Template
Legal intake policy template for contract workflows
Direct answer: use this legal intake policy template to reject incomplete requests early, route high-risk matters correctly, and improve downstream review quality.
What this template controls
A legal intake policy template should do more than collect form fields. It defines what must be known before legal work begins, which requests can move through standard workflows, and which requests must be escalated before draft or approval. Teams that codify this policy usually reduce rework because reviewers do not need to request missing context midstream.
Recommended triage SLAs by routing lane
Standard request
Initial triage within one business day if mandatory fields are complete.
Enhanced review request
Reviewer assignment within one business day plus fallback-position validation.
Mandatory escalation request
Immediate routing to counsel queue with complete decision packet.
Business context fields
- Requesting team and accountable business owner.
- Counterparty legal entity and contract type.
- Requested effective date and target signature date.
- Commercial value band and renewal/term expectation.
Risk and policy fields
- Data sensitivity category and data transfer footprint.
- Regulatory implications (employment, privacy, payments, sector-specific).
- Non-standard terms requested by business stakeholders.
- Prior contract history with this counterparty.
Decision-readiness fields
- Specific legal question requiring a decision.
- Fallback business position if primary term is rejected.
- Linked documents (statement of work, order form, exhibits).
- Escalation owner for unresolved high-risk issues.
Standard lane
No material policy deviation and complete intake fields.
Proceed with template-based drafting and checklist review.
Enhanced review lane
Moderate policy deviation or incomplete fallback position.
Run clause-level review and require reviewer rationale before export.
Mandatory escalation lane
High-risk exposure, low-confidence interpretation, or regulatory uncertainty.
Route to licensed counsel with full intake package and proposed fallback terms.
Objective rejection criteria
- Missing counterparty legal entity or governing law context.
- No business owner assigned for risk acceptance decisions.
- Material exhibits referenced but not attached.
- Urgent timeline requested without explanation of business impact.
Next step: pair intake policy with the escalation policy playbook and contract review checklist.
Ownership model for intake enforcement
Requesting business lead
Supplies commercial context, urgency rationale, and fallback position.
Legal operations
Maintains intake schema, routing rules, and rejection policy wording.
Reviewer
Validates submission quality and routes requests according to objective thresholds.
Legal leadership
Approves threshold policy and resolves recurring exceptions that exceed baseline rules.
Clear ownership prevents intake policy drift. When every role understands what it must provide or validate, fewer requests enter review with missing context and escalation packages become more decision-ready.
Implementation sequence for new intake policy rollout
- Pilot one contract lane for two weeks and track rejection reasons by category.
- Refine required fields where rejection causes are ambiguous or repeatedly misinterpreted.
- Enable policy checks for all new requests and provide submitter remediation guidance.
- Review monthly outcomes with legal operations, counsel, and business request owners.
This rollout sequence reduces friction because policy changes are validated in production behavior before broad enforcement.
Maintain a simple intake changelog so requesters can see what changed and why. Transparent policy updates reduce repeat submission errors and improve adoption across business teams that submit high-volume legal requests.
FAQ
Why does intake policy quality matter this early?
Low-quality intake drives low-quality drafting and escalations. A strict intake gate improves cycle time because reviewers receive complete context on the first pass.
How strict should rejection criteria be?
Use objective rules tied to missing fields and unresolved policy flags. Avoid subjective rejection language so requesters can correct issues quickly.
Who should own the intake policy?
Legal operations should own the policy format, while legal leadership approves risk thresholds and mandatory escalation triggers.
How often should we update the intake policy template?
Review monthly during rollout and quarterly after stabilization, or immediately when recurring escalation failures appear.
Signals the intake policy is improving quality
- Lower rework caused by missing context after first reviewer pass.
- Higher escalation acceptance rates due to complete handoff data.
- Shorter cycle time variance across similar contract families.
- Fewer urgent requests rejected for incomplete policy-critical fields.
Intake policy review cadence
- Weekly: analyze rejection reasons and missing-field trends.
- Monthly: update routing thresholds based on escalation outcome data.
- Quarterly: align intake fields with policy and template changes.
- Release cycle: validate intake schema against new workflow capabilities.
Publish cadence outcomes to request submitters so they can correct upstream behaviors and reduce repeat intake rejections.
Maintain a rejection taxonomy with clear categories such as missing business objective, missing counterparty context, undefined deadline, and unresolved policy conflict. Publishing that taxonomy in weekly feedback helps requesters self-correct and lowers avoidable legal queue churn. Intake policy is most effective when submitter behavior improves along with reviewer efficiency.
Revisit taxonomy labels quarterly so they continue to reflect real intake bottlenecks.
Include submitter training artifacts in the policy package so recurring request errors can be reduced systematically.
Pair training updates with monthly intake metrics so improvements can be verified against real submission quality changes.
Documenting this loop keeps intake governance measurable and transparent.
It also improves trust with frequent legal request submitters.