# Draft an inbox handoff queue Canonical page: https://agents.paretoid.com/workflows/draft-an-inbox-handoff-queue/ Category: Operations & Reporting Practice relevance: cross-practice. A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use. Jurisdiction/provider scope: Suggest staff, attorney, waiting, and reference queues from approved routing rules. Status: Proposed / not tested. The public source describes the problem. Documentation supports only the stated method components; no result from this recipe has been verified. Verification: 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. ## The problem Suggest staff, attorney, waiting, and reference queues from approved routing rules. Why it matters: A crowded inbox can obscure work that staff could handle and messages that need an attorney. A reviewed routing queue makes those decisions explicit without automatically hiding, forwarding, or completing messages. ## Sources and evidence - pain: [Pain evidence: Emails are increasing my blood pressure](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawFirm/comments/1nitdq9) Emails are increasing my blood pressure, 2025-09-16, older. A solo litigator describes unsustainable email volume and explicitly wishes Outlook could send suitable items to staff. Several responses describe batching, delegating, waiting and task categories. Direct open failed; indexed original text was available. - method: [Method: Microsoft Outlook Quick Steps](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/best-practices-for-outlook) Microsoft Outlook Quick Steps documents categories, flags and repeatable message actions. These native actions are available building blocks; automatic legal-urgency classification is not an established feature. Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain accounts are self-reported. Documentation supports components; this adapted recipe and prompt have not been tested. ## Suggested approach Start when: An approved inbox-review window 1. classify selected deidentified message summaries against firm rules 2. Keep source references and report unknowns instead of filling gaps. 3. The responsible reviewer checks the report before any separately approved action. ## What you need - Existing firm-approved Microsoft Copilot work access in Outlook with permission for the chosen threads; account/tenant/feature access must be checked. - Bounded manually selected thread list, lawyer-approved routing policy and alias role/owner matrix. This is not a claim of exhaustive inbox discovery. - Preserve original evidence unchanged in restricted storage. Use synthetic material first. Prepare a separate, explicitly approved minimized AI input; aliases alone do not anonymize narrative or attachments. Do not upload raw originals or an alias key merely because another tab/file is sanitized. - 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-verified component path; proposed adaptation, not tested - Summary by Copilot is native thread summarization; it does not establish mailbox completeness or safe delegation. The exact classification prompt below is an editorial adaptation. - No output changes folders, rules, importance, completion status or ownership automatically. Missing source references or ambiguous/consequential requests require attorney review. Access and setup: - Actual account access, source versions/completeness, privacy approval and reviewer sign-off were not observed. ### 1. Read the selected thread with native AI Tool: Outlook Copilot Location: Open selected conversation > Summary by Copilot (or Summarize) Use only a thread approved for the firm’s existing Copilot processing. Review the generated summary and open available numbered citations to the source messages. Repeat only for the bounded thread list and record capture time. If Copilot is unavailable, read the messages manually; do not claim an AI route ran. Expected output: Thread summary grounded in the selected conversation, subject to human completeness checking. Next step: Use the verified thread identity and approved routing policy in the Outlook Copilot chat step. Check before continuing: Review all messages in the thread for omitted requests or context; native summaries are not evidence of absence. Execution status: Official public documentation checked 2026-10-15; no account, source-data acquisition, prompt run or end-to-end workflow was tested. Step documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/copilot-pages/summarize-an-email-thread-with-copilot-in-outlook https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/frequently-asked-questions-about-copilot-in-outlook ### 2. Ask for a source-linked routing proposal Tool: Outlook Copilot Chat Location: Copilot icon in Outlook navigation header > chat prompt field Paste the exact thread reference and the approved client-free routing policy/role matrix into the prompt. Keep the request scoped to this chosen thread. If the chat cannot resolve the exact thread or returns uncheckable source references, stop that row and perform manual review. Prompt: ```text Use only this explicitly selected email thread [VERIFIED THREAD REFERENCE] and this approved routing policy/role matrix [PASTE POLICY]. Return message/source reference,explicit requested action,proposed queue staff|attorney|FYI|waiting,approved owner role or null,evidence quote and uncertainty. Put ambiguous, potentially consequential and deadline-related items in attorney review. Do not infer a legal deadline, legal duty, matter association or substantive urgency. Do not search unrelated matters, forward, reply, create rules, move, hide, delete or mark messages complete. Report missing thread/source access rather than guessing. ``` Expected