stevie
Home / AI legal intake software
AI Legal Intake Software That Verifies Before Legal Review
The request is only the beginning. Stevie helps in-house legal teams receive instructions, structure the facts, check the evidence and resolve discrepancies before attorney review.
Legal intake software should do more than collect answers. Stevie brings request normalization, independent verification and reconciliation into one process, giving Legal a clearer starting point for substantive work.
Discuss your intake workflow →
The Problem With Traditional Legal Intake
Legal requests arrive wherever the business works: email, forms, Slack, Teams and other systems. A new portal alone does not make those instructions complete or consistent.
A requester may name one company while the draft names another. A statement of work may refer to a governing agreement that nobody has attached. An email may say “approved” without the supporting approval evidence.
When these gaps reach attorneys, legal review becomes a cycle of checking records, finding documents and asking questions that could have been addressed earlier. Legal request management needs a verification layer between collecting instructions and assigning substantive legal work.
How Stevie Works
01 · Ingest
Receive legal requests through supported intake channels, preserving the instructions and supporting documents. The wider business context may span email, forms and connected systems; channel availability depends on configuration.
02 · Normalize
Translate unstructured instructions into a structured request against your organization's intake requirements. Identify what was supplied, what is required and what remains missing. Structured information does not need to be normalized again unnecessarily.
03 · Verify
Independently cross-check the request against supporting documents, governing agreements and available records. Normalization organizes what the requester said; verification checks whether the evidence supports it. A record's location alone does not establish its authority.
04 · Resolve
Surface conflicting facts and evidence gaps. Review discrepancies, obtain clarification or human confirmation where needed, and preserve the resulting decisions. Evidence and permissions determine what can be resolved and what must remain open.
05 · Route
Prepare a structured intake record for attorney review when the applicable readiness requirements are met. Carry forward the supporting evidence, resolution history and outstanding exceptions so Legal can see the context.
Verification Capabilities
These examples show the questions legal intake verification should answer. Findings depend on the available documents, configured rules and evidence; a flag is a starting point for review, not a legal conclusion.
Missing mandatory information
A request omits a required legal entity or supporting document. Stevie checks the intake against organizational requirements so the gap can be addressed before the request progresses.
Contradictory instructions
The request describes a mutual NDA, but the document appears unilateral. The inconsistency needs clarification, rather than silently selecting one version of the facts.
Counterparty entity discrepancies
An email instructs Legal to contract with Acme Inc.; the attached draft names Acme LLC. Similar names do not prove the entities are interchangeable. The entity should be confirmed against the evidence.
Missing or inconsistent governing agreements
A SOW references an MSA that has not been supplied, or the proposed agreement linkage is uncertain. Stevie surfaces governing-context issues so the relationship can be checked and the relevant agreement linked or clarified.
Executed documents submitted for review
A document submitted for pre-signature review contains execution evidence. That may require post-execution assistance, corrected classification or closure of the review request. A signed supporting MSA should not be confused with an executed current draft.
Duplicate or potentially ineligible requests
Intake owners can review whether a submission duplicates existing work or belongs in the requested workflow, using the request context and organizational rules. This is not a claim of automatic duplicate detection. Where a request should not progress, preserve the decision and its reason.
Discrepancies can be reviewed and resolved through clarification, evidence updates and recorded decisions. Resolution history remains part of the request context for Legal.
Why Verification Matters
Contract intake automation is useful when it improves the instructions that reach Legal—not simply the speed at which incomplete requests are forwarded.
-
Less administrative follow-up: address factual gaps before substantive review.
-
More complete instructions: check requests against the same organizational requirements.
-
Clearer request status: distinguish missing evidence, pending clarification and readiness for review.
-
Consistent intake rules: apply the requirements relevant to the request type.
-
Better review context: bring the underlying documents, corrections and decisions together.
The aim is a better starting point for attorney judgment. Outcomes depend on your workflow, evidence quality and configuration.
Who Stevie Is For
Stevie is built around the intake needs of in-house legal departments, legal operations teams and commercial contracting teams. It is particularly relevant when organizations manage recurring or high volumes of legal requests and want a consistent way to check readiness before legal review.
If you are evaluating in-house legal intake software, consider not only how requests enter the queue, but how missing information, document conflicts and governing-agreement questions are handled before an attorney takes over.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is AI legal intake software?
AI legal intake software helps legal teams receive and structure business requests. Stevie adds verification against organizational requirements and available evidence, helping teams identify and resolve issues before attorney review.
How does AI improve legal intake?
AI can help interpret natural-language instructions and extract relevant information from documents. Those outputs still need verification. Stevie separates organizing the request from checking the supporting evidence and resolving discrepancies.
How is Stevie different from traditional legal intake software?
Traditional intake often focuses on collecting information and moving it into a queue. Stevie's distinctive focus is the verification and resolution layer: checking the request against documents and available records, surfacing contradictions and preserving clarification decisions before legal review.
Can Stevie identify discrepancies between contract requests and supporting documents?
Yes. Its verification approach includes issues such as inconsistent counterparty entities, contradictory document characteristics, missing required evidence and uncertain governing agreements. Findings depend on the supplied evidence and configured checks; unresolved questions may require human confirmation.
Does Stevie replace attorney review?
No. Stevie supports factual verification, intake readiness and reconciliation. Attorneys remain responsible for substantive legal analysis and judgment.
Can Stevie work with existing legal systems?
Stevie's intake architecture supports structured forms, email instructions and attached documents, with extension points for connected systems. This does not mean every legal platform, Slack, Teams or CRM has a live integration. Discuss the systems you use so the available setup and any required integration work can be confirmed.
Legal has better things to do.
Tell us how legal requests reach your team, where information goes missing and what has to be checked before review. Let's explore how Stevie could fit your legal intake workflow.