# Prepare a dormant-matter review list Canonical page: https://agents.paretoid.com/workflows/prepare-a-dormant-matter-review-list/ Category: Operations & Reporting Practice relevance: cross-practice. A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use. Jurisdiction/provider scope: Find passed review dates and missing next actions while preserving documented pauses. 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 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 and evidence - pain: [Pain evidence: Best way to get organized/on top of cases?](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawFirm/comments/11mlozq) 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: [Method: Microsoft Lists filtered views](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/data-and-lists/use-filtering-to-modify-a-sharepoint-view) 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. ## Suggested approach Start when: Weekly case review 1. compare last verified activity and next action with approved status-specific review intervals 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 - 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 - 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. Access and setup: - Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested. ### 1. Get a source-linked matter catch-up Tool: Clio Manage AI, optional Location: 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. Prompt: ```text Catch 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. Execution status: Official documentation checked 2026-10-15; account and workflow not personally tested Step documentation: https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/29658072890523-Clio-Duo-Ask-About-Matters-and-Contacts https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/9285920226075-Get-Started-With-Matters ### 2. Map the observed records to the starter input Tool: Excel and authorized staff Location: 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. Execution status: Official documentation checked 2026-10-15; account and workflow not personally tested Step documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model ### 3. Review the bounded evidence with Copilot Tool: Excel Copilot, optional Location: 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. Prompt: ```text Using 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. Execution status: Official documentation checked 2026-10-15; account and workflow not personally tested Step documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/get-started-with-copilot-in-excel https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/frequently-asked-questions-about-copilot-in-excel ### 4. Approve the review result Tool: Responsible staff reviewer Location: 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. Execution status: Official documentation checked 2026-10-15; account and workflow not personally tested Step documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/tutorial-import-data-into-excel-and-create-a-data-model ## What you will 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. ## Human review and limits 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. 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 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 input: ```text M1: review date passed with no next action M2: deliberately paused with approved review date M3: last activity unknown ``` Expected synthetic output: ```text M1: attorney review question M2: retain pause reason, no abandonment claim M3: missing evidence ``` Failure check: Attorney confirms waiting status and next action. Test a legitimately stayed matter so it is not incorrectly treated as abandoned. ## 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/s08-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/s08/START-HERE.txt) — Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits - [matters.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/matters.csv) — Blank input template with exact recipe headers. - [matters.example.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/matters.example.csv) — Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports. - [review-intervals.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/review-intervals.csv) — Blank input template with exact recipe headers. - [review-intervals.example.csv](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/review-intervals.example.csv) — Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports. - [scope.txt](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/scope.txt) — Blank text input worksheet. Fill its fields with approved evidence; no default assumptions are supplied. - [scope.example.txt](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/scope.example.txt) — Separate synthetic text input fixture; use with the example CSV files only. - [Expected fixture findings](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/s08/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/s08/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 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 Published by Law Firm Agents. Proposed adaptation; not tested. Not legal advice.