Beat one
What they were trying to do
A law-firm partner had a class-action settlement and a window to sign up claimants. Field reps needed to be enrolling clients immediately — not after a procurement cycle, not after a software evaluation.
Every claimant had to receive documents for signature. Every submission had to be tracked. And the e-signature tool they were leaning on was about to start billing them thousands of dollars a year for a volume they'd only need once.
In the partner's words, the ask was simple: "get documents out and signed, fast."
Beat two
What we found
We mapped the whole flow before proposing anything — with the partner, and then with the controller. That second conversation is where the engagement actually turned.
The partner's need was signatures. The controller's need was visibility, and that was the real constraint. She had to know, at any moment: every new client, which rep signed them, and exactly what stage each deal was in — viewed, signed, approved. Without that, signed documents would just become a different kind of pile.
A tool that only sent documents would have satisfied the request and failed the business. That distinction is most of what the Define phase is for.
We also went at the cost before we went at the technology. We negotiated with the incumbent e-signature vendor first — switching for its own sake is churn, not savings. When the numbers still didn't work, we moved signature capture to a compliance-grade API at a fraction of the cost. Cost engineering is part of solution design, not an afterthought.
Beat three
What we built, and what changed
A shared link — or a rep-entered form — captures the client's data. From there the pipeline pulls the class-administrator records, prefills the firm's own PDFs, and routes them out for delivery and compliant electronic signature.
Every submission lands on a tracking dashboard the controller runs day to day: who signed up, which rep brought them, and the live document stage for each one. No chasing. No retyping. No asking a rep what happened to a file.
Delivered working in three days, using AI-assisted development to compress the build without compressing the thinking.
What it became
Intake was only the first half
Getting claimants signed solved the urgent problem. It also created the next one: once several hundred people are moving through a matter, somebody has to run it. Which claimants are stuck? Which rep signed this one? Who is approved and still waiting to be paid?
So the intake pipeline grew into a case manager — the same engagement, continued. Every claimant searchable, document status visible at a glance, rep attribution settled without asking anyone, and approved claims batched into a payout without a spreadsheet in the middle of it.
Try the case manager. A working recreation running on 187 invented claimants — search as you type, build and save your own views, reconfigure the columns, then batch the approved claims into a payout and watch them settle. No client information appears anywhere in it. Open the demo →
Why this generalizes
The pattern here isn't legal-specific. It shows up any time a business is moving people through stages and losing track of them in the process: the person who asks for the system is rarely the person whose problem defines it.
If your intake, onboarding, quoting, or approvals run on documents and follow-up, this is the same shape of problem. It's usually cheaper to fix than owners expect.