Workflow template for legal and contracts
Inbound demand or claim intake record
When a demand, claim or subpoena arrives, the company's lawyer gets one intake record the same day: who sent it, what it asks, every date it states, the facts and citations it relies on, related matters, where the records are, and a question on keeping them. It rates nothing and recommends nothing.
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
The letter that lands on a Monday morning reaches the company's lawyer that afternoon as a record they can work from. Every demand, date, fact and citation is copied in the sender's own words with its page and paragraph, and every record the letter mentions is named in the letter's own words, so nothing the sender alleges is restated as fact. The company's own matter list has already been searched for the same party and the same order or contract numbers. The systems that hold the records the letter talks about are named, with their owners and anything they delete automatically. The lawyer starts on the judgment instead of the gathering.
What it does not do. It gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing, and contacts no one. It does not rate the claim, offer response options or recommend anything. A date the letter states is copied; a period such as "within 14 days" is copied and left uncounted for the lawyer. A citation appears only because the sender cited it, marked for the lawyer to verify. It writes no reply, no holding note and no instruction to keep records. Whatever follows is the lawyer's decision.
Who starts the work, and when
Whoever has the document starts it, on the day it arrives: a legal operations coordinator or paralegal where the company has a legal team, or the operations manager, office manager or founder where it does not. The record is always addressed to a named lawyer: in-house counsel, or the company's outside counsel when there is no lawyer on staff. When it goes to outside counsel, it goes to them as a record to work from, never back to the business as an answer. Nothing is prepared until a lawyer is named.
What they supply
- The document, every page, and the enclosures that came with it.
- A short note on how it arrived: when, by what route, to whom, and any second copy.
- The lawyer the record is for.
- The company's matter list, exported as a table, so related matters can be found.
- The company's records map: each system, the kinds of records kept there, the person responsible, and any automatic deletion.
The workflow template carries no law and no court rules. Everything in the record comes from the letter itself and from lists the company already keeps.
What comes out
Two things, both for the named lawyer:
- The intake record, marked as a draft. What arrived and how; who sent it; each demand in the sender's words, with the letter's own arithmetic checked; every date, copied, with each period marked as not counted; the facts alleged, quoted; each citation, copied and marked for the lawyer to verify; what the sender says will happen next; possible related matters from the company's list; where the relevant records are kept; a question for the lawyer on keeping records, with the company's deletion rules beside it; and a list of points for the lawyer to confirm or decide, one line each.
- A list of documents to gather, each showing the system it sits in and the person responsible for it, every item marked "not gathered" until the lawyer says who gathers what.
The person who supplied the inputs reads the record against the letter and hands it over. The lawyer decides everything that follows, including whether anyone replies.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc., Corvane Fabrication Co., Tamsworth Ilbery LLP, Saltmarsh Quarry LLP, every person named, the State of Eastmere, the Superior Court of Eastmere, the Eastmere Commercial Code section and the case the letter cites are all invented. No real company, firm, court, case or statute is named. The citation in the letter is there to show how the workflow template treats any citation: copied as cited and left for the lawyer to verify.
Lumenbrook sells lamps and home goods online. It has no in-house lawyer, so the record is addressed to its outside counsel. The operations manager's inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares. Today's date is its own line, and the named lawyer is given in the receipt note. The email reached the chief executive on Monday 9 November and the receipt note does not say when he forwarded it; the record is prepared on Wednesday 11 November, so this example shows the record itself, not same-day handling.
Today's date, supplied with the inputs: Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Input 1: the receipt note
Written by Marisol Feeney, operations manager, on Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Arjun forwarded me the attached letter. It came to his email on Monday
9 November 2026 at 9:40 a.m. from celeste.varga@tamsworthilbery.example,
with two attachments (the two invoices). The courier copy arrived Tuesday
10 November at 11:15 a.m.; Hollis Pendry at reception signed for it. The
courier envelope had the letter only.
We have no in-house lawyer. This goes to our outside counsel, Priya
Halvorsen at Saltmarsh Quarry LLP, today.
Attached: the letter (2 pages), our matter list exported today, our records
map (updated 1 September 2026).