output: Proposed routing/action/owner queue for the selected thread. Next step: Copy the answer to a new local Word review document; preserve actual source-message references in restricted review and use aliases in any broader summary. Check before continuing: Verify every proposed action against the original message; do not adopt apparent urgency or a legal deadline from an AI inference. Execution status: Official public documentation checked 2026-10-15; no account, source-data acquisition, prompt run or end-to-end workflow was tested. Step documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/outlook/copilot-outlook/chat-with-copilot-in-outlook https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/frequently-asked-questions-about-copilot-in-outlook ### 3. Human review and final handoff Tool: Responsible staff reviewer and lawyer/process owner Location: Local reviewed report beside the frozen source set Attorney validates every proposed handoff and privacy scope. Staff records only approved action/owner/source reference in the local handoff document; if a later task or message is authorized, verify its completion separately. Expected output: Reviewed inbox handoff queue for the explicitly selected threads. Next step: No folder/rule changes or communications occur in this recipe. Check before continuing: All unresolved or unreadable evidence stays open. No inferred approval or external action follows from AI output. Execution status: Official public documentation checked 2026-10-15; no account, source-data acquisition, prompt run or end-to-end workflow was tested. Step documentation: https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/desktop/use-acrobat-ai/generative-ai-features/ai-get-answers.html ## What you will get inbox-review.csv: message_alias, proposed_queue, explicit_action, proposed_owner, rule_id, evidence, uncertainty ## Human review and limits Attorney validates routing before it affects the inbox; all uncertainty remains visible. Test a familiar sender discussing a new matter, an innocuous subject containing a deadline and a misdirected message. 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. What to measure: In a synthetic pilot, count correctly found exceptions, false alarms, and unresolved inputs. No time or cost saving is assumed. ## Original prepared-input schema messages.csv: message_alias, deidentified_summary, sender_role, received_at, explicit_request, source_ref routing-policy.csv: rule_id, condition, allowed_queue, proposed_owner, attorney_review_trigger Synthetic example input: ```text M1: routine request with explicit staff-routing rule M2: familiar sender but new matter M3: deadline-related message ``` Expected synthetic output: ```text M1: proposed staff queue with rule M2: ambiguity for attorney M3: attorney review, no deadline calculation ``` Failure check: Attorney validates routing before it affects the inbox; all uncertainty remains visible. Test a familiar sender discussing a new matter, an innocuous subject containing a deadline and a misdirected message. ## Starter files Native blank scaffolds and original synthetic examples may use different schemas. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied. These files do not connect accounts or install automation. - [Download starter kit](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04-starter-kit.zip) — All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed. - [Start here: get the sources and prepare the review](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/START-HERE.txt) — Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits - [messages.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/messages.csv) — Blank input template with exact recipe headers. - [messages.example.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/messages.example.csv) — Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports. - [routing-policy.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/routing-policy.csv) — Blank input template with exact recipe headers. - [routing-policy.example.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/routing-policy.example.csv) — Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports. - [Expected fixture findings](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/expected-fixture-result.txt) — Read-only expected output and failure conditions for the included synthetic input files. - [Setup and review checklist](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s04/README.txt) — Recipe-specific prerequisites, file mapping, prompt, setup steps, checklist and limits. ## Optional original prepared-input prompt Destination: Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files This original prompt uses its own prepared-input schema. Do not mix it with native-step tables without the supplied mapping. ```text Classify these deidentified message summaries using only this approved routing policy. Output message ID, proposed queue, explicit requested action, proposed owner and evidence. Put ambiguous, potentially consequential and deadline-related items in attorney review. Do not infer a legal deadline or decide substantive urgency. Do not forward, reply, mark complete, hide or delete any message. INPUTS messages.csv: message_alias, deidentified_summary, sender_role, received_at, explicit_request, source_ref routing-policy.csv: rule_id, condition, allowed_queue, proposed_owner, attorney_review_trigger OUTPUT inbox-review.csv: message_alias, proposed_queue, explicit_action, proposed_owner, rule_id, evidence, uncertainty 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 Published by Law Firm Agents. Proposed adaptation; not tested. Not legal advice.