need it signed by Friday 13 November, because Supplier B can only
hold the pilot slot starting Monday 16 November until then.
Company A Europe Limited should be the one signing, since the pilot is
for the Europe team.
I don't know the value yet. The pilot is free and the full contract
would be next year.
We haven't worked with them before. Their contact is their sales lead,
Mara Quell.
Can you just confirm it's fine to sign so we don't lose the slot?
Tobias
Input 3: the agreement as received
One file, SupplierB_NDA_v3.pdf, nine pages in this order.
--- page 1 ---
CONFIDENTIAL · Supplier B version 3 · 2 November 2026
MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
Between: Supplier B Data Services Limited ("Supplier")
and: Company A, Inc. ("Customer")
1. DEFINITIONS
[No mention of an attachment.]
2. STRUCTURE
[Mentions attachments once: "Exhibit A (Order Form), Exhibit B (Data
Processing Addendum) and Exhibit C (Support Hours)".]
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 1 of 6
--- page 2 ---
3. SERVICES AND ORDERS
[Mentions an attachment once: "each Order Form in the form of
Exhibit A".]
4. FEES AND PAYMENT
[No mention of an attachment.]
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 2 of 6
--- page 3 ---
5. TERM AND TERMINATION
[No mention of an attachment.]
6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
[No mention of an attachment.]
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 3 of 6
--- page 4 ---
7. DATA PROTECTION
[Mentions an attachment once: "the Data Processing Addendum attached
as Exhibit B".]
8. SUPPORT
[Mentions an attachment once: "the support hours in Exhibit C".]
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 4 of 6
--- page 5 ---
9. GENERAL
[Mentions a document kept elsewhere once: "the Supplier's acceptable
use policy, published on its website".]
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 5 of 6
--- page 6 ---
SIGNATURES
Signed for Supplier B Data Services, Inc.
Signature: ______________ Name: ______________
Title: ______________ Date: ______________
Signed for Company A, Inc.
Signature: ______________ Name: ______________
Title: ______________ Date: ______________
CONFIDENTIAL · Page 6 of 6
--- page 7 ---
EXHIBIT A — ORDER FORM
Supplier: Supplier B Data Services Limited
Customer: Company A Europe Limited
[A table of services and fees. No mention of another attachment.]
CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit A · Page 1 of 1
--- page 8 ---
EXHIBIT C — SUPPORT HOURS
[No mention of another attachment.]
CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit C · Page 1 of 2
--- page 9 ---
[Continuation of Exhibit C. No mention of another attachment.]
CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit C · Page 2 of 2
Input 4: the routing rules
Company A contract routing rules
Dated: 1 September 2026 Review by: 1 March 2027
Approved by: Clara Fennimore, General Counsel. Changes go through her.
Applies to: agreements another party sends to any Company A entity.
Rule | Applies when | Route to
R1 | The main title contains "Non-Disclosure", | Ines Marlowe, contracts
| "Confidentiality Agreement" or "NDA", and | manager, under counsel's
| nothing is attached | NDA positions
R2 | The main title contains "Master Services | Clara Fennimore, General
| Agreement", "Services Agreement" or | Counsel
| "Work Order" |
R3 | An attached title contains "Data Processing" | Also Owen Strand, privacy
| | lead, copied
R4 | The requester's expected annual value is | Clara Fennimore, General
| $100,000 or more | Counsel, whatever the title
No rule matches: Clara Fennimore names the reviewer.
Two rules point to different reviewers: Clara Fennimore decides.
Input 5: the entity list
Company A legal entities
Kept by finance. Dated 1 October 2026.
- Company A, Inc.
- Company A Europe Limited
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the intake owner, then the brief.
Ines, the intake brief for the Supplier B agreement is below. No stop applied. The requester and the file name call it an NDA; the title on its first page is "MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT", so R1 does not match and R2 points to Clara Fennimore. Exhibit B is mentioned in clauses 2 and 7 and did not arrive; R3 waits on it. Supplier B is named as a Limited company in the opening and in Exhibit A and as an Inc. on the signature page, and the agreement names Company A, Inc. while Exhibit A and Tobias name Company A Europe Limited. R4 cannot be applied until Tobias gives a value.
Tobias asked me to confirm it is fine to sign. I have not answered that: it is Clara's question, and it is copied into section 4 for her. The brief says nothing about any term.
Still to do, by people: check the brief against the documents, confirm the routing, send Tobias the three questions in section 6 if you agree with them, and give the brief to Clara. I have sent nothing. The brief goes to counsel, not to Tobias.
CONTRACT INTAKE BRIEF · DRAFT FOR COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
For Clara Fennimore, General Counsel. Not legal advice. It comments on no term.
It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege,
conflicts or deadlines.
Nothing has been sent, signed, filed or calendared.
INCOMPLETE: Exhibit B is mentioned twice and did not arrive.
