Prepare follow-up for unacknowledged referrals

Practice relevance

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

The problem

Check referral acknowledgments and prepare only authorized reference-based drafts.

Why it matters: A referral can disappear from view after it is sent. Checking acknowledgment and approved follow-up dates helps staff spot open handoffs while protecting client information and leaving recipient and sharing decisions to the firm.

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: Public discussion ↗first-person comment by Feeling-Attorney4301, 2026-08-27. This criminal-practice participant says “we lost quite a few referrals just for failure to follow up with the person we had sent it to.” The separate multi-location family-firm commenter is not the source of this pain. Older than 30 days; recent supportive thread replies are not substituted for the date of this pain.
Method: Official method documentation ↗documents referral contact attribution; documents owner/due-date tasks. Native inbound referrer tracking does not establish an end-to-end outbound-referral integration.
Method: Official method documentation ↗Additional official capability reference. The complete adapted recipe has not been tested.

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: Staff records an authorized referral

record destination, sent date, acknowledgment status and next check
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: No representation promises, legal fee-sharing recommendations or sensitive disclosures. Referral suitability and client consent remain with the lawyer.

What you need

Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

Existing authorized access to the correct source account and records; no new login, credentials, installation or permission grant is included.
Responsible lawyer/operations reviewer approves scope, definitions and any later action.
AI optional; use only approved minimized data and retain originals separately.
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 component path; proposed workflow, not tested

Before you start

No native end-to-end outbound-referral export is established. The register is a manually evidenced editorial input.

Check access and setup

The live account, entitlement, exact headers, records and field coverage have not been observed.

Locate the real outbound-referral evidence
Lawmatics / firm’s existing referral register · Matter > Details / Activities / Tasks; existing approved outbound-referral register
Read the existing register or maintained custom fields, sent-event evidence, receiving-party acknowledgment, staff owner and follow-up date. Keep recipient identity and client-sharing authorization in restricted records. No inbound-referrer report is substituted.
Expected output
A bounded staff-verified outbound-referral ledger, or a missing-ledger blocker.
Next step
Assign referral/destination aliases and evidence refs; pass only administrative state downstream.
Check before continuing
Lawmatics Source=Referrals and Campaign/Referrer track inbound referral attribution. They do not prove a referral was sent out or accepted.
Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗Step documentation 3 ↗
Make the checked, minimized handoff
Excel / source-record reviewer · Restricted original workbook > separate analysis workbook > Scope worksheet
For each staff-nominated outbound referral, verify whether it was sent, what administrative information may be shared, whether an acknowledgment exists, and the already assigned next-check date. Keep untouched original exports/screenshots and the identifying source map in restricted firm storage. Build a separate minimized analysis file; do not hide raw client data on another tab. Include the complete Scope/coverage note in the AI-visible workbook or prompt. Use aliases and administrative metadata only. Unknown is not zero, false, completed or absent.
Expected output
Referrals(referral_alias,destination_alias,sent_at,acknowledged_at,owner_alias,next_check_at,sharing_scope_verified,evidence_refs)
Next step
Format each approved range as a named table. Carry source-row references and coverage into the analysis workbook.
Check before continuing
Every field has an observed source or an explicit missing reason; staff assignments are marked editorial, not native.
Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗
Ask AI to inspect the checked inputs
Excel Copilot, optional · Analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only
Open the minimized workbook containing the named tables and Scope. Paste the exact prompt; if unavailable, perform the same rule checks manually.
Excel Copilot, optional promptUse Referrals and Scope. Flag missing acknowledgment, missing owner or missing staff-assigned next-check date. Do not invent deadlines or conclude nonresponse from incomplete correspondence coverage. Require sharing_scope_verified=true; false, unknown and missing values are blocked for any draft using sharing facts. Draft an internal status-check request using only referral_alias and approved administrative facts; no case narrative, legal opinion, recipient selection, fee negotiation or sending.
Expected output
Internal follow-up queue and minimal draft requests.
Next step
Copy checked results into a new Review sheet, retaining source references and unresolved blockers.
Check before continuing
Acknowledgment is distinct from accepting representation; client permission is a human-verified prerequisite.
Step documentation 1 ↗
Human review and final action
Final human review
Responsible firm reviewer · Internal Review worksheet / review document
Lawyer confirms destination, sharing permission and the specific draft before any external contact. Save the internal queue with the source references.
Expected output
Reviewed queue; no external transmission.
Next step
If requested and approved, staff contacts the verified recipient in the existing channel.
Check before continuing
No marketplace posting or new integration is needed.
Step documentation 1 ↗