Arjun asks: do we have to pay this, and do they have a case? He also wants
to know how long we have.
Input 2: the letter
TAMSWORTH ILBERY LLP
418 Quarry Row, Suite 9, Larkfield, Eastmere 40217
celeste.varga@tamsworthilbery.example · (555) 014-2290
October 30, 2026
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
BY EMAIL AND COURIER
Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc.
Attn: Arjun Oddleifson, Chief Executive Officer
77 Tannery Lane, Larkfield, Eastmere 40219
Re: Corvane Fabrication Co. / Purchase Order PO-7714 and unpaid invoices
Our ref: CF-1182
Dear Mr. Oddleifson:
This firm represents Corvane Fabrication Co. ("Corvane") in connection with
the Supply Agreement between Corvane and Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc.
("Lumenbrook") dated March 2, 2025 (the "Agreement").
On August 14, 2026, Lumenbrook issued Purchase Order PO-7714 for 6,000
brushed-brass lamp bases. Corvane accepted the order on August 17, 2026 and
began production on August 20, 2026. On September 28, 2026, Lumenbrook's
purchasing lead, Felix Arnaud, emailed Corvane to cancel the order. By then
Corvane had finished 3,900 units, which remain at its plant.
Separately, Corvane's invoices INV-5521 dated July 31, 2026 ($21,400.00) and
INV-5603 dated August 31, 2026 ($9,850.00), for lamp bases delivered under
earlier purchase orders, remain unpaid.
Page 1 of 2
Section 9.3 of the Agreement permits Lumenbrook to cancel an accepted
purchase order only on 60 days' notice and requires Lumenbrook to pay for
units finished before cancellation. Corvane is also entitled to the price of
the finished units under Eastmere Commercial Code § 14-218 and Pellham Grain
Co. v. Ostby Mills, 212 E.3d 40 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2019).
Corvane therefore demands that Lumenbrook:
(a) pay the two unpaid invoices, totaling $31,250.00;
(b) pay $17,000.00 for the 3,900 finished units under PO-7714;
in total $48,250.00, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter;
(c) preserve all documents, emails and messages concerning PO-7714 and the
Agreement; and
(d) direct all communications on this matter to the undersigned.
If payment is not received within that time, Corvane has authorized this
firm to file suit in the Superior Court of Eastmere and to seek interest,
costs and attorneys' fees under Section 14.2 of the Agreement. Corvane will
also suspend work on Lumenbrook's open Purchase Order PO-7790 on November
20, 2026 unless this matter is resolved.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
Celeste Varga
Partner, Tamsworth Ilbery LLP
Enclosures: Invoice INV-5521; Invoice INV-5603; email from F. Arnaud dated
September 28, 2026
Page 2 of 2
Input 3: the matter list, exported 11 November 2026
Matter ID,Matter name,Other parties,References,Status,Opened,Closed,Responsible lawyer
M-2024-02,Warehouse lease renewal,Dunmore Yard Properties LLC,Lease dated 1 June 2021,Closed,2024-01-15,2024-04-30,Priya Halvorsen
M-2025-07,Late-delivery credit,Corvane Fabrication Co.,PO-6120; Supply Agreement dated 2 March 2025,Closed,2025-06-10,2025-09-02,Priya Halvorsen
M-2026-03,Product photo use complaint,Glenarrow Studio,Listing LB-220,Open,2026-03-04,,Priya Halvorsen
M-2026-06,Brass finish customer complaints,Retail customers (several),BB-40 lamp base; PO-7714,Open,2026-09-21,,Priya Halvorsen
M-2026-08,Sales tax registration question,Eastmere Revenue Department,Notice 26-4471,Open,2026-10-05,,Priya Halvorsen
Input 4: the records map, updated 1 September 2026
System,Records held,Owner,Automatic deletion
Purchasing system,"Purchase orders, supplier order confirmations, cancellations",Purchasing lead,None
Accounts payable ledger,"Supplier invoices, payments, remittances",Controller,None
Company email,All staff email and attachments,IT administrator,Deleted 24 months after sending
Team chat,Channels and direct messages,IT administrator,Deleted 90 days after posting
Warehouse receiving log,Goods received against each purchase order,Warehouse supervisor,None
Shared drive: Suppliers,"Signed supplier agreements, price lists",Operations manager,None
Customer service desk,Customer tickets and replies,Support lead,Closed tickets deleted after 12 months
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the operations manager, then the record and the list.