Agreement: "MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT", as received 10 November 2026 from
Tobias Renfrew
File name as received: SupplierB_NDA_v3.pdf (not used for routing)
Intake reference: CI-2026-118
Prepared by: Ines Marlowe, contracts manager, 10 November 2026
1. WHAT ARRIVED, READ FROM ITS TITLES
Main title: "MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT" (p. 1)
Attached, in the order received:
- Exhibit A: "EXHIBIT A — ORDER FORM" (1 page; footer "CONFIDENTIAL ·
Exhibit A · Page 1 of 1")
- Exhibit C: "EXHIBIT C — SUPPORT HOURS" (2 pages; footer
"CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit C · Page 2 of 2")
Referred to and not attached:
- Exhibit B: "Exhibit B (Data Processing Addendum)" (cl. 2, p. 1);
"the Data Processing Addendum attached as Exhibit B" (cl. 7, p. 4)
Attached and not referred to:
- None found.
Label and title differ:
- None found.
Lives elsewhere, not opened:
- "the Supplier's acceptable use policy, published on its website"
(cl. 9, p. 5)
Marked on its face:
- "CONFIDENTIAL · Supplier B version 3 · 2 November 2026" (p. 1)
- "CONFIDENTIAL" (every page)
What the requester calls it: "Supplier B NDA" and "their NDA". Differs
from the title; not used for routing.
2. PARTIES, AS NAMED
- "Supplier B Data Services Limited": opening (p. 1); Exhibit A, p. 1
- "Supplier B Data Services, Inc.": signature block (p. 6)
- "Company A, Inc.": opening (p. 1); signature block (p. 6)
- "Company A Europe Limited": Exhibit A, p. 1
- Differences: "Supplier B Data Services Limited" (opening, p. 1;
Exhibit A, p. 1) and "Supplier B Data Services, Inc." (signature
block, p. 6).
- Differences: "Company A, Inc." (opening, p. 1; signature block, p. 6)
and "Company A Europe Limited" (Exhibit A, p. 1).
- Our entity: the agreement names "Company A, Inc."; Exhibit A names
"Company A Europe Limited"; the requester expects "Company A Europe
Limited". Both are on the entity list.
3. SIGNATURE PAGES
- For "Supplier B Data Services, Inc." (p. 6): signature blank; name
blank; title blank; date blank.
- For "Company A, Inc." (p. 6): signature blank; name blank; title
blank; date blank.
- "Supplier B Data Services Limited": no signature block under this name.
- Exhibit A: no signature block found.
- Exhibit C: no signature block found.
4. THE REQUEST, IN THE REQUESTER'S WORDS
Requester: Tobias Renfrew, Head of Data Platform, sent 10 November 2026
What it is for: "It covers a pilot of their data-cleaning service for the
Europe analytics team."
Needed by: "signed by Friday 13 November". Why that date: "because
Supplier B can only hold the pilot slot starting Monday 16 November
until then."
Expected annual value: Not supplied. The requester wrote: "I don't know
the value yet. The pilot is free and the full contract would be next
year."
Earlier agreements with this counterparty: "We haven't worked with them
before."
Asked of this brief and not answered here, for counsel: "Can you just
confirm it's fine to sign so we don't lose the slot?"
5. PROPOSED ROUTING, UNDER Company A contract routing rules, DATED
1 September 2026
- R1 DOES NOT MATCH: needs "Non-Disclosure", "Confidentiality Agreement"
or "NDA" in the main title, with nothing attached; none is in the main
title, and two attachments arrived. "NDA" appears only in the file
name and the request, which are not used.
- R2 MATCHES: The main title contains "Master Services Agreement",
"Services Agreement" or "Work Order". Matched on "MASTER SERVICES
AGREEMENT" in the main title, p. 1. Points to: Clara Fennimore,
General Counsel.
- R3 WAITING: needs "Data Processing" in an attached title; Exhibit B,
not attached, is referred to as "Data Processing Addendum". Points
to: Also Owen Strand, privacy lead, copied.
- R4 NOT APPLIED: needs the requester's expected annual value, not
supplied. Asked in 6.
Proposed reviewer: Clara Fennimore, General Counsel (R2).
Also copied: Owen Strand, privacy lead (R3, if it applies once Exhibit
B arrives).
6. ASK THE REQUESTER FOR
1. Exhibit B, the Data Processing Addendum, which clauses 2 and 7
mention and which did not arrive. Fills: 1, Referred to and not
attached; 5, R3.
2. The expected annual value. Fills: 4, Expected annual value; 5, R4.
3. Whether version 3 of 2 November 2026 is the latest Supplier B has
sent. Fills: 1, Marked on its face.
Ines Marlowe decides which to send and sends them. Nothing in this
brief goes to Supplier B.
7. COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
[ ] What arrived is the main agreement and Exhibits A and C in 1. ____
[ ] Exhibit B is missing: review now, or wait for it? ____
[ ] Acceptable use policy (cl. 9, p. 5) lives elsewhere: is a copy
needed? ____
[ ] Parties: Supplier B is named as "Supplier B Data Services
Limited" (opening, Exhibit A) and "Supplier B Data Services,
Inc." (signature block, p. 6). ____
[ ] Our entity: "Company A, Inc." (opening, signature block);
"Company A Europe Limited" (Exhibit A, and the requester). ____
[ ] Reviewer: Clara Fennimore, General Counsel (R2); also copied:
Owen Strand, privacy lead (R3, if it applies once Exhibit B
arrives). Confirm or name: ____
[ ] Review scope: for counsel to set. ____
[ ] Requester's date: "signed by Friday 13 November". Counsel
decides what the review can meet. ____
CHECK
- Pages read: main agreement 6 of 6 (footer "CONFIDENTIAL · Page 6 of
6"); Exhibit A 1 of 1 (footer "CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit A · Page 1 of
1"); Exhibit C 2 of 2 (footer "CONFIDENTIAL · Exhibit C · Page 2 of
2").
- Attachments: 2 attached, 3 referred to, 1 referred to and not
attached, 1 lives elsewhere.
- Read in the clauses only to find: party names, signature blocks,
mentions of attachments, page footers and face markings. No term was
read for its meaning.
- Routing rules: Company A contract routing rules, dated 1 September
2026, approved by Clara Fennimore, review by 1 March 2027. In date on
10 November 2026.
- Entity list: Company A legal entities, 1 October 2026.
- Tracked changes or comments: none seen.
- This brief says nothing about any term, or about whether the
agreement is acceptable.
Routing confirmed by (intake owner): ____________ Date: ________
Confirmed by (counsel): ____________ Date: ________
Until counsel signs, this is a draft for counsel.
The title is the line to notice. Every page says CONFIDENTIAL, the file name says NDA and the requester calls it one, but the first page says it is a master services agreement with three exhibits, so it goes where Company A's rules send that, and the brief says plainly that the other labels were set aside.
Ines Marlowe checks the brief against the file, confirms the routing and sends Tobias the three questions herself. Clara Fennimore confirms or corrects each line, sets the scope of her review and answers Tobias's question about signing. The brief never reaches Tobias or Supplier B.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts, where the first hour of every review goes on working out what arrived and who should read it.
- Procurement and suppliers, where a chosen supplier's paper arrives with a start date attached.
- Sales, where a customer insists on its own agreement and the deal date is close.
- Software and technology, where subscription, services and data agreements arrive weekly, each with its own stack of exhibits.
- Professional services, where client paper decides whether an engagement can start on the agreed day.
- Manufacturing, where supply, tooling and distribution agreements come from many counterparties in many forms.
- Growth and scaling, when contract volume outgrows the one lawyer who used to see everything.
- Startups and new ventures, with no lawyer on staff and every agreement going to outside counsel, whose time is billed by the hour.
It often follows vendor quote comparison, which ends with the supplier's terms going to your reviewer. Once an agreement is signed, vendor renewal review takes over before its notice date.
What has to change for your company
Your routing rules are the heart of it, and counsel writes them. They say which words in a title send an agreement where, which facts such as value or team change that, who decides when no rule applies or two point different ways, and when the rules are next reviewed. A short set that sends everything unusual to counsel is a good start. The workflow template brings no routing of its own.
You also name the lawyer who receives each brief and who covers when that lawyer is away, keep your list of your own legal entities current, and match the request fields to your intake form. Decide where briefs are kept and how the intake owner records the routing confirmation.
We sit with the person who routes your contracts and the lawyer who reviews them, write down how intake really works, and set it up in the AI product your company has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Confirm first that your company's policy allows agreements from other parties to be used in it.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template, drawing one idea from a published source credited with it. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your company means running it on past agreements whose routing counsel already settled, and comparing: every attachment found, every missing one named, every difference in names set out, the reviewer equal to counsel's choice, and no term commented on. Include a services agreement the requester called an NDA, an exhibit mentioned and not sent, a title no rule matches, and a request that asks whether the agreement is fine to sign. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Counsel decides everything beyond the routing
- The intake owner confirms the routing and sends the questions
- Counsel confirms the review scope and the requester's date
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Comments on no term and offers no wording
- Does not say whether an agreement is acceptable or worth signing
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The contracts manager, the legal operations lead, or the operations person who routes contracts starts it when a supplier, customer or partner sends its own agreement for the company to sign.
What do I need to supply?
The agreement as received, the request, your routing rules approved by counsel, the named lawyer who receives the brief, and your list of your own legal entities if you keep one.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and comments on no term. The named lawyer decides and signs, and it sends, signs, files and calendars nothing.
What do I get?
One brief, marked as a draft for counsel, with what arrived, the parties as named, signature pages, the request, proposed routing, questions for the requester and a line for each point counsel confirms.
What has been checked?
Fully Powered AI wrote it and it was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: