Turn completed visits into review invitations.
Happy families are rarely asked for feedback.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Marketing & Reputation · Legal
Check practice articles before publication.
Draft articles can imply guarantees or reveal client facts.
For: Responsible attorneys and the team responsible for marketing & reputation in legal.
01 · The outcome
What good looks like.
The team has an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off, with source evidence and an explicit approval before any external action. Track issues found before publication against a baseline; do not assume automation improves it.
A connected workflow that uses article draft, jurisdiction, and firm-approved marketing rules to flag unsupported claims, client identifiers, and missing jurisdiction qualifiers. It produces an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off.
Where AI helps, and where a person decides.
AI can flag unsupported claims, client identifiers, and missing jurisdiction qualifiers. It drafts and organizes; it does not authorize spending, commitments, clinical decisions or customer communication. The responsible attorney verifies the source facts and approves the final action.
Responsible attorney is accountable. People approve customer-facing, sensitive, financial, and legally binding actions.
- Responsible attorney: Capture the source and scope
- Responsible attorney: Review the proposed outcome
- Responsible attorney: Release only the approved version
- Responsible attorney: Check the result and exceptions
A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
02 · The handoffs
How the work moves.
Every handoff has an owner. Select a step to open or close its detail.
Start when: A practice article enters editorial review. Connect only article draft, jurisdiction, and firm-approved marketing rules. The responsible attorney confirms the request is authorized and in scope.
Ready when: The source reference, permissions and accountable owner are recorded.
Use the authorized records to flag unsupported claims, client identifiers, and missing jurisdiction qualifiers. Preserve the original language alongside the draft and label uncertain fields.
Ready when: Each proposed fact links back to a source, and missing information is visible.
Check an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off against the original records and current policy. Correct errors and escalate exceptions to the qualified specialist; do not auto-approve.
Ready when: Responsible attorney has recorded approval or a reason to hold the item.
After explicit approval, save an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off in the system of record. Send only approved messages to verified recipients. Record the version and prevent duplicate delivery.
Ready when: The approved record is saved; any delivery is confirmed or placed in the retry queue.
Review issues found before publication each week, sample completed records for quality, and resolve held items. Change the rules only after reviewing actual errors and staff feedback.
Ready when: Exceptions have owners, the metric has a baseline, and corrective actions are assigned.
Sample record.
$ david run --workflow=legal-publication-review
ILLUSTRATIVE RECORD / NOT LIVE CUSTOMER DATA
- Example
- Illustrative only — not a real client record
- Reference
- LEGAL-PUBLICATION-REVIEW-DEMO-001
- Trigger
- A practice article enters editorial review.
- Owner
- Responsible attorney
- Prepared output
- an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off
- Review status
- Awaiting human approval — no external action taken
- Missing information
- Owner to verify source completeness
- Measure
- Issues found before publication
Start with your tools.
Connect Clio, Microsoft 365, Document management system through approved APIs or controlled exports. Map record identifiers first; test permissions and field updates in a sandbox. Vendor names describe possible connections, not a guarantee of an available integration or license.
When things go wrong.
- A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
- Use only authorized sources and role-based access. Keep an audit trail of source records, drafts, approvals and delivery status; deduplicate retries.
- If an integration fails, a source is missing or confidence is low, pause the action and assign the original request to the accountable owner.
- For legal work, preserve privilege and confidentiality, check conflicts before substantive intake, and require a licensed attorney to approve legal advice, filings and engagement terms.
Try this week / no DAVID required
A useful first step.
This week, have your responsible attorney time five examples of this work. Use redacted copies of article draft, jurisdiction, and firm-approved marketing rules to make an annotated publication draft requiring attorney sign-off manually, then list which fields required judgment.
What to measure.
- Issues found before publication
- Minutes of human handling per completed item
- Drafts needing substantive correction
- Exceptions unresolved beyond the agreed review window
Estimate your time back.
20.8
$11,232
03 · More workflows to consider
Related workflows.
Draft practice posts without exposing patients.
Marketing drafts accidentally contain clinical details.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Draft listing copy from verified property facts.
Listing descriptions repeat errors from old materials.
Est. deploy 2–4 weeksSee the walkthrough
Want this running in your business in 4–6 weeks?
Free 30-minute call. We'll tell you honestly whether AI fits, and where.