Resource guide
Legal workflow automation explained
Map triggers, rules, exceptions, outputs and monitoring. Use it when a repeated step appears suitable for automation.
Boundary: this guide does not approve software or remove qualified legal review.
Operational guidance, not legal advice. No confidential information is needed. Download the original PDF guide (original ClickoAI edition, v1, 18 August 2026).
1. Frame the decision
Automation fits only when a stable rule, exception route and owner already exist.
Specific focus: describe the rule and exception route before selecting software.
Questions to answer:
- What triggers the step?
- Which inputs are mandatory?
- Which rule is stable?
- Where do exceptions go?
Avoid:
- automating exceptions first
- encoding undocumented habits
- removing review without error evidence
2. Control sheet
Treat a blank evidence field as a reason to pause, not a reason to guess. Record sources and owners before changing the workflow.
| Area | Evidence to collect | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Event and inputs | Incomplete work cannot enter |
| Rule | Logic and source | Rule is approved |
| Exception | Queue and escalation | Named person receives it |
| Output | Format and checks | Result is traceable |
| Monitor | Failures and overrides | Drift is detected |
Fail closed: if an input, owner or approval is missing, record the gap and keep the affected step outside the proposed change.
3. Working record
Complete this page with counts, dates and named sources. Do not include client names, matter names, contract text or privileged material.
| Field | Evidence or answer |
|---|---|
| Step | |
| Volume | |
| Rule | |
| Exception rate | |
| Output check | |
| Owner and stop route |
Evidence quality check:
- The source is named and dated.
- An estimate is labelled as an estimate.
- The owner can reproduce the measure.
- The same method can be used after a change.
4. Decision record
Select the outcome that the evidence supports. A stop or no-change decision is valid.
- Stop: a required source, owner or approval is missing.
- Fix: repair the underlying route before adding technology or cost.
- Test: run one bounded change with a baseline and review date.
- Proceed: adopt only the option supported by the recorded evidence.
| Decision field | Record |
|---|---|
| Chosen outcome | |
| Reason and evidence | |
| Owner and approvers | |
| Review or expiry date |
Related pages: the answers hub (/answers/), the document-workflow guide (/resources/modernising-legal-document-workflows/), the Baseline Kit (/resources/contract-workflow-baseline-kit/) and the Readiness Score (/readiness/).
Primary sources
- Law Society - How to use lawtech in your practice: lawsociety.org.uk
- Law Society - Buying new technology: lawsociety.org.uk
- SRA - Effective supervision: sra.org.uk
- ICO - Information security checklist: ico.org.uk
Source status: links checked 15 September 2026 (SRA supervision and ICO checklist both verified live 200 today; both Law Society pages verified by manual browser check 15 Sep (resolve 200, title/H1 match; automated fetch returns 403 bot-block)). Confirm the current version and obtain appropriate professional advice before relying on regulated, contractual, privacy, security, insurance, financial or wellbeing conclusions.
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 (v1, 18 August 2026); converted to HTML 15 September 2026.