AI automation & speed-to-lead
We build the intake response system: every inquiry contacted inside five minutes, day or night, without adding a person to your payroll. A human handles anything that requires judgement. The automated agent knows what it is not allowed to say.
What the automated data is allowed to do
What the automated agent is not allowed to say
The reason most firms will not put an automated responder on a birth injury inquiry is that they cannot predict what it will say, and the downside is a bar complaint rather than a lost lead. That is the right instinct and it is solvable by constraint rather than by trust.
The agent we build answers a fixed set of questions and refuses everything else. It confirms receipt, states when a person will call, asks for the facts a screener needs, and stops. It does not tell anyone whether they have a claim. It does not estimate what a matter might be worth. It does not describe a limitation period as though it applied to their situation. It does not name a hospital or a clinician. Anything outside its set is handed to a human with the conversation attached.
Every exchange is logged and reviewable. If the agent says something it should not, you can find it, and so can we. The transcript is your record, in your account, and the refusal list is written down rather than assumed.
merit or value, and any ambiguity. Everything it says is logged into the case file verbatim.| Constraint | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Never assesses merit | No merit vocabulary in the response set; merit-adjacent user input triggers immediate escalation |
| Never states or implies a value | Numeric-amount responses are disabled entirely in this context |
| Never presents as a lawyer or as firm legal staff | Self-identification as automated in the first message and on request |
| Never gives legal or medical advice | Out-of-scope classifier escalates rather than answering |
| Everything is logged | Full transcript written to the case file, retained under the firm’s retention policy |
| Firm-specific disclosures present | Jurisdiction-aware disclosure block, reviewed by the firm before launch |
| Baseline measure | How it is captured | Typical finding when a firm measures it for the first time |
|---|---|---|
| Time to first contact, per inquiry | Timestamp on inquiry creation vs. first outbound contact in the CRM | The median looks acceptable; the 90th percentile does not |
| After-hours share of inquiries | Inquiry timestamps bucketed by local hour | Substantially higher than firms expect in this category |
| Inquiries with no contact attempt logged at all | CRM audit | Rarely zero |
| Contact attempts before abandonment | CRM activity count per inquiry | Often one, where the firm believes the policy is three |
Practising what the site preaches
Every inquiry to this site is answered by a person, and the target is the same five minutes we hold client programmes to. If we miss it, we will tell you we missed it. A site that sells speed-to-lead and takes two days to reply is an argument against its own thesis. Test it →
What we report
| Metric | Role | Reported as |
|---|---|---|
| Median and 90th-percentile time to first contact | Primary | Headline. The median flatters; the 90th percentile is where cases are lost. |
| Contact rate within five minutes, business hours | Primary | A rate, not an average. |
| After-hours inquiries reaching a human by next morning | Primary | Reported separately; the failure mode is different. |
| Escalation accuracy | Guardrail | How often the automated data correctly hands off. Errors here are the risk of the whole line. |
| Automation coverage rate | Operational | Appendix. Coverage is not the goal; contact is. |
| Phase | Length | What happens | What you get |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 · Diagnostic | 3 weeks | Market sizing from our data, audit of current spend against cost per signed case, screening-capacity model | A written plan and a decision. Credited in full against the first three months of any retainer. |
| 1 · Instrumentation | Weeks 1–4 | Tracking rebuilt so every inquiry carries its source through to the case management system | A funnel you can audit. Nothing is optimised before it can be measured. |
| 2 · Build | Weeks 3–10 | Channel build, creative, landing pages, intake scripts and screening rubric | Assets you own outright, in your accounts, under your name. |
| 3 · Operate | Ongoing | Weekly optimisation against cost per signed case, monthly against cost per case surviving review | A monthly report that leads with signed cases, not impressions. |
When this is the wrong service for you
If your inquiry volume is low enough that a person genuinely answers every one inside five minutes, you do not need this. Instrument what you have, prove it with data over a month, and spend the money on screening instead. Buying automation to fix a problem you have not measured is how firms end up with three tools and the same response time.
Related
Paid search & Local Services Ads
The most expensive inventory in legal, bought against a signed-case target rather than a click target.
Paid social
Demand creation for a population that does not know a claim may still be live. Handled without exploiting grief.
SEO & AI search
Built to be quoted by answer engines, not only ranked by search engines. Both are measured separately.
What this costs → · Book a call → · Read the free library first →
Authorship & review
- Author
- Birth Injury Marketing. About the company.
- Last reviewed
- Legal review
- Not yet assigned. This page describes marketing practice, not law, and gives no legal advice. Rules cited are linked to the primary source so you can read them directly. See Editorial Standards.
- Corrections
- Found an error? Tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters us.