Marisol, the intake record for the Tamsworth Ilbery letter is below, addressed to Priya Halvorsen at Saltmarsh Quarry LLP.
- Stops: none applied. Both pages carry a footer ("Page 1 of 2", "Page 2 of 2") and both were read; the receipt note gives the date of receipt; a lawyer is named; today's date is given; both tables have the default headers.
- Periods not counted: two, in section 4 (I and J): "only on 60 days' notice" and "within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter". The letter's later "within that time" points back to the fourteen days and is listed under J.
- Enclosure named but not received: "email from F. Arnaud dated September 28, 2026". The email brought "the two invoices"; the courier envelope had the letter only.
- Possible related matters: M-2025-07 (closed) and M-2026-06 (open), each for counsel to confirm.
- Requests declined: Arjun asks whether the company has to pay, whether Corvane has a case, and how long the company has. Those are Priya Halvorsen's decisions. I have copied what the letter says about time, marked NOT COUNTED, and worked out no date.
What people still do: read the record against the letter, then give the record, the letter and the list of documents to gather to Priya Halvorsen.
I have sent nothing, contacted no one and changed nothing.
DRAFT INTAKE RECORD · FOR Priya Halvorsen, outside counsel · TO REVIEW
Not legal advice. Rates nothing, recommends nothing, counts no date.
Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege,
conflicts or deadlines.
Nothing has been sent, filed, signed, answered or calendared.
Prepared for: Priya Halvorsen, outside counsel, Saltmarsh Quarry LLP
Prepared from: inputs supplied by Marisol Feeney, operations manager, on
11 November 2026
Not for the business as an answer. Counsel decides what anyone is told.
1. WHAT ARRIVED
- Heading: "Re: Corvane Fabrication Co. / Purchase Order PO-7714 and unpaid
invoices" (p. 1, reference line)
- Markings: "FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY" (p. 1, below the date line);
"BY EMAIL AND COURIER" (p. 1, below the date line)
- Dated: October 30, 2026 (p. 1, date line)
- Addressed to: "Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc. / Attn: Arjun Oddleifson, Chief
Executive Officer / 77 Tannery Lane, Larkfield, Eastmere 40219" (p. 1,
address block)
- Received: Monday 9 November 2026, 9:40 a.m., by email from
celeste.varga@tamsworthilbery.example with two attachments, to Arjun's
email, forwarded by Arjun to Marisol Feeney. From the receipt note.
- Other copies received: Tuesday 10 November 2026, 11:15 a.m., by courier,
signed for by Hollis Pendry at reception; the envelope had the letter
only.
- Pages: read 2 of 2.
- Enclosures it names: "Invoice INV-5521; Invoice INV-5603; email from F.
Arnaud dated September 28, 2026" (p. 2, enclosures line)
- Enclosures received: "the two invoices", as the two attachments to the
email (receipt note)
- Named but not received: email from F. Arnaud dated September 28, 2026
2. WHO SENT IT
- Sender: "TAMSWORTH ILBERY LLP" (p. 1, letterhead)
- Signed by: "Celeste Varga / Partner, Tamsworth Ilbery LLP" (p. 2,
signature block)
- Acting for: "This firm represents Corvane Fabrication Co. ("Corvane")"
(p. 1, para. 1)
- Contact details given: "418 Quarry Row, Suite 9, Larkfield, Eastmere
40217 / celeste.varga@tamsworthilbery.example · (555) 014-2290" (p. 1,
letterhead)
- Sender's reference: "Our ref: CF-1182" (p. 1, reference line)
3. WHAT IT DEMANDS
1. "(a) pay the two unpaid invoices, totaling $31,250.00;" (p. 2,
para. 2 (a))
2. "(b) pay $17,000.00 for the 3,900 finished units under PO-7714;"
(p. 2, para. 2 (b))
3. "in total $48,250.00, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
letter;" (p. 2, para. 2)
4. "(c) preserve all documents, emails and messages concerning PO-7714 and
the Agreement; and" (p. 2, para. 2 (c))
5. "(d) direct all communications on this matter to the undersigned."
(p. 2, para. 2 (d))
Amounts as written: $21,400.00 (p. 1, para. 3); $9,850.00 (p. 1, para. 3);
$31,250.00 (p. 2, para. 2 (a)); $17,000.00 (p. 2, para. 2 (b));
$48,250.00 (p. 2, para. 2)
Arithmetic on the document's own figures: $21,400.00 + $9,850.00 =
$31,250.00, as stated at (a). $31,250.00 + $17,000.00 = $48,250.00, as
stated.
4. DATES IT STATES
A. October 30, 2026: the document's date (p. 1, date line)
B. March 2, 2025: "the Supply Agreement between Corvane and Lumenbrook Home
Goods, Inc. ("Lumenbrook") dated March 2, 2025" (p. 1, para. 1)
C. August 14, 2026: "Lumenbrook issued Purchase Order PO-7714 for 6,000
brushed-brass lamp bases" (p. 1, para. 2)
D. August 17, 2026: "Corvane accepted the order" (p. 1, para. 2)
E. August 20, 2026: "began production" (p. 1, para. 2)
F. September 28, 2026: "Lumenbrook's purchasing lead, Felix Arnaud, emailed
Corvane to cancel the order" (p. 1, para. 2); "email from F. Arnaud
dated September 28, 2026" (p. 2, enclosures line)
G. July 31, 2026: "Corvane's invoices INV-5521 dated July 31, 2026" (p. 1,
para. 3)
H. August 31, 2026: "INV-5603 dated August 31, 2026" (p. 1, para. 3)
I. NOT COUNTED: "only on 60 days' notice" (p. 2, para. 1).
Counsel decides what date, if any, this means.
J. NOT COUNTED: "within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter"
(p. 2, para. 2).
Referred back to: "within that time" (p. 2, para. 3)
Counsel decides what date, if any, this means.
K. November 20, 2026: "Corvane will also suspend work on Lumenbrook's open
Purchase Order PO-7790 on November 20, 2026" (p. 2, para. 3)
5. FACTS IT ALLEGES
1. "On August 14, 2026, Lumenbrook issued Purchase Order PO-7714 for 6,000
brushed-brass lamp bases." (p. 1, para. 2)
2. "Corvane accepted the order on August 17, 2026 and began production on
August 20, 2026." (p. 1, para. 2)
3. "On September 28, 2026, Lumenbrook's purchasing lead, Felix Arnaud,
emailed Corvane to cancel the order." (p. 1, para. 2)
4. "By then Corvane had finished 3,900 units, which remain at its plant."
(p. 1, para. 2)
5. "Separately, Corvane's invoices INV-5521 dated July 31, 2026
($21,400.00) and INV-5603 dated August 31, 2026 ($9,850.00), for lamp
bases delivered under earlier purchase orders, remain unpaid." (p. 1,
para. 3)
6. AUTHORITIES AND CLAUSES IT CITES
1. Section 9.3 of the Agreement (p. 2, para. 1)
Sentence: "Section 9.3 of the Agreement permits Lumenbrook to cancel an
accepted purchase order only on 60 days' notice and requires Lumenbrook
to pay for units finished before cancellation."
Cited by the sender. Not checked. To be verified by the lawyer.
2. Eastmere Commercial Code § 14-218 (p. 2, para. 1)
Sentence: "Corvane is also entitled to the price of the finished units
under Eastmere Commercial Code § 14-218 and Pellham Grain Co. v. Ostby
Mills, 212 E.3d 40 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2019)."
Cited by the sender. Not checked. To be verified by the lawyer.
3. Pellham Grain Co. v. Ostby Mills, 212 E.3d 40 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2019)
(p. 2, para. 1)
Sentence: the same sentence as 2.
Cited by the sender. Not checked. To be verified by the lawyer.
4. Section 14.2 of the Agreement (p. 2, para. 3)
Sentence: "If payment is not received within that time, Corvane has
authorized this firm to file suit in the Superior Court of Eastmere and
to seek interest, costs and attorneys' fees under Section 14.2 of the
Agreement."
