Give business teams one clear place to ask for legal help. Collect the right context, return missing information and let a named reviewer decide what the team should take on.
Free for up to five users. No credit card required.
Adapt fields, workflows, and dashboards without code. Explore 1,000+ app templates and use cases
Explore a fictional example. Sign in to preview or use the app.
A single long questionnaire discourages routine requests and still misses important context. Keep a short common core, then reveal the questions needed for the selected request type.
| Request type | Context to collect | What the reviewer needs to decide |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial agreement | Counterparty, commercial summary, requested outcome and business deadline | Is the scope clear enough to assign a review? |
| Employment question | The process question, applicable context and requested guidance | Does legal have the necessary context without collecting unnecessary personal details? |
| Policy review | Policy title, revision, affected teams and proposed change | Is there a draft to review and a clear owner for the policy decision? |
| Other business advice | Relevant facts, desired outcome and urgency | Does the request belong in the internal legal service? |
The requester explains the desired outcome and why the date matters. Ask for supporting material only when it is necessary. Provide a clear service scope so people know which requests belong with legal and which should go elsewhere.
The assigned reviewer checks the category, context, deadline and requested outcome. In the example, a request marked as needing more information cannot be accepted. The reviewer can return it with a concrete explanation rather than starting a second email conversation.
The requester updates the same built-in workflow record and submits it again. Previous review history remains attached to the request. The reviewer sees the corrected context before accepting or declining the work.
Record who will handle the request and open a matter when the work warrants one. A brief clarification does not always require a new matter. Make the handoff explicit so acceptance does not leave the request in an unowned queue.
Ask what event depends on the advice, when the business first knew about it and what happens if the date moves. Those facts support prioritization. The app records the business deadline; it does not calculate legal or court deadlines.
Keep the intake focused on what is necessary to route and assess the request. Use an approved restricted channel for sensitive source material where appropriate. Configure installed permissions before allowing real requests; the example is intentionally fictional.
Decline it with a useful explanation and a suitable next step. A personal advice request, for example, should not be silently accepted into an internal business queue. Retain the decision so the requester is not left wondering whether anyone is working on it.
For agreement-specific questions, start with the contract intake form →
With Jodoo, a legal operations lead can adapt fields, category choices, conditional questions and built-in review steps as the service evolves. For a new commercial process, add the specific facts needed by the reviewer rather than asking every requester to complete a larger form.
The example has separate input and review responsibilities. Business requesters cannot choose the reviewer’s accept or decline decision in the start step. Built-in return and resubmission keep correction in the same workflow, while the intake queue shows requests and missing context together.
Set service expectations outside the form as well. Agree on an intake owner, a routine triage cadence, the meaning of urgency and how requesters should follow up. Software makes the handoff visible; it cannot resolve an unclear internal service policy for you.
A sales team needs review of a distributor agreement. It supplies the counterparty, commercial summary, desired outcome and requested date. The reviewer returns the request when the commercial summary is missing, then accepts the corrected version and assigns the legal work.
Keep requests needing more information separate from work ready for triage. Open the request, review its business deadline and missing context, and give the requester a clear answer or correction request. Accepted work keeps its owner and reference when the team opens a matter.
This example is for business departments requesting help from an in-house legal team. Law-firm prospect qualification, engagement letters, client identity checks, trust accounting and practice-management integrations are different requirements. Evaluate purpose-built tools when those are the primary task.
Start with requester, department, request type, business question, desired outcome, requested date and the reason for urgency. Add supporting files and category-specific context where needed. The goal is enough information to make the next decision, not the longest possible questionnaire.
Jodoo supports mobile form entry, and the example request can be opened from a phone. Keep the common questions concise and test the actual categories, file handling and permissions your team will use. The mobile view shows the same request categories with the relevant questions.
No. Acceptance means legal will handle the request. Contract approval, commercial authorization or another business decision may need its own workflow and authorized approvers. Name those decisions separately so an intake status cannot be mistaken for permission to proceed.
Open the example, explore the records and make your own copy to adapt it to your team.
Explore the legal intake app