Separate screening, evidence and legal review
Screening captures answers against the campaign brief. Verification checks a defined fact against an agreed source of evidence. Legal review determines whether the firm will pursue a matter. These stages can inform one another, but a passed questionnaire does not automatically complete the other two.
For example, a prospect may report a diagnosis and a period of product use. Label those answers as self-reported unless the purchased scope includes a documented check. Your firm can then decide what evidence is needed and who obtains it, without confusing an initial screen with a completed case file.
Write the rule next to the question
A long script is hard to administer when nobody has defined what each answer means. For each field, specify the question, acceptable response format, action and owner of any exception. The template below describes operational fields; the firm supplies the actual legal criteria for its campaign.
Use three distinct outcomes where the campaign permits them: passes the initial screen, fails a defined hard stop, or needs review. An unknown date should not silently become a confirmed date. A “needs review” result should have a named destination rather than disappearing into an unworked queue.
| Field | Define before launch | Handling to agree |
|---|---|---|
| Product or exposure | Approved identification question and answer options | Record the answer and label uncertain identification |
| Timing | Required dates, duration and acceptable precision | Route unknown or incomplete dates for defined review |
| Reported injury or diagnosis | Approved wording and required response fields | Separate self-report from evidence supplied |
| Geography | The campaign’s permitted locations | Apply the firm’s approved geographic rule |
| Representation or prior claim | Firm-approved questions and exclusions | Use the defined stop or review path |
| Permission and contact details | Required disclosure record and contact fields | Deliver only the agreed data and evidence |
Distinguish hard disqualifiers from information to collect later
A hard disqualifier should stop the specified delivery because the answer fails an explicit campaign rule. An incomplete field may need a different response: ask a follow-up question, pause for review or deliver under a separately agreed exception. Defining that difference helps protect both staff time and potentially useful inquiries.
Write the question in language the prospective client can understand and have the firm approve it. Avoid suggesting a preferred answer. If a prospect corrects an answer, retain the correction context required by the agreed process. The purpose is a reliable handoff, not a script that pushes every person through.
Make changes traceable across sources and formats
Assign a version to the criteria brief and document when a change takes effect. A coordinator should be able to identify which version applied to a particular delivery. This helps resolve situations where one source is still using an earlier exclusion or a receiving team is reviewing a delivery against a newer rule.
Use the same approved standards across the relevant acquisition sources, while accounting for the format. Inbound calls follow the agreed question path before connection. Qualified leads carry agreed responses into follow-up. AI-qualified transfers apply the specified screen before handoff. Retainer programs add their own document and packet requirements.
Return a reason that can change the next delivery
“Bad lead” does not identify the problem. Use agreed reason codes for issues such as a missing field, wrong geography, duplicate delivery, screening mismatch or unanswered contact attempts. Keep those separate from later evidence or case-merit decisions. Each points to a different part of the process.
TortHarbor brings your brief into one acquisition relationship across the agreed sources. Share the initial questions, disqualifiers and current intake bottleneck. We can scope what to screen before delivery, the context your team receives and the feedback needed to improve the program.
Plan the next step with your intake team.
Turn your claimant profile into specific questions, acceptable answers and hard disqualifiers. A shared brief gives sources a consistent standard and helps keep your team from spending time on known mismatches.
- Identify exposure or product, relevant dates, reported injury, geography and representation questions.
- Separate information needed before delivery from evidence your team will collect later.
- Choose the format, distribution terms, budget, daily cap and staffed delivery hours.
- Name the people who approve criteria, receive deliveries and reconcile outcomes.
These describe different stages. Keeping them separate helps your team understand what it is buying and what remains to be done.
- Screened: responses have been assessed against the campaign’s questions and rules.
- Verified: specified facts have been checked against identified evidence; define which checks are included.
- Retained: the agreed retainer documents have been signed.
- Accepted: your firm has completed the review it requires to accept the case. Neither screening nor a signature guarantees that result.
Outcome feedback turns intake experience into acquisition decisions. Track the same group of deliveries over time so we can identify where prospects stop progressing and discuss changes to sources, screening or handoff.
- Keep delivered, contacted, screened, retained and accepted counts separate.
- Record why an inquiry did not progress, such as unreachable, screening mismatch or insufficient supporting evidence.
- Allow for your intake and records-review cycle before comparing results.
- Use reconciled outcomes to discuss source mix, questions, delivery timing and capacity for the next phase.
Questions before you start
Does a qualified lead include medical-record verification?
Not automatically. Qualification means the agreed screening has been completed. Verification and records work must be explicitly defined in the purchased scope.
Can our firm update the questions after launch?
Changes can be coordinated through a new approved criteria version and effective time. Confirm the implementation and treatment of earlier deliveries before applying a new standard.
Should every missing answer cause rejection?
That depends on the firm’s approved brief. Distinguish mandatory hard stops from information that can be clarified or collected later, and define who handles review.