Intake CRM
An intake CRM is a legal software product whose defining job is to hold prospective clients as a pipeline in their own right, separate from the firm's open matters, from the moment of first contact until the matter is either opened or declined.
The separation is the whole of the definition. A case management system records matters the firm already has. An intake CRM records the population upstream of that: the people who called, filled in a form, or arrived from an advertisement, most of whom will never become matters. Products in this archetype describe capture, qualification, pipeline stages, follow-up, and a handoff into whatever system holds the matter.
This is the label this research base applies to six of its thirty-two product entities. Four of them carry verified evidence from official vendor surfaces: Captorra, Clio Grow, Law Ruler and Lead Docket. The other two are research stubs with no capability verification compiled, so nothing in this project describes what they do.
What the four verified products document
Each statement below is what the named vendor published on its own surface on the date given. None has been independently tested, and a vendor describing its own product is the vendor's account of it.
| Product | What the vendor documents | Captured |
|---|---|---|
| Captorra | Captorra markets lead and case management specifically to consumer law firms, and states that live chat brings prospects into Captorra through a direct integration. | |
| Clio Grow | Clio says online intake forms can be shared on a website, by email or by text message, with submitted contact and matter information captured in Clio, that reusable intake templates can be created in several named languages, and that intake materials and related contacts can move from client intake into its practice-management product. | |
| Law Ruler | Law Ruler describes a visual pipeline for managing leads and cases through workflow stages, says its intake forms can adapt questions to a lead's earlier answers, and says information collected by intake forms can be imported into CRM and practice-management systems. | |
| Lead Docket | Lead Docket says it immediately captures lead information submitted through a law firm's web form, that any custom field it creates can be mapped to Filevine, and that when a new case is signed, case files and other information are automatically pulled into Filevine as a new project. |
The handoff is the part worth asking about
An intake CRM only earns the separation it is built on if what it collected reaches the matter system intact. Two of the four products name a specific destination for that crossing, and both name a product from the same vendor: Lead Docket into Filevine, which is its own parent product, with field mapping between them, and Clio's intake product into Clio's practice-management product.
Law Ruler's statement is the broadest of the three and also the least specific: that collected information can be imported into CRM and practice-management systems, without naming which ones or what is carried across. One vendor does name that crossing: Lawmatics states that matter data syncs on lead conversion to nine named case-management products made by other companies. Nothing in this research base records which fields survive any of these crossings.
What the pricing pages say about buying one
Three commercial facts are on record for this archetype, all of them from official vendor surfaces.
Clio states its plans start at 49 US dollars per user per month across four plans named Starter, Core, Signature and Elite. On the same pricing surface, Clio states that Clio Grow, its client intake and CRM product, is included in the Elite and Elite Work plans and is available as a paid add-on for the Core and Signature plans, and its published plan comparison table lists online client intake forms as not available on the entry plan, as requiring a sales conversation on the middle plans, and as included only on the highest plan. All three statements were captured on . The advertised entry price and the price of a configuration that performs intake are therefore two different numbers.
Law Ruler states that subscription pricing is billed monthly on an annual term, with a discount for annual prepayment, captured . Captorra publishes no discoverable public pricing page: a dated search of captorra.com for pricing returned no results at capture time. That is a statement about what a search of the official domain returned on , not a statement that no price exists.
The one buyer account on record
A practitioner who had used two products in this space describes the tradeoff as configurability against time to value: the more customisable product required substantial internal process work and vendor-led setup, while the other worked without configuration but could not be customised to the same degree. That commenter states twice and unprompted that their experience is several years out of date and predates the acquisition that produced the current product name, which is why it is recorded here as the shape of a tradeoff rather than as a current comparison.
What this evidence does not establish
No product carrying this label has been tested against another, on any axis, anywhere in this research base. Every capability statement above is the vendor's own description of its own product on a dated capture, and availability of a feature is not evidence that it works for a given firm. Nothing here establishes that a separate intake pipeline converts more prospective clients than an undifferentiated one, because no measurement of that comparison exists here. Neither of the two handoffs documented by products carrying THIS label crosses between two vendors; both are a vendor describing its own two products. Cross-vendor handoffs ARE documented in this research, on both sides: Lawmatics, filed under workflow automation, states the sending half, and two of the nine products it names publish the receiving half on their own domains. One of those two, Clio, is filed under this same archetype. They are set out at matter handoff. Nothing anywhere here establishes what survives any of those crossings, or how often firms attempt one. Two further products carry this archetype label as research stubs with no capability verification compiled, so this page describes four products and not the category. The single buyer account cited is one pseudonymous practitioner, self-described as several years out of date, supplied as an operator browser transcript because the platform refuses this project's collector, and it carries no content hash.
Related
The verified product comparison this term supports is the legal intake software directory, where each of these products appears with its capture dates and its material limitation. The standards behind every statement on this page, including what counts as a source and what may never be published, are at methodology.
Nothing on this page is legal advice.