Cited by the sender. Not checked. To be verified by the lawyer.
7. WHAT IT SAYS THE SENDER WILL DO
1. "If payment is not received within that time, Corvane has authorized
this firm to file suit in the Superior Court of Eastmere and to seek
interest, costs and attorneys' fees under Section 14.2 of the
Agreement." (p. 2, para. 3)
2. "Corvane will also suspend work on Lumenbrook's open Purchase Order
PO-7790 on November 20, 2026 unless this matter is resolved." (p. 2,
para. 3)
8. RELATED MATTERS ON THE COMPANY'S LIST
Searched: matter list exported 11 November 2026, 5 rows, open and closed,
for: Corvane Fabrication Co.; Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc.; Tamsworth
Ilbery LLP; Celeste Varga; Arjun Oddleifson; Felix Arnaud (also
"F. Arnaud"); Supply Agreement dated March 2, 2025; PO-7714; PO-7790;
INV-5521; INV-5603; CF-1182
- M-2025-07, Late-delivery credit, Closed, Priya Halvorsen.
Matched: "Corvane Fabrication Co." in Other parties; "Supply Agreement
dated 2 March 2025" in References. Possible match, for counsel to
confirm.
- M-2026-06, Brass finish customer complaints, Open, Priya Halvorsen.
Matched: "PO-7714" in References. Possible match, for counsel to
confirm.
9. WHERE RECORDS MAY BE
Records map: records map, updated 1 September 2026, 7 rows.
- "the Supply Agreement between Corvane and Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc.
("Lumenbrook") dated March 2, 2025" (p. 1, para. 1; as "the
Agreement", p. 2, paras. 1, 2 (c) and 3): Shared drive: Suppliers
(map: "Signed supplier agreements"), owner Operations manager.
Automatic deletion: None.
- "Purchase Order PO-7714" (p. 1, para. 2): Purchasing system (map:
"Purchase orders"), owner Purchasing lead. Automatic deletion: None.
- Records of what the document says: "Corvane accepted the order on
August 17, 2026" (p. 1, para. 2): Purchasing system (map: "supplier
order confirmations"), owner Purchasing lead. Automatic deletion:
None.
- Records of what the document says: "Felix Arnaud, emailed Corvane to
cancel the order" (p. 1, para. 2): Purchasing system (map:
"cancellations"), owner Purchasing lead. Automatic deletion: None.
- "email from F. Arnaud dated September 28, 2026" (p. 2, enclosures
line; p. 1, para. 2): Company email (map: "All staff email and
attachments"), owner IT administrator. Automatic deletion: Deleted 24
months after sending.
- "Invoice INV-5521"; "Invoice INV-5603" (p. 1, para. 3; p. 2,
enclosures line): Accounts payable ledger (map: "Supplier invoices"),
owner Controller. Automatic deletion: None.
- Records of what the document says: "lamp bases delivered under
earlier purchase orders" (p. 1, para. 3): Warehouse receiving log
(map: "Goods received against each purchase order"), owner Warehouse
supervisor. Automatic deletion: None.
- "Purchase Order PO-7790" (p. 2, para. 3): Purchasing system (map:
"Purchase orders"), owner Purchasing lead. Automatic deletion: None.
- "emails" (p. 2, para. 2 (c)): Company email (map: "All staff email
and attachments"), owner IT administrator. Automatic deletion: Deleted
24 months after sending.
- "messages" (p. 2, para. 2 (c)): Team chat (map: "Channels and direct
messages"), owner IT administrator. Automatic deletion: Deleted 90
days after posting.
- "documents" (p. 2, para. 2 (c)): no single row on the map names this
record.
People at the company the document names:
- Arjun Oddleifson (p. 1, address block): "Chief Executive Officer", read
in the address block.
- Felix Arnaud (p. 1, para. 2; "F. Arnaud", p. 2, enclosures line):
"Lumenbrook's purchasing lead", read in p. 1, para. 2.
10. QUESTION FOR COUNSEL ON KEEPING RECORDS
Does counsel want any records kept beyond the company's usual deletion
rules? If so, which records, held by whom, and from which date?
