Prepare a dormant-matter review list

Practice relevance

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

The problem

Find passed review dates and missing next actions while preserving documented pauses.

Why it matters: A quiet matter may be intentionally waiting or may have no recorded next step. Showing the reason for waiting alongside the firm’s review dates helps the attorney decide what needs attention.

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: Best way to get organized/on top of cases? ↗Best way to get organized/on top of cases?, 2023-03-09, older. A new solo says reactive client inquiries and deadlines cause daily firefighting; a practitioner describes sorting matters by last movement and next deadlines to see stagnation.
Method: Microsoft Lists filtered views ↗Microsoft Lists filtered views documents date/status filtering. Thresholds below are firm decisions, not legal rules.

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: Weekly case review

compare last verified activity and next action with approved status-specific review intervals
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: Attorney confirms waiting status and next action. Test a legitimately stayed matter so it is not incorrectly treated as abandoned. Distinct from client-status drafting A09: internal portfolio review.

What you need

Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

Authorized Clio Manage access to the bounded matter set; optional Manage AI matter summaries.
Approved review intervals, explicit next-review dates and pause/waiting instructions supplied by responsible staff.
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

A matter summary is not a complete activity export. Activity can occur outside Clio or be hidden by permissions.
No recent activity means only no observed activity in the reviewed scope; it does not prove neglect, abandonment or no substantive progress.

Check access and setup

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

Get a source-linked matter catch-up
Clio Manage AI, optional · Diamond/gem icon > AI Launchpad > Ask a question
Ask the prompt for one authorized matter at a time, then open cited source items. Without AI, inspect that matter’s Tasks, Communications, Notes, Activities and Calendar subtabs directly.
Clio Manage AI, optional promptCatch me up on matter [MATTER] for [REVIEW PERIOD]. Identify dated source records for recent activity and outstanding tasks, and any explicit recorded next action or waiting instruction. Link each statement to its source. Do not infer a deadline or invent an action. State when the answer lacks evidence.
Expected output
Candidate latest activities and open tasks with source links, requiring staff verification.
Next step
Read the original source records and any explicit waiting/pause instructions locally.
Check before continuing
Check the review period, permissions and off-system work. A summary cannot certify the last activity across all systems.
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
Create matters.csv with matter_alias,status,owner_alias,last_activity_date,next_action,approved_next_review_date,waiting_reason,pause_flag and source_row. last_activity_date is the latest verified in-scope observation, not an inferred global fact. Record review-intervals.csv only from the approved status policy. Put scope.txt, cutoff/timezone and visibility exclusions in Scope. Create named tables for Matters and ReviewIntervals. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt.
Expected output
Matters and ReviewIntervals, with unknowns preserved.
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: compare supplied review dates and approved intervals, keeping unknown and paused rows separate.
Excel Copilot, optional promptUsing Matters, ReviewIntervals and Scope, identify matters due for an administrative check-in under the supplied rule or approved_next_review_date. Return matter_alias, observed activity date, rule reference, recorded next action, waiting/pause state, issue and source_row. Keep paused/waiting matters separate. Missing activity data is unknown, not inactivity. Do not calculate court deadlines, invent next steps or accuse anyone of delay.
Expected output
Administrative review queue with evidence and uncertainty.
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
Responsible owners confirm recent off-system activity, waiting instructions and the next administrative check-in. Approve the queue without changing legal dates or matter status.
Expected output
Reviewed check-in list.
Next step
Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process.
Check before continuing
Review intervals are internal policy, not legal limitation periods or proof of case progress.
Step documentation 1 ↗

What you’ll get

dormant-matter-review.csv: matter_alias, owner_alias, last_activity_date, approved_next_review_date, waiting_reason, pause_flag, review_reason, source_row, question_for_attorney. Separate a deliberate pause from unexplained inactivity; do not infer legal deadlines or strategy.

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

Input files

matters.csv: matter_alias, status, owner_alias, last_activity_date, next_action, approved_next_review_date, waiting_reason, pause_flag, source_row
review-intervals.csv: status, approved_interval_days, approver_ref; scope.txt: as-of date and export coverage

Synthetic example

M1: review date passed with no next action
M2: deliberately paused with approved review date
M3: last activity unknown

Expected output

M1: attorney review question
M2: retain pause reason, no abandonment claim
M3: missing evidence

Test a failure

Attorney confirms waiting status and next action. Test a legitimately stayed matter so it is not incorrectly treated as abandoned.

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 10 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
matters.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
matters.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
review-intervals.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
review-intervals.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
scope.txt Blank text input worksheet. Fill its fields with approved evidence; no default assumptions are supplied.
scope.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

Using only these approved matter-status records and review intervals, list matters whose review date has passed or whose next action is missing. Show last recorded movement, waiting reason and source row. Separate deliberately paused matters from unexplained inactivity. Ask what the attorney wants to do next; do not conclude neglect, infer legal deadlines, contact clients or set strategy.

INPUTS
matters.csv: matter_alias, status, owner_alias, last_activity_date, next_action, approved_next_review_date, waiting_reason, pause_flag, source_row
review-intervals.csv: status, approved_interval_days, approver_ref; scope.txt: as-of date and export coverage

OUTPUT
dormant-matter-review.csv: matter_alias, owner_alias, last_activity_date, approved_next_review_date, waiting_reason, pause_flag, review_reason, source_row, question_for_attorney. Separate a deliberate pause from unexplained inactivity; do not infer legal deadlines or strategy.

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