Reviewing a Client’s Copied AskSensai Checklist Alongside the Attorney Inbox

A prospective client may arrive with an AI conversation, a copied preparation checklist and a folder of documents. Those are different materials with different provenance. LawSensai's AskSensai consultation panel can organize a user's own questions and facts; the attorney's task is to decide what those notes help establish and what still requires verification.¹

This walkthrough is for practicing attorneys reviewing client-provided material. It does not describe an automatic transfer of an entire AI conversation, a completed conflict check or an engagement created by opening an inbox.

Establish what was actually received

Ask the sender which material they copied, which they edited and which originals support it. Preserve the received version. A preparation list may contain only the user's questions, while an answer copied from the conversation may contain separate legal propositions. Do not blend them into one unattributed narrative.

In a fictional example, a prospective client provides a copied question about a Colorado status conference and a separate notice PDF. The question sheet says what the person wants help understanding. The notice, not the question sheet, supplies the event's actual wording and logistics.

Before receiving more detail, apply the firm's conflict and prospective-client process. ABA Model Rule 1.18 addresses duties that can arise in prospective-client consultations, but the applicable jurisdiction's adopted rules govern your practice.² Use an appropriately limited initial information request rather than assuming an AI-generated packet has already cleared the process.

Keep the inbox's boundaries visible

Authorized attorney accounts can open Leads & Intake. The Shared summaries area is for information explicitly shared with that individual account. Its interface distinguishes opening information from acknowledgment or acceptance of representation. An empty-state message means no available summaries are displayed for that account; it does not prove a client never copied or sent something elsewhere.

Do not describe a client's consultation-preparation Copy button as delivery to this inbox. AskSensai copying, a separate disclosure consent, server delivery, attorney receipt and engagement are distinct events. Verify the actual destination and received content before telling the client the firm has their materials.

Likewise, a summary is not necessarily a complete chat transcript or document collection. Work from the actual available content and ask for necessary originals through the firm's approved channel. Do not infer unseen attachments from a label such as “prepared with AI.”

Use a provenance review table

The following worksheet keeps facts, assertions and questions separate:

For the fictional notice, record which page supports the date, whether a later notice exists and whether the proposed review includes logistics or substantive advice. A confident summary should not collapse those questions.

Review content using the firm's own standards

Separate what the client personally knows from what the AI inferred. Ask whether a sentence changes an allegation into a finding, omits an adverse fact, assumes a jurisdiction or calculates time from an uncertain event. Keep contradictions visible until resolved.

For legal propositions, verify the citation, the source text, the relevant jurisdiction and the proposition's fit. Check current treatment using the resources required for the task. A citation-looking string is not verification, and a product warning or automated check is not licensed legal review. ABA Formal Opinion 512 identifies competence, confidentiality and supervision among the duties implicated by generative AI; it remains guidance that must be read with governing rules.³

Control further use and disclosure

Before putting the material into another AI system or sharing it with staff, assess the firm's authorization, confidentiality and access requirements. Model Rule 1.6 addresses protection against unauthorized disclosure or access; it does not create a blanket exception for material a client happened to prepare with AI.⁴

Keep the original received material, the source records and the lawyer's review notes identifiable. If a staff member prepares a first-pass table, name the reviewing lawyer and unresolved checks. Do not present an automated or administrative receipt acknowledgment as a merits assessment.

Close the loop on scope

Tell the person what the firm has received, what remains missing and whether the firm has agreed to act. Clarify responsibility for any urgent event or deadline. A limited review of a copied checklist should not be mistaken for an undertaking to file, appear or monitor the matter.

The useful result is a traceable review file: user questions, originals, verified propositions, open issues and a defined next step. Open the attorney intake workspace using an authorized account. For the broader entry structure, see the existing attorney intake workflow guide.

LawSensai provides informational tools. Attorneys remain responsible for professional judgment and compliance with the rules applicable to their practice.

Sources and references

1. LawSensai, AskSensai consultation preparation and attorney intake entry point, checked October 26, 2026. Copy output and authorized inbox controls were checked; no automatic complete-packet delivery is asserted. ↩

2. ABA, Model Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Client, paragraph (a)–(d). Model guidance; check adopted local rules. ↩

3. ABA, Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, July 29, 2024. General ethical guidance, not a product certification or universally binding rule. ↩

4. ABA, Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information, including paragraph (c). Supports the confidentiality/access review framework, subject to local law. ↩