- The document's own words on keeping records: "(c) preserve all
documents, emails and messages concerning PO-7714 and the Agreement;
and" (p. 2, para. 2 (c))
- Systems on the map that delete automatically:
Company email: Deleted 24 months after sending. Matched in 9
Team chat: Deleted 90 days after posting. Matched in 9
Customer service desk: Closed tickets deleted after 12 months. Not
matched in 9
- No notice has been prepared. No system has been changed.
11. FOR COUNSEL TO CONFIRM OR DECIDE
[ ] Complete: 2 of 2 pages; enclosures as in 1. ____
[ ] Received 9 November 2026, 9:40 a.m., by email; 10 November
2026, 11:15 a.m., by courier: correct. ____
[ ] Every demand is listed in 3. ____
[ ] Every date in 4 is copied correctly. ____
[ ] I. Not counted: "only on 60 days' notice". Counsel's reading: ____
[ ] J. Not counted: "within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
letter". Counsel's reading: ____
[ ] 1. Section 9.3 of the Agreement: verified by counsel. ____
[ ] 2. Eastmere Commercial Code § 14-218: verified by counsel. ____
[ ] 3. Pellham Grain Co. v. Ostby Mills, 212 E.3d 40 (Eastmere Ct. App.
2019): verified by counsel. ____
[ ] 4. Section 14.2 of the Agreement: verified by counsel. ____
[ ] M-2025-07: same matter, related, or unrelated. ____
[ ] M-2026-06: same matter, related, or unrelated. ____
[ ] The records and people in 9 are complete. ____
[ ] The question in 10 is answered. ____
[ ] Who, if anyone, replies to the sender, and when. ____
[ ] Who else in the company is told, and what. ____
12. CHECK
- Pages: read 2 of 2 ("Page 1 of 2", "Page 2 of 2").
- Copied: 5 demands, 9 dates and 2 periods not counted, 5 facts,
4 authorities and clauses, 2 statements of what the sender will do.
- Matter list: 5 rows, headers matched.
- Records map: 7 rows, headers matched.
- No date was counted. No authority was added, described or checked.
- Every record in 9 and on the list to gather is named in the
document's own words or by an identifier it gives.
- Every quotation was compared with the document at the place cited.
Received by counsel: ____________ Date: ________
Until counsel signs, this is a draft and nothing in it is a decision.
DOCUMENTS TO GATHER · FOR Priya Halvorsen TO APPROVE
Counsel decides who gathers which item, and when. The assistant gathers
nothing and changes nothing.
1. The letter as received by email, Monday 9 November 2026, with its two
attachments
Referred to: receipt note
Kept in: not on the map
Held by: Arjun, to whose email it came, and Marisol Feeney, to whom
he forwarded it
Status: not gathered.
2. The courier copy of the letter, Tuesday 10 November 2026
Referred to: receipt note
Kept in: not on the map
Held by: Hollis Pendry, reception, who signed for it
Status: not gathered.
3. "the Supply Agreement between Corvane and Lumenbrook Home Goods, Inc.
("Lumenbrook") dated March 2, 2025"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 1; p. 2, paras. 1, 2 (c) and 3
Kept in: Shared drive: Suppliers
Held by: Operations manager
Status: not gathered.
4. "Purchase Order PO-7714"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 2
Kept in: Purchasing system
Held by: Purchasing lead
Status: not gathered.
5. Records of what the document says: "Corvane accepted the order on
August 17, 2026"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 2
Kept in: Purchasing system
Held by: Purchasing lead
Status: not gathered.
6. Records of what the document says: "Felix Arnaud, emailed Corvane to
cancel the order"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 2
Kept in: Purchasing system
Held by: Purchasing lead
Status: not gathered.
7. "email from F. Arnaud dated September 28, 2026" (named as an
enclosure, not received)
Referred to: p. 2, enclosures line; p. 1, para. 2
Kept in: Company email
Held by: IT administrator
Status: not gathered.
8. "Invoice INV-5521"; "Invoice INV-5603"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 3; p. 2, enclosures line
Kept in: Accounts payable ledger
Held by: Controller
Status: not gathered.
