Automating Client Intake and Document Chasing at a New Zealand Law Firm
Which parts of intake a workflow can handle, and where a lawyer must sign off.
Client intake splits into three parts, and only two of them should be automated.
The parts a workflow can handle are enquiry capture and document chasing — collecting the enquiry into a structured record, and requesting, tracking and reminding on the documents a matter needs. The part that should not be automated is the decision to act: whether the firm takes the matter, on what terms, and what the client is told about scope and fees.
That boundary is the whole design. Everything below sits on one side of it or the other.
Why overseas answers do not transfer
Search this question and you get US legal-practice platforms describing US workflows. The gap is not tooling, it is regulatory frame: New Zealand law firms operate under a different statute and a different supervisory arrangement, and an intake workflow built to a US template omits steps that matter here.
This article describes what parts of an intake process can be automated and where a human must sign off. It does not tell you what your firm’s obligations are. For that, the primary sources are the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Conduct and Client Care Rules 2008, the AML/CFT Act 2009 and the New Zealand Law Society. Read those, or ask someone who advises on them. Do not take a process article — including this one — as a statement of what you must do.
Stage one: enquiry capture
Fully automatable, and the cheapest place to start.
An enquiry arrives by web form, email or phone. The workflow writes it into a structured record with a timestamp, a source, a matter type and the contact details. Nothing is assessed at this stage; it is filing.
Two things worth building in from the start:
A matter-type branch. A conveyancing enquiry and an employment enquiry need different downstream steps. One field, chosen at capture, decides the rest.
A company lookup where the client is not an individual. Where the enquiry comes from a company rather than a person, the directors and shareholders on record are public and can be retrieved automatically from the New Zealand Companies Register. That is a retrieval step, not an assessment: what the firm does with the result belongs in the next stage.
A complete communication record. Every message the workflow sends is stored against the record. The reason to build this now rather than later is that retrofitting message history into a system that did not keep it is not possible.
Stage two: the checks, which are not one step
This is where a US-templated workflow goes wrong, because it treats intake as a single gate.
In a New Zealand firm there are at least two distinct checks before a matter opens, and they answer different questions:
Conflict check. Does the firm already act for someone whose interests run against this enquiry? A workflow can search existing matters and surface candidates. It should not clear a conflict — surfacing is mechanical, judgement is not.
Customer due diligence. Law firms are covered by the AML/CFT Act 2009, which sets out a due diligence regime. A workflow can collect identity documents, track which are outstanding and chase them. What level of diligence applies to a given client and matter is a determination, and the Act and the Law Society are where that is set out, not a vendor’s feature list.
The automation boundary here is sharp and worth stating plainly: collect and chase, never clear. A workflow that marks a check complete because a file was uploaded has automated the paperwork and skipped the decision.
Stage three: engagement and document chasing
Once a human has decided the firm will act, the rest is largely mechanical.
Engagement letter. Generated from the matter record, reviewed by the responsible lawyer, sent. The generation and the sending automate; the review does not.
Document request. A list derived from matter type, sent as a single request with a secure upload route rather than as a chain of email attachments.
The chase. This is the part that actually costs firms time. A default of three reminders over ten business days, stopping on upload or on any human reply, handles most matters. Escalate to a person rather than to a fourth reminder.
Personal information. Intake collects a lot of it. The Privacy Act 2020 governs how personal information is handled in New Zealand, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner publishes guidance on it. Where the documents are stored and who can reach them is a design decision to make before you build, not after.
What automates and what does not
| Intake stage | Automates cleanly | Needs a human |
|---|---|---|
| Enquiry capture | Capture, timestamp, matter-type branch, acknowledgement | Nothing |
| Conflict check | Searching existing matters, surfacing candidates | Deciding whether a conflict exists |
| Customer due diligence | Collecting documents, tracking gaps, chasing | Determining what applies and whether it is satisfied |
| Engagement letter | Drafting from the record, sending, storing | Reviewing and approving the terms |
| Document chasing | Requests, reminders, escalation, audit trail | Deciding when to stop chasing and call |
| Opening the matter | Creating the record once approved | The decision to act |
The right-hand column is the article. Anything in it that a workflow “handles“ is a workflow making a professional judgement it is not equipped to make.
Building it
The mechanics are ordinary. A workflow tool such as n8n sits between the web form, the practice management system and the document store; the n8n documentation covers the trigger and HTTP request nodes this needs. The hard part is not the integration.
The hard part is that the workflow must fail safe. If the document store is unreachable, the correct behaviour is to stop and raise, not to continue and mark the step done. Most intake automations are written the other way round, because the happy path is what gets tested.
Where this goes wrong
Automating the decision. Covered throughout, and it is the only failure on this list that creates a professional problem rather than an operational one.
Chasing forever. A sequence with no end makes the firm the thing clients avoid.
Storing documents wherever the tool defaults to. Decide the location deliberately.
Building intake before the firm agrees what intake is. If two partners take enquiries differently, automation makes the difference faster and more visible.
Frequently asked questions
Can a workflow complete a client due diligence check?
It can collect documents, track what is outstanding and chase. Whether the diligence is satisfied is a determination for the firm, and the regime is set out in the AML/CFT Act 2009.
Can the engagement letter be sent automatically?
The drafting and the sending can be automated. The review should not be. Generating from a matter record and holding it for approval is the usual pattern.
Where should intake documents be stored?
In whatever system the firm already treats as its record, rather than in the workflow tool. The Privacy Act 2020 governs handling of personal information in New Zealand.
How many reminders is too many?
Three over ten business days, then a person. A fourth automated reminder rarely produces the document and often produces a complaint.
Does this article tell me what my firm has to do?
No. It describes which parts of an intake process can be automated. Obligations are set out in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the rules and statutes linked above, and the New Zealand Law Society is the place to start.
Working with AUXA
AUXA builds intake and document-chasing workflows for New Zealand professional services firms. The approach is on our automation services page, the closest adjacent work is under automation for immigration, and delivered work is on our case studies page.
We build the workflow. We do not advise on obligations, and any firm automating intake should have someone who does.