.jpg)
Every matter that comes through our door starts with one unglamorous step: triage. Before anyone drafts a clause or rejects the opposing counsel's redlines, someone has to look at the incoming request, figure out what it actually is, and route it to the right attorney. It's the legal equivalent of an emergency room intake. Diagnose the matter, gauge its urgency, send it to the person best equipped to handle it.
Done well, triage looks at two things at once. First, the nature of the request. What practice area does it touch? How complex is it? How quickly does the client need it? Second, the attorney on the other end. Who has the relevant expertise? Who has the bandwidth this week? Who's available right now? Matching those two columns is the whole game.
Efficient triage is what makes everything else we promise possible. Our turnaround times and quality guarantees only hold if matters land on the right desk (or, to be more pricise, in the right Slack DMs) the first time. A misrouted matter is slow, and worse, it has to be reassigned, reviewed again, and explained again. Triage that takes too long is its own failure, because the clock starts the moment the client hits send, not the moment we figure out who's handling it.
But there's a second audience for good triage that's easy to overlook. The attorneys themselves. A routing process that ignores how its lawyers actually work, that overloads the available and starves the specialists, quietly burns people out. So we listen. We ask attorneys what kinds of matters energize them, where their real expertise lies, and what their week actually looks like. Triage that respects that feedback isn't just more accurate. It's part of what makes General Legal a place attorneys want to stay.
That's the balance we build for. The client gets the right attorney, fast. The attorney gets work that fits. And the firm gets a process that scales without breaking either promise.