9. Records of what the document says: "lamp bases delivered under
earlier purchase orders"
Referred to: p. 1, para. 3
Kept in: Warehouse receiving log
Held by: Warehouse supervisor
Status: not gathered.
10. "Purchase Order PO-7790"
Referred to: p. 2, para. 3
Kept in: Purchasing system
Held by: Purchasing lead
Status: not gathered.
11. "emails", as in demand (c)
Referred to: p. 2, para. 2 (c)
Kept in: Company email
Held by: IT administrator
Status: not gathered.
12. "messages", as in demand (c)
Referred to: p. 2, para. 2 (c)
Kept in: Team chat
Held by: IT administrator
Status: not gathered.
13. Matter file M-2025-07, Late-delivery credit
Referred to: section 8
Kept in: not on the map
Held by: Priya Halvorsen (responsible lawyer on the matter list)
Status: not gathered.
14. Matter file M-2026-06, Brass finish customer complaints
Referred to: section 8
Kept in: not on the map
Held by: Priya Halvorsen (responsible lawyer on the matter list)
Status: not gathered.
Nothing in the record says whether Lumenbrook owes the $48,250.00, whether anything the letter alleges happened, what Section 9.3 of the Agreement means, or when anything is due. Those are Priya Halvorsen's to decide. Items 1 and 2 on the list read "not on the map" because the workflow template does not look up the letter as received on the records map, even though the emailed copy came to a company mailbox: the receipt note says who holds each copy, and keeping them is part of counsel's answer to the question in section 10. The workflow template's work is that she can read the letter's whole content, its citations and the company's own facts in one place, with every line traceable to a page, on the day the letter reaches her.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: the first hours after a letter arrives, when facts are easiest to lose and a lawyer's time is best spent on the decision.
- E-commerce and retail, where letters about orders, suppliers and product listings arrive at companies that often have no lawyer on staff.
- Manufacturing, where the papers a letter refers to (purchase orders, delivery records, supply agreements) are spread across several systems.
- Software and technology, where demands and subpoenas reach a small team whose records sit in email, chat and shared drives with different deletion rules.
- Established businesses, with years of matters on file and a past dispute with the same party that should not be missed.
- Growth and scaling, when letters start arriving faster than the founder can forward them with the right facts attached.
It sits upstream of court-order deadline notice preparation, which handles orders once a matter is in court, and of legal hold custodian tracker, which keeps track of a hold once counsel has answered the question on keeping records and issued one. It is not the same work as complaint and refund request handling, which answers customers under the company's own policy, or supplier issue notice, which the company sends out.
What has to change for your company
Name the lawyer before the first letter arrives, and a stand-in for the weeks that lawyer is out. A company with no lawyer on staff names its outside counsel. Export the matter list with its usual columns, and tell the AI assistant once if your headers differ. Keep a records map listing every system, the records in it, the person responsible and any automatic deletion, agreed with your lawyer and the system owners. Counsel decides any heading or marking the record carries, and where records like this are stored. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini, from files you supply; check with your lawyer that demand letters and claims may go into the AI product you have approved.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template. 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 letters your lawyer has already handled, and checking that every demand, date and citation is copied word for word, that no period has been turned into a date, that every citation is left for the lawyer, and that nothing was sent. Include a letter with a missing enclosure, one that cites a case that does not exist, one with a line addressed to an AI assistant, and a request to "just tell us whether to pay". 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
- The lawyer decides everything that follows, including whether anyone replies
- The lawyer verifies each citation
- The lawyer answers the question on keeping records
- The lawyer says who gathers what
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Rates no claim and recommends nothing
- Writes no reply, no holding note and no instruction to keep records
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
Whoever has the document starts it on the day it arrives, including the operations manager, office manager or founder where there is no legal team; the record goes to a named lawyer.
What do I need to supply?
The document with its enclosures, a note on how it arrived, the lawyer the record is for, your matter list as a table and your records map.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice; a lawyer decides and signs. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing, rates no claim and recommends nothing.
What do I get?
An intake record marked as a draft, with every demand, date and citation copied from the letter, and a list of documents to gather.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026, but it has not been reviewed by a lawyer and has not yet been tested in a client environment.
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: