# Prepare the attorney review queue Canonical page: https://agents.paretoid.com/workflows/prepare-the-attorney-review-queue/ Category: Operations & Reporting Practice relevance: cross-practice. A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use. Jurisdiction/provider scope: Show who needs to review each item, the agreed review date, and what is still waiting. Status: Proposed / not tested. The public discussion supports the problem; the method source supports only the documented features. No outcome from this adapted recipe has been verified. Verification: The linked sources support the complaint and documented method components. We have not run this recipe or verified its results. The example below is synthetic, not a customer result. ## The problem Show who needs to review each item, the agreed review date, and what is still waiting. Why it matters: Work can sit ready for review while its owner assumes someone else is handling it. A queue with explicit acknowledgment and review dates makes the waiting step visible without treating silence as approval. ## Sources and evidence - pain: [Pain evidence: Do any other legal assistants/paralegals spend half their time waiting for their attorney?](https://www.reddit.com/r/paralegal/comments/1x479za/do_any_other_legal_assistantsparalegals_spend/) Do any other legal assistants/paralegals spend half their time waiting for their attorney?, 2026-10-12, recent. OP describes needing reviews, signatures and answers, repeated reminders, and work stalled for weeks. So angry right now, 2026-08-11, describes a brief awaiting attorney review despite repeated deadline reminders. - pain: [Pain evidence: So angry right now](https://www.reddit.com/r/paralegal/comments/1vlrd2o/so_angry_right_now/) Additional pain account; self-reported, not independently verified. - method: [Method: Power Automate approvals](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-automate/modern-approvals) Power Automate approvals supports human approval requests; Clio task lists supports related assigned tasks and relative due dates. - method: [Method: Clio task lists](https://help.clio.com/hc/en-150/articles/9206286672155-Task-Lists) Additional official capability reference. It does not validate the complete proposed recipe. Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain reports are self-reported and identities are unverified. Method documentation supports components, not a tested end-to-end workflow. ## Suggested approach Start when: Staff submits a ready-for-review item 1. maintain owner, explicit review-by date, blocker and acknowledgment 2. Keep row or page references and mark missing or ambiguous evidence. Do not apply the suggested changes. 3. The responsible staff member checks the draft against the source records and approves any separate action. ## What you need - Clio Manage task access for the selected review work, including authorized visibility of private tasks. - Maintained attorney-review requests and a staff-approved escalation policy with conditions, owner and cadence. - 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 - The native task export does not establish submitted_at, acknowledged_at, blocker or last_reminder_at. Obtain those from the actual review request and acknowledgment records; absence is unknown. - No general-purpose Clio Grow data-query chat is established. This route uses Manage's actual task export; no inferred review deadline or escalation authority. Access and setup: - Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested. ### 1. Collect the actual task list Tool: Clio Manage Location: Tasks > Outstanding (then Completed if required) > Filters > Apply filters > bottom Export > CSV > Export Choose the authorized users, matters and date range for the attorney review 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. Execution status: Official documentation checked 2026-10-15; account and workflow not personally tested Step documentation: https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/9204982812699-Filter-and-Export-Tasks https://help.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/9204917906971-Manage-Tasks-in-Clio-Manage ### 2. Map the observed records to the starter input Tool: Excel and authorized staff Location: Separate analysis workbook > Home > Format as Table Assign request_id and matter_alias. Copy reviewer_role from the actual assignment; copy decision_needed from the full request. Use the approved review-by instruction, not a legal deadline inferred from a document. For each request, inspect the actual submitted message, acknowledgment and reminder log locally and enter only observed timestamps/status/blocker. In escalation-policy.csv copy the approved rule_id, condition, approved_owner and cadence; include the reviewer cutoff/timezone in Scope. Create named tables for Reviews and EscalationPolicy. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt. Expected output: reviews.csv and escalation-policy.csv in the supplied kit contracts. Keep a restricted source crosswalk from request_id to task/message evidence. 