What you’ll get

referral-followup.csv: referral_id, acknowledgment_status, followup_due, missing_permission_or_recipient_evidence, owner_alias, proposed_next_step; status-request-drafts.txt: reference-only drafts for approved records

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

Input files

referrals.csv: referral_id, recipient_alias, authorized_at, sent_at, acknowledgment_at, next_check_at, owner_alias, sharing_scope
recipient-verification.csv: recipient_alias, verified_channel, verification_ref, verified_at; followup-policy.txt: as-of time, acknowledgment interval, approved administrative fields, reviewer and no-send boundary

Synthetic example

Synthetic inputs are included in the starter kit.
referrals-example.csv
recipient-verification-example.csv
referral-followup-example.csv
followup-policy-example.txt
status-request-drafts-example.txt

Expected output

RF1 is unacknowledged and overdue with evidence permitting a reference-only draft. RF2 lacks authorization, recipient verification and next-check date, so external drafting is held. RF3 is acknowledged with a future check and excluded from exceptions.

Test a failure

No representation promises, legal fee-sharing recommendations or sensitive disclosures. Referral suitability and client consent remain with the lawyer. Missing recipient verification or sharing permission must block even a reference-only draft.

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 18 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
Input template: referrals.csv Header-only input template; preserve exact names and order
Synthetic input: referrals.csv Fabricated sample rows for an offline manual trial
Input template: recipient-verification.csv Header-only input template; preserve exact names and order
Synthetic input: recipient-verification.csv Fabricated sample rows for an offline manual trial
Output template: referral-followup.csv Header-only output template; preserve exact names and order
Expected output: referral-followup.csv Hand-authored synthetic expected result; not an executed workflow result
Policy/input template: followup-policy.txt Required source/policy preparation scaffold; not populated with firm instructions
Synthetic policy/input: followup-policy.txt Fixture-only context; not an approved production policy
Draft scaffold: status-request-drafts.txt Blank output scaffold; no message, form or appeal is sent
Synthetic expected draft: status-request-drafts.txt Hand-authored draft or blocked-output example for fixture review
Synthetic fixture expectations Acceptance targets and failure checks; no claim of workflow execution
Review prompt Copyable offline review prompt; no executable automation
Setup and prerequisites Recipe-specific setup, evidence sources and usage boundaries
Native input scaffold: Referrals Empty editorial table for Referrals; populate from verified source evidence after reviewed mapping; not a native export
Native input scaffold: Scope Approved text input for Scope; complete from verified evidence and include in the AI-visible packet
Native input mapping and scope guide Old-file-to-native-input compatibility map, acquisition requirements, privacy and blocking gates

Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs

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

Review this anonymized outbound-referral ledger. Identify referrals missing an acknowledgment or a staff-assigned follow-up date. Draft a brief status request only when the supplied evidence verifies the recipient, sharing permission and allowed administrative fields. Include only the approved reference ID and permitted administrative information. If any permission or recipient evidence is missing, return a blocked-for-review record and no draft for that referral. Do not send, share a case narrative, select counsel or negotiate referral fees.

INPUTS
referrals.csv: referral_id, recipient_alias, authorized_at, sent_at, acknowledgment_at, next_check_at, owner_alias, sharing_scope
recipient-verification.csv: recipient_alias, verified_channel, verification_ref, verified_at; followup-policy.txt: as-of time, acknowledgment interval, approved administrative fields, reviewer and no-send boundary

OUTPUT
referral-followup.csv: referral_id, acknowledgment_status, followup_due, missing_permission_or_recipient_evidence, owner_alias, proposed_next_step; status-request-drafts.txt: reference-only drafts for approved records

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