Screen.
Where trust gets earned.
Screening is the moment a claimant becomes a case — or doesn’t. Who is on the call at that moment, and how trained they are for it, decides what kind of case the firm ends up with. We have built the operation around this fact. Acting as an extension of our partner firms is a privilege we take seriously.
Screening is judgment.
Not data entry.
Proper screening combines comprehensive criteria evaluation with the professionalism and confidence to leave a qualifying claimant feeling they are making the right decision to hire the firm. The team that does that work is based in our Denver office. They are the prospective client’s first impression of our partner firms — a responsibility they take as foundational to the work.
The work happens in a single phone call. A claimant has responded to outreach, has been pre-qualified by form logic, and is now talking to a specialist who will decide — over the next ten to forty minutes — whether what they have is a case the firm can take, and whether they are the kind of plaintiff who can sustain it through litigation.
Part of that decision is procedural: do the dates line up with the docket’s eligibility window, do the medical facts match the injury criteria, are there exclusionary co-conditions. Most of it is judgment. The specialist is reading the call for what isn’t on the form — whether the medical narrative holds together, whether the claimant can articulate symptoms with enough specificity to survive a discovery deposition years later, whether they will return calls a year from now when records requests go out, whether the documentation they describe actually exists.
A poorly run screening operation surfaces the wrong cases. The firm signs claimants who don’t survive case workup, claimants whose contact information goes stale within ninety days, claimants whose medical narratives unravel when the records arrive. Each of those failures is a sunk cost the firm absorbs. A well-run screening operation surfaces fewer cases — and the cases it surfaces hold.
Across more than a thousand verified third-party reviews, our intake team holds a 4.9 rating. The rating matters in this category specifically because trust between claimant and intake team is rarely earned at scale. The 4.9 is the proof that in this operation, it is.
The intake operation runs as Select Justice.
Select Justice is the consumer-facing brand under which our screening operation runs. Claimants who respond to mass tort campaigns we operate are routed to Select Justice intake specialists, who handle the full conversation — qualification, case-fact capture, claimant education, retainer execution.
The operation is staffed by LeadClient employees, working as full-time specialists. Specialists are trained on the medical and procedural context of each case category they staff — the injury mechanism, the docket’s eligibility criteria, the firm’s specific tier definitions, the documentation that has to be captured at first contact for the case to hold up later. They are specialists assigned to the litigation they understand, not generalists rotating across unrelated dockets.
The training is what makes that level of consistency possible. Specialists know the medical and procedural context well enough to recognize what isn’t on the form, and they are trained to treat claimants in serious medical or emotional distress with the attention the work requires.
The screening criteria are set by the partner firm — not by us. When a firm tells us their docket needs claimants with documented injury within a specific window, with specific co-condition exclusions, with specific documentation thresholds, those are the rules our specialists apply on the call. We will not pressure a partner toward more lenient criteria for the sake of our retention numbers. The objective is a docket of high-value cases with minimal attrition — inventory the firm can rely on from intake through verdict.
Built to represent the firm. Every conversation either earns the firm credibility or spends it. The rating is the running balance.
The firm’s name is on every call.
That is the whole exposure.
The structural reality of outsourced intake is that the claimant cannot tell where the firm ends and the vendor begins. From the claimant’s perspective, the person on the phone is the firm. Whatever that person says, however that person treats them, whatever pressure that person applies — that is the firm’s behavior, in the claimant’s memory, attached to the firm’s name.
This is the exposure that makes most plaintiff firms cautious about outsourced intake. The reputational concern is straightforward: a high-volume intake operation produces hundreds of impressions a day, and any one of them could land badly enough to surface in a complaint, a review, a referral conversation, or a regulator’s inbox. The ethical concern is sharper: an intake rep who pressures claimants into retainers exposes the firm to ethics complaints under state attorney advertising and solicitation rules — and in some jurisdictions, under broader unauthorized-practice concerns.
A satisfaction score sustained at 4.9 across a thousand-plus verified reviews is the operational answer to both concerns. Pressured claimants do not leave five-star reviews. Disrespected claimants do not return them either. The rating is the running disclosure that the operation is being run the way it would be run if the firm were running it themselves.
Real-time CMS delivery.
Standing tier-mix reporting.
Retained cases land directly in the partner firm’s case management system in real time. We integrate with every major mass tort CMS through API or established sync pattern. The firm’s intake team and litigation team see new retentions in the system within minutes of retainer execution, with the full intake record attached: the qualification answers, the call recording, the documentation captured, and the tier classification against the firm’s criteria.
Reporting cadence is set with the firm. The standing report covers retained-case volume, cost per qualified retention, and tier distribution against the firm’s screening criteria. It does not cover lead volume, impression counts, or upper-funnel marketing metrics — those are operational inputs we manage internally on the firm’s behalf. The metrics on the partner report are the metrics the firm uses to evaluate the docket.
Start a conversation.
Speak with our team.
Whether you are evaluating an outsourced intake partner for the first time or reconsidering one you have, the conversation starts the same way: a working call with our intake leadership, your dockets, and your screening criteria on the table.
Speak with our team