Common Objections to Legal Intake Systems and How to Overcome Them

Legal intake systems can offer a range of benefits to legal departments, such as increased efficiency, improved organization, and enhanced communication. However, some individuals may have objections or concerns about implementing a legal intake system in their organization. In this blog post, we will explore common objections to legal intake systems and how to overcome them.

‍

Objection #1: "We don't have the budget for a legal intake system."

One of the most common objections to legal intake systems is the cost. However, it's important to consider the long-term benefits and return on investment that a legal intake system can provide. Additionally, there are often different pricing options available, such as monthly or annual subscriptions or pay-per-use models, that can fit within a variety of budgets. It may also be helpful to consider the potential costs of not having a legal intake system, such as lost or delayed information, inefficient processes, and missed opportunities.

‍

Objection #2: "We already have a system in place that works fine."

While it's understandable that individuals may be hesitant to change their current system, it's important to assess whether or not it's truly meeting the needs of the organization. A legal intake system can offer a range of features and benefits that may not be available with a current system, such as automated workflows, customizable intake forms, and centralized data management. It may be helpful to conduct a thorough evaluation of the current system and identify areas where a legal intake system could improve upon it.

‍

Objection #3: "Our team doesn't have the technical skills to implement a legal intake system."

Implementing a legal intake system may seem daunting for individuals who are not familiar with the technical aspects of software implementation. However, many legal intake systems are designed to be user-friendly and intuitive, with easy-to-follow setup and configuration processes. Additionally, many vendors offer training and support to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. It may also be helpful to identify team members who are comfortable with technology and can assist with the implementation process.

‍

Objection #4: "Our clients prefer to communicate with us through email or phone."

While it's true that some clients may prefer traditional forms of communication, such as email or phone, a legal intake system can offer a range of benefits for both clients and the organization. For example, clients can easily submit requests and track their status through a client portal, which can provide a more streamlined and efficient process. Additionally, a legal intake system can help ensure that all necessary information is captured upfront, which can reduce the need for back-and-forth communication.

‍

Objection #5: "Our organization is too small to benefit from a legal intake system."

Legal intake systems can offer benefits for organizations of all sizes, from solo practitioners to large legal departments. A legal intake system can help ensure that even small organizations are operating efficiently and effectively, and can help to establish a professional image with clients. Additionally, many legal intake systems offer pricing models that are affordable for small organizations.

‍

In conclusion, legal intake systems can offer a range of benefits for legal departments, but it's not uncommon for objections to arise. By addressing common objections and highlighting the potential benefits and ROI of a legal intake system, organizations can make informed decisions about implementing this valuable tool.

‍

Learn More

Want to learn more about how Streamline AI can help address concerns with implementing a legal intake system and drive adoption? Schedule a meeting with us to get additional insights and see how Streamline AI can help.

“Our manual process lacked key aspects both Legal and Deal Desk teams needed for effective collaboration: a centralized repository, metrics, and scalability. We found this process to be extremely inefficient causing longer SLAs, confusion and lost information from emails, and a lack of visibility into the status of requests. We turned to Streamline AI to better support and improve the legal service request process.”