Category overview
Clio and MyCase lead Intake & legal CRM at 11/12, and both earn it through purpose-built intake tooling rather than a repurposed contact list. Clio documents Clio Grow — client intake, web forms, and CRM pipelines — as a distinct module for capturing leads before they become matters. MyCase pairs customizable intake forms, lead management, and a legal CRM with built-in e-signature for engagement documents. The catch on MyCase is tiering: both its intake/CRM and its e-signature require the Pro tier, not the entry Basic plan ($50/user/mo billed annually), so the capability that earns the score is not the cheapest line item.
CosmoLex and Smokeball follow at 9/12, but with caveats a buyer should price in. CosmoLex documents automated client/lead intake and lead tracking, yet its full CRM is a paid add-on and its LexSign e-signature and LexShare portal are billed separately — relevant because the "informed engagement documents" step depends on e-signature. Smokeball is the only product here that documents conflict checks alongside lead management and pipeline, directly serving the requirement to preserve the conflict decision — though that bundle sits at its top Prosper+ tier. Rocket Matter also documents conflict checks (8/12), a useful signal for firms that treat intake as a risk gate.
The laggards show that a strong overall house score does not equal intake strength. CARET Legal scores 7.9 overall — tied with CosmoLex — but is weakest here at 7/12, leaning on automated workflows at higher tiers rather than a dedicated intake pipeline. PracticePanther (8/12) offers workflow automation and one-click templates but no documented purpose-built intake/CRM module. Across the field, match the tier to the capability: intake, CRM, e-signature, and conflict-check features are frequently gated behind higher plans or sold as add-ons.
Workflow requirements
Complete party capture
Collect prospective client, adverse party, related entity and referral data early enough to support the firm’s conflict process.
Qualification and routing
Use practice area, jurisdiction, urgency and capacity without promising representation or exposing sensitive inquiry data too broadly.
Engagement workflow
Test questionnaires, document generation, e-signature, reminders and the transition from prospect to client.
Decline and retention
Record non-engagement communications, reasons, retention rules and access while avoiding unsupported legal automation.
Buyer questions
- When does a lead become visible in conflict search?
- Can duplicate people and organizations be resolved before matter creation?
- How are consent and e-signature records preserved?
- Which automations send client-facing messages?
- Can intake answers and files be exported with their field names?
Evidence gaps to keep open
- Conflict checking is a professional process, not a feature that can be assumed complete.
- CRM automation claims do not establish compliant messaging or retention.
- Form and e-signature limits may vary by plan.
Legal demo scenarios
Use synthetic records and require every shortlisted vendor to complete the same sequence.
- New matter intake and conflict check: Submit a realistic web inquiry, detect a possible conflict, capture the resolution, send an engagement letter and open the matter without re-keying contact data.
- Court deadline change: Move a court date and show how dependent deadlines, assignments, notifications and the audit trail change. Confirm that rules-based calculations are jurisdiction-appropriate.
- Time to invoice and payment: Enter time from desktop and mobile, apply a rate arrangement, review a pre-bill, issue an invoice and record an online payment.
- Trust and IOLTA reconciliation: Receive a retainer, allocate funds by client and matter, apply earned funds, reconcile the account and produce the supporting ledger without commingling.
- Complete export: Export contacts, matters, custom fields, notes, communications, documents, calendar data, time, invoices, payments and trust ledgers in documented, usable formats.
