Resource kit
The Contract-Workflow Baseline Kit
A practical workbook for measuring one repeated law-firm workflow before you fix the process, buy a tool, run a small pilot or leave it alone. This kit contains no software. It collects nothing, sends nothing and requires no confidential information. Counts, times and costs are enough.
Operational guidance, not legal advice. No confidential information is needed. Download the original PDF workbook (original ClickoAI edition, v2, 15 August 2026) - or work through it here.
How to use this kit
Choose one recognisable workflow. Use a normal calendar month or the next twenty items in sequence. Do not pick memorable files. Label estimates, name their source and date the final baseline before any change begins.
The baseline does not need to be perfect. It needs to be honest enough to repeat after a change.
The working rule:
- One named person owns the measurement.
- No client names, matter names, contract text or privileged material enter this workbook.
- Measure the sequence, not the highlights.
- Keep lawyer time spent separate from elapsed turnaround.
- Confirm the baseline before viewing a supplier result or running a pilot.
The five current numbers
Volume, lawyer time spent, turnaround, corrections and write-offs. Together they describe the work today without claiming that technology is the answer.
Worksheet 1: describe the workflow
Fill one page. A blank line is a finding, not a failure.
| Field | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Workflow name | |
| Trigger: what arrives, from whom and through which channel | |
| Finish line: what leaves and what counts as done | |
| Named person responsible: one person who can change the workflow | |
| Roles touching the work, in order | |
| Where it waits and why | |
| Two or three recurring failure modes | |
| Fee basis and who feels an overrun | |
| Plain-language burden hypothesis |
Complete this sentence: "This workflow may be creating avoidable __________ because __________."
Worksheet 2: the five current numbers
Use a defined period. Record each source and assumption beside the figure.
| Number | Definition | How to get it | Your figure | Source or assumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | Items entering each month | Inbox, matter or intake count | (your figure) | (name the source or label the assumption) |
| Lawyer time spent | Hands-on time across all roles | Time records plus a short tally | (your figure) | (source or assumption) |
| Turnaround | Elapsed time from arrival to first output | Received and sent timestamps | (your figure) | (source or assumption) |
| Corrections | Reopened points or extra review cycles | Correction log or sampled file review | (your figure) | (source or assumption) |
| Write-off | Recorded time not recovered or fixed-fee overrun | Billing report checked by finance | (your figure) | (source or assumption) |
| Date | What was measured or learned | Evidence source | Confidence |
|---|
Worked example: fictional and illustrative
A fictional 40-fee-earner firm measures first-pass review of customer contracts arriving on the customer's standard terms. The firm acts for the supplier. Every number below is invented and is not a benchmark or client result.
| Measure | Made-up figure | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | 26 contracts a month | Enough recurrence to observe a stable pattern |
| Lawyer time spent | 3.1 hours per contract | Partner supervision is included, not hidden |
| Turnaround | Typical 6 working days | The work waits longer than it is actively handled |
| Corrections | 7 of the last 20 | Supervisor corrections need a written standard |
| Write-off | About GBP 2,900 a month | The commercial burden can be tested against a change |
The fictional reading is process first. Queue and supervision changes compete seriously with buying software or running a pilot.
What a real firm would still need:
- A retained source for each figure.
- A named person who accepts the baseline.
- Finance validation for any write-off figure.
- A date and a written limitation note.
Worksheet 3: supervision and safeguards
Answer yes, partly or not yet. Write the next action for every answer that is not yes. These checks track the two concerns the SRA records in its warning notice on AI misuse - inaccurate output and client confidentiality (source: sra.org.uk
| Check | Yes, partly or not yet | Next action and person responsible |
|---|---|---|
| A named person reviews every AI-assisted output before it leaves the firm | ||
| The review standard states what is checked and against which source | ||
| The reviewer is competent to produce the work themselves | ||
| Review time is counted in the workflow cost | ||
| Corrections are recorded so the error pattern is visible | ||
| Approved tools and permitted uses are written and owned | ||
| Client confidential material stays out of unapproved tools | ||
| Data location, retention and model-training terms are understood | ||
| The firm has decided when client disclosure is required | ||
| The firm's AI-use position has a responsible person and a review date |
Worksheet 4: recovery checklist
This is not a second readiness score. Use it to identify the next missing foundation. (For the scores themselves, use the twelve-question Contract-Workflow Readiness Score at /readiness/ or the ten-question systems check at /systems-readiness/; the maturity model at /insights/law-firm-ai-readiness-maturity-model/ places the results.)
| Foundation | Ready or not yet | Next action if not yet |
|---|---|---|
| The workflow repeats often enough to observe | | Count one month or choose a more repeated workflow | |
| One named person can change it | | Name a provisional person responsible before measuring | |
| A leader can state the burden hypothesis | | Write one sentence about time, delay, corrections or write-off | |
| The five numbers can be obtained safely | | Find the system owner and define a non-confidential sample | |
| The output quality standard can be stated | | Write the current supervision checklist | |
| The roles that sign off are known | | Map commercial, risk, IT and finance roles | |
| The firm could act on an unfavourable result | | Define fix, buy, pilot or leave it alone in advance |
Your next three actions: 1. ___ 2. ___ 3. ___
Confirm the baseline
Complete this page only when the figures, sources and limitations have been reviewed.
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Workflow | |
| Measurement window | |
| Named person responsible | |
| Accountable sponsor | |
| Roles that must sign off | |
| Main limitation | |
| Baseline confirmed on | |
| Next decision date |
A finished baseline supports a decision. It does not prove that software is the answer.
Continue
Use the Contract-Workflow Readiness Score at /readiness/. If the workflow has a named person responsible, clear sign-off and sufficient evidence, request a 20-minute fit call at /fit-call/. The Workflow Value Workshop - GBP 2,500 fixed, one workflow, one half-day, one written recommendation - is described at /consultancy/. Margo Legal's readiness-audit scope and price are not yet published.
MARGO LEGAL LTD, company number 17322603. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 66 Paul Street, London, England, EC2A 4NA. Originally published as a PDF workbook (version 2, 15 August 2026); converted to HTML 15 September 2026.