Combine tasks into a source-linked work list

Practice relevance

Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.

The problem

Bring approved task exports together while keeping conflicting owners, dates, and completion states visible.

Why it matters: Tasks spread across notes and systems can have conflicting owners or completion states. A source-linked register gives the team one review surface while preserving the original instructions and unresolved differences.

Sources & evidence

Proposed / not tested. The public source describes the problem. Documentation supports only the stated method components; no result from this recipe has been verified.

What’s been verified

Source methods and reported problems have been reviewed. We have not run the adapted workflow. The sample below describes expected behavior on synthetic data, not a customer result.

What to measure: In a synthetic pilot, count correctly found exceptions, false alarms, and unresolved inputs. No time or cost saving is assumed.

Pain evidence: Help organizing my to-do list ↗Help organizing my to-do list, 2026-03-22, older. A litigation paralegal supporting two attorneys relies on post-its and separate lists and asks for a coherent system. Organization under a 200-file workload, 2026-06-26, describes duplicated paper, Outlook, spreadsheet and Filevine tracking.
Pain evidence: Organization under a 200-file workload ↗Additional self-reported public account; no independent identity or outcome verification.
Method: Planner task details ↗Planner task details supports assignees, dates, progress, links and checklists.

Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain accounts are self-reported. Documentation supports components; this adapted recipe and prompt have not been tested. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.

Suggested approach

Start when: Daily planning

consolidate approved task records from separate sources
Keep source references and report unknowns instead of filling gaps.
The responsible reviewer checks the report before any separately approved action.

Limits and review

The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.

Who reviews it: Each owner confirms their items and the manager resolves priorities. Test identical wording on two matters and conflicting completion states. This is a general work register, distinct from A08's attorney approval queue.

What you need

Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

Clio Manage is the bounded source for this route. Other task products require their own documented acquisition path before inclusion.
Owner-approved priority policy and review cutoff; approved mapping if records from other systems are supplied.
Firm-approved Excel; optional Copilot entitlement and tenant approval for the exact minimized data. Native Excel analysis can be done manually if Copilot is absent.
Keep raw exports and identifying source pointers in a separate restricted location. The AI workbook contains only approved alias-based tables and visible policy/scope text, never raw client records on another tab.
Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.

How to use

Documentation-checked proposed route; source collection and human approval required

Before you start

Native export covers Clio tasks only, with completed and outstanding records exported separately. It is not a universal cross-system task collector.
Do not fabricate source IDs, updated_at, timezones or due times missing from the export; inspect the original task or mark unknown. Source-local IDs are never assumed globally unique.

Check access and setup

Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested.