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: sort by supplied review-by and status, then apply the supplied escalation table row by row. Prompt: ```text Using Reviews, EscalationPolicy and Scope only, return request_id, reviewer_role, decision_needed, approved_review_by, status, blocker, suggested_queue_position, matching_rule_id and reason with worksheet row references. Separate missing acknowledgment, overdue approved review-by, missing required facts, paused/completed and not-yet-due. Apply only the supplied cadence and last_reminder_at; unknown reminder history blocks a recommendation to send. Do not invent deadlines, urgency, delegation or legal advice. Draft a neutral internal reminder only where the supplied rule permits; do not send or edit. ``` Expected output: Prioritized attorney-review queue and optional rule-supported reminder drafts. 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 The supervising attorney verifies dates, decision requests, ownership and whether an acknowledgment or reminder occurred elsewhere. Approve a queue and resolve missing evidence before any reminder is sent. Expected output: Approved review queue with unresolved rows preserved. Next step: Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process. Check before continuing: A task due date is not automatically the approved review-by date; completion and silence are not acknowledgments. 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 review-queue.csv: request_id, reviewer_role, decision_needed, approved_review_by, acknowledgment_status, blocker, source_rows; draft internal digest with no live send. No live changes. ## Human review and limits Attorneys decide priorities and approvals; escalation recipient/cadence explicitly approved. Test that a newly reviewed item leaves the queue and a rejected draft never appears approved. 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: During the pilot, count findings confirmed by the reviewer, false alarms, and missing-input cases. Do not infer time or money saved. ## Original prepared-input schema reviews.csv: request_id, matter_alias, reviewer_role, decision_needed, approved_review_by, submitted_at, acknowledged_at, status, blocker, last_reminder_at. escalation-policy.csv: rule_id, condition, approved_owner, cadence. Synthetic example input: ```text REV1: overdue, unacknowledged REV2: approved this morning REV3: rejected, no revised version ``` Expected synthetic output: ```text REV1: review queue REV2: no open reminder, retain approval record REV3: rejected, never approved by silence ``` Failure check: Attorneys decide priorities and approvals; escalation recipient/cadence explicitly approved. Test that a newly reviewed item leaves the queue and a rejected draft never appears approved. ## 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/a08-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/a08/START-HERE.txt) — Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits - [Setup and review checklist](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/README.txt) — Required inputs, file use, review steps and limits - [Reviews blank CSV](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/reviews-template.csv) — Blank input headers for reviews.csv - [Reviews synthetic example](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/reviews-example.csv) — Synthetic test records for reviews.csv - [Escalation policy blank CSV](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/escalation-policy-template.csv) — Blank input headers for escalation-policy.csv - [Escalation policy synthetic example](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/escalation-policy-example.csv) — Synthetic test records for escalation-policy.csv - [Synthetic example expected results](https://agents.paretoid.com/assets/starter-kits/a08/expected-results.txt) — Compare a pilot result with the planted exceptions ## 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 these deidentified review requests, prepare a concise attorney queue: task ID, decision needed, owner, approved review-by date, age and blocker. Surface near-due unacknowledged requests first. Do not declare approval from silence or calculate court deadlines. Consolidate duplicates. Draft one internal reminder per owner; do not send. INPUTS reviews.csv: request_id, matter_alias, reviewer_role, decision_needed, approved_review_by, submitted_at, acknowledged_at, status, blocker, last_reminder_at. escalation-policy.csv: rule_id, condition, approved_owner, cadence. OUTPUT review-queue.csv: request_id, reviewer_role, decision_needed, approved_review_by, acknowledgment_status, blocker, source_rows; draft internal digest with no live send Use only the supplied synthetic or firm-approved inputs. Cite source row or page IDs for each finding. Keep unknowns unresolved. Return a draft for the responsible staff reviewer. Do not send messages, connect accounts, change records, move money, or make legal decisions. Keep source files unchanged. If an input or permission is missing, list what is needed and stop that check. ``` Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt Published by Law Firm Agents. Proposed adaptation; not tested. Not legal advice.