Resource kit
Workflow Decision Pack - a fictional example
A fictional example showing the structure of a Margo Legal Workflow Value Workshop decision. Alder Quay Commercial, every person, number and workflow detail in this pack are invented. This is not client data and the figures are not benchmarks.
Operational guidance, not legal advice. No confidential information is needed. Download the original PDF pack (original ClickoAI edition, v2, 15 August 2026).
Decision in one page
| Item | Fictional decision |
|---|---|
| Workflow | First-pass review of customer contracts arriving on the customer's standard terms, where the firm acts for the supplier |
| Person responsible | Fictional Commercial Practice Partner |
| Recommendation | Fix the process first |
| Reason | Queueing and inconsistent intake are the largest visible burdens. Review quality is not yet measured consistently enough to judge a tool. |
| Review point | Six weeks after intake and supervision changes begin |
If the process change removes enough burden, leave the workflow alone. If a repeated review burden remains, compare buying an existing tool with a small supervised pilot.
Fictional baseline
| Measure | Made-up figure | Evidence a real firm would need |
|---|---|---|
| Contracts entering review | 18 per month | Matter list or intake record |
| Time before work starts | 1.4 business days | Received and opened timestamps |
| First-pass handling | 2.1 hours | Time entries and a sequential sample |
| Supervisor corrections | 34 minutes per contract | Correction log |
| Write-off hypothesis | GBP 2,150 per month | Finance extract checked by its owner |
Limitations: the fictional firm has not yet separated queue time by intake route, and its correction figure comes from a small sample. A real recommendation would retain the source, confidence and limitation for every figure.
How the work happens today
- The customer's contract reaches a partner or fee earner.
- Urgency is decided informally.
- Allocation happens by message or conversation.
- A lawyer produces the first pass using a preferred checklist.
- A partner reviews it without one retained review standard.
- Comments leave the firm and corrections disappear into the matter record.
Fictional failure point: intake and allocation create avoidable waiting before legal work starts. The Workshop would not attribute that delay to AI or software without evidence.
Burden register
| Burden | Evidence today | What would strengthen it |
|---|---|---|
| Queue before allocation | Timestamp sample | One month by intake route |
| Inconsistent first pass | Supervisor recollection | Written checklist and correction log |
| Write-off | Finance hypothesis | Workflow-level billing extract |
Choices evaluated using the same criteria
| Choice | Evidence fit | Main condition | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fix the process | Strong | Named intake person, common fields and a dated review checklist | Do now |
| Buy a tool | Weak today | Comparable written vendor answers and measurable acceptance criteria | Revisit |
| Run a small supervised pilot | Weak today | Fixed evaluation set, review rule, data route and stop condition | Do not start |
| Leave it alone | Valid | Process change removes enough burden to make technology unnecessary | Keep open |
Conflict disclosure: Margo Legal is developing Margo, a contextual legal AI assistant, in controlled development. It is not part of this fictional engagement. Fixing the process, buying a third-party tool, running a small pilot and leaving the workflow alone receive the same written evaluation.
Six-week process plan
| When | Action | Evidence retained |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Name the intake person and record received time, requested return time, contract type and assigning partner | Intake log |
| Week 2 | Introduce one first-pass checklist and one supervision standard | Versioned checklist |
| Weeks 3 to 5 | Run the process and record queue, handling, corrections and write-off | Dated baseline log |
| Week 6 | Compare the new numbers and choose to fix, buy, pilot or leave it alone | Signed decision note |
Approval and evidence conditions
- One accountable person is responsible for the workflow.
- The sign-off roles are identified across commercial leadership, risk, IT and finance.
- No live client document enters an unapproved tool.
- Any later pilot has a fixed evaluation set and written stop condition.
- Vendor claims count only when retained in writing.
What this fictional pack contains
- A reconstruction of how the work happens today.
- Five current numbers with sources and limitations.
- A ranked view of burdens and opportunities.
- A comparison of fixing the process, buying a tool, running a small pilot and leaving the workflow alone.
- Named responsibility, sign-off, data and review conditions.
- A written next-step plan, including when not to proceed.
The list above describes this fictional pack, not the current live Workshop deliverables - the live page describes the Workshop as one workflow, one half-day, one written decision: fix, buy, pilot or stop (/workshop/). The call before the Workshop is a fit decision, not an audit. A no-fit answer is valid.
Next step
Measure first with the Contract-Workflow Baseline Kit (/resources/contract-workflow-baseline-kit/) or the Readiness Score at /readiness/, then request a 20-minute fit call at /fit-call/. The Workflow Value Workshop is GBP 2,500 fixed - one workflow, one half-day, one written decision - described at /workshop/ and /consultancy/.
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 (version 2, 15 August 2026); converted to HTML 15 September 2026.