Before I show you the product, I want you all to have one number in mind: four hours. At four hours per attorney each week across sixty attorneys and fifty working weeks, that is twelve thousand hours a year spent collecting, checking and reconciling information across matters. What I hope to show you is a product that gets clients moving faster, helps junior attorneys work faster and smarter, and keeps professionals on the same page.
One number to keep in mind
4 hours
per attorney, per week, collecting, checking and reconciling information across matters.
60 attorneys
× 50 working weeks
≈ 12,000 hours a year
Capacity model: 4 hours × 60 attorneys × 50 working weeks
Barker Brettell protects one hundred and nineteen thousand live IP rights, supports more than seventeen hundred new patent applications every year, and has sixty IP attorneys. At that scale, intake is a workflow repeated across the practice. A stronger start for each suitable matter can compound into a meaningful operating advantage.
Why this matters at Barker Brettell
At this scale, every better intake compounds.
119,000
live patents, trade marks and design rights protected right now
A significant active portfolio requiring clear, dependable workflows.
1,700+
new patent applications acquired and supported annually
More than thirty new patent applications in an average week.
60
IP attorneys serving clients across the practice
One intake standard can support expertise across teams and sectors.
Barker Brettell key figures · Legal 500 firm profile
Now imagine I am the founder of an AI-enabled medical-device company. Investors are interested, I have a public demonstration in two weeks, and I need to move quickly. I have prototype results, technical drawings and a team that helped build it. I need guidance on what is protectable, which disclosures matter, what you need from me, and what the first stage will cost.
Put yourself in the client’s shoes
Imagine I’m the founder of an AI-enabled medical-device company.
What I have
- Investors are interested
- A live demonstration in two weeks
- Prototype results and technical files
- Employees and contractors who contributed
Where I need guidance
- What is actually protectable
- Whether I have disclosed too much
- What the attorney needs from me
- What the first stage might cost
So let us start inside the product, as the client. I am going to upload the files I already have, add the commercial context, and ask the portal to check my information. Watch how it turns a founder's materials into focused questions, surfaces urgent dates and gives me a clearer route to scope and price.
Live · Client view
Start with what the client already has.
Upload the synthetic technical, commercial and contributor materials already available.
Step 1 · Upload evidence
The files tell part of the story. Now I add the context around them: where I want to launch, who contributed, what has been disclosed and how quickly I need to move. The portal captures those dependencies through focused questions rather than asking me to understand the legal framework first.
Live · Client view
Add the context hidden between the files.
Capture markets, contributors, ownership, planned disclosures and commercial timing through guided questions.
Step 2 · Add context
Now I ask the portal to check my information. It brings the technical, ownership and disclosure facts into one view, identifies the gaps, and turns them into questions I can actually answer. I can see immediately what is ready and what needs attention before the first review.
Live · Client view
Let the portal find the gaps.
Run the information check. Show the missing technical, ownership and disclosure facts as focused follow-up questions.
Step 3 · Check readiness
This is where the client feels progress. Planned demonstrations, possible disclosures and ownership questions are surfaced early, while there is still time to act. The portal gives me a clear view of what matters now and what I should prepare next.
Live · Client view
Make urgency visible early.
Open the readiness result and show how planned demonstrations, disclosures and ownership questions become visible before review.
Step 4 · Surface priorities
Before I have spoken to an attorney, I can see what is complete, answer focused questions, understand which dates may be urgent, and reach a better-informed route towards scope and price. The first interaction creates momentum, confidence and a clear next step.
Live · Client view
Give the client a clear route forward.
Show completeness, next questions, urgent dates and the attorney-approved route towards scope and price.
Step 5 · Create momentum
Now I stop being the client. You are now the reviewing attorney. The submitted information has become a structured first-review pack. You can open one suggested issue, jump to the exact supporting lines, and accept, improve or reject it while the evidence stays in view.
Live · Your view
Now you are the reviewing attorney.
Use the portal navigation to open the attorney workspace. The embedded session stays intact.
Step 6 · Change perspective
You receive a structured first-review pack with every issue connected to its evidence. You can open the exact passage, then accept, edit or reject the suggestion. Legal advice, scope and fees remain under your control. The portal concentrates your time on the judgement and strategic guidance clients value most.
Live · Your view
You begin with a structured review pack.
Open the submitted matter and scan the technical, ownership and disclosure issues already organised for you.
Step 7 · Review the matter
Now open one finding. You can move directly from the suggested issue to the highlighted supporting lines in the original file. You see the evidence, the surrounding context and the open question together, so verification becomes part of the workflow rather than a separate search.
Live · Your view
You can inspect every supporting line.
Open a suggested issue and jump directly to the highlighted passage in the original file preview.
Step 8 · Verify the evidence
You remain in control of the conclusion. Accept the finding, improve it or reject it. Your decision is visible to the team, the evidence remains attached, and the next person begins from the same reviewed position. That is how the workflow helps juniors move faster while keeping professionals aligned.
Live · Your decision
You stay in control of every finding.
Accept, improve or reject the suggestion. Your decision becomes visible to the team and improves the next intake.
Step 9 · Apply judgement
The pilot makes the improvement visible from the first matter. Across ten synthetic or anonymised scenarios, we track time to first useful triage, client follow-up loops avoided, time to verify each citation, and suggestions accepted or improved. Attorney feedback becomes a practice-specific question set and a repeatable intake standard for the next matter.
Prove the value in practice
Measure the improvement from the first matter.
10 matters
to build a focused baseline and a repeatable intake standard
Four weeks · synthetic or fully anonymised scenarios · attorney-led evaluation
01Time to the first useful triage decision
02Client follow-up loops avoided
03Time to verify each cited finding
04Suggestions accepted or improved
A simple dashboard turns attorney feedback into the next version.
I built this working demonstration in one week, so the day-one client benefit is already visible. Your expertise can turn it into a Barker Brettell advantage. Choose the three facts you most often need before a useful first review. Give me ten synthetic or anonymised matters, four weeks, and your rules. We will measure the improvement and use your decisions to design the next version together.
The ask
Ten matters.
Four weeks.
Your rules.
I built the working demonstration in one week. The day-one benefit is visible now; the firm-specific advantage needs your judgement and more time.
Decision requested
Choose the three facts you most often need before a useful first review.
Use the results to define a Barker Brettell intake standard and co-design the next version.