Collect the actual task list
Clio Manage · Tasks > Outstanding (then Completed if required) > Filters > Apply filters > bottom Export > CSV > Export
Choose the authorized users, matters and date range for the selected task queue. Include undated tasks when the scope requires them. Export Outstanding and Completed separately; note filters, capture time and visible record count. Use Expand rows or Print task from the task row menu to inspect full instructions where necessary.
Expected output
Native task CSV file(s), plus a scope note. Exact CSV headers must be inspected; the kit headers are not promised native fields.
Next step
Keep the raw files restricted; prepare the alias-based input in the next step.
Check before continuing
Private tasks may be invisible. Task export is only the selected scope; exporting does not prove all review requests or off-system obligations exist here.
Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗
Map the observed records to the starter input
Excel and authorized staff · Separate analysis workbook > Home > Format as Table
Set source_system to Clio Manage. Preserve an actual source_id if visible; otherwise assign a source-row reference tied to the retained export and clearly label it local. Assign task_id aliases, then map actual instruction, assignee, status and due date after checking full task detail. Fill updated_at only from observed evidence. Enter timezone and date precision explicitly in Scope. Paste priority-policy.txt into a visible Policy worksheet. Keep rows from multiple exports and systems separate until identity is proven. Create named tables for Tasks. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt.
Expected output
tasks.csv plus visible Policy and Scope. If an additional system has no verified extraction, list it as excluded.
Next step
Check the mapping against each original source before using AI.
Check before continuing
Aliases and missing policy fields are staff-created; do not relabel a native export as the kit schema. Unknown stays blank/unknown, not false or zero.
Step documentation 1 ↗
Review the bounded evidence with Copilot
Excel Copilot, optional · Approved analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only
Use Chat only and submit the prompt. Without Copilot: sort by approved policy fields and review duplicate/conflicting source keys manually.
Excel Copilot, optional promptUsing Tasks, Policy and Scope, draft one review queue with source_system/source_id/task_id, matter_alias, exact_instruction, owner_alias, explicit_due_datetime, timezone, status and cited source rows. Apply only the supplied priority policy. Flag missing owner/date/timezone, conflicting versions and potential duplicates; never collapse tasks merely because wording is similar. Updated_at alone is not authority to replace an instruction. Preserve date-only precision. Do not calculate legal deadlines, edit tasks or send reminders.
Expected output
Source-linked queue with conflicts and acquisition gaps.
Next step
Copy the draft exception list to the reviewer; retain row references.
Check before continuing
Check every flagged row and the scope. A fluent answer is not evidence of completeness; no automatic workbook or source-system edits.
Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗
Approve the review result
Final human review
Responsible staff reviewer · Reviewed local worksheet
The task owner checks every conflict against the source task, confirms scope exclusions and approves the queue. Keep any unacquired source system in the visible coverage note.
Expected output
Reviewed task queue, not an all-systems completeness certificate.
Next step
Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process.
Check before continuing
Never treat an empty export as proof that no tasks exist; check filters, permissions and separate completed scope.
Step documentation 1 ↗

What you’ll get

work-register.csv: source_ids, task_ids, matter_alias, instruction, owner, supplied_due_date, status, priority_rule, unresolved_question

Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result

Input files

tasks.csv: source_system, source_id, task_id, matter_alias, exact_instruction, owner_alias, explicit_due_datetime, timezone, status, updated_at
priority-policy.txt: manager-approved rules and source-of-truth policy

Synthetic example

T1/T2: same wording, different matters
T3: conflicting completion states
T4: missing owner and ambiguous date

Expected output

T1/T2: separate tasks
T3: unresolved status conflict
T4: owner/date questions, no invented deadline

Test a failure

Each owner confirms their items and the manager resolves priorities. Test identical wording on two matters and conflicting completion states.

Try with the sample files

Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.

Download inputs and checklist 8 files

Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.

Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
tasks.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
tasks.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
priority-policy.txt Blank text input worksheet. Fill its fields with approved evidence; no default assumptions are supplied.
priority-policy.example.txt Separate synthetic text input fixture; use with the example CSV files only.
Expected fixture findings Read-only expected output and failure conditions for the included synthetic input files.
Setup and review checklist Recipe-specific prerequisites, file mapping, prompt, setup steps, checklist and limits.

Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs

Prepared-input review prompt with Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

Consolidate these deidentified task exports into one proposed work register. Retain source IDs, exact instructions, named owners and explicitly supplied dates. Group potential duplicates without deleting them. Flag contradictory status, missing owners and unclear dates. Rank only by the supplied manager-approved priority rules. Do not calculate legal deadlines, create assignments, mark work done or use the queue to score employee performance.

INPUTS
tasks.csv: source_system, source_id, task_id, matter_alias, exact_instruction, owner_alias, explicit_due_datetime, timezone, status, updated_at
priority-policy.txt: manager-approved rules and source-of-truth policy

OUTPUT
work-register.csv: source_ids, task_ids, matter_alias, instruction, owner, supplied_due_date, status, priority_rule, unresolved_question

Use only these synthetic or firm-approved inputs and preserve source row/page IDs. Keep missing or conflicting evidence unresolved. Return a draft for the named reviewer. Do not send messages, connect accounts, change records or permissions, move money, or make legal decisions. Keep source files unchanged. List missing prerequisites before continuing.

Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.

Read original method Read pain evidence