Client Feedback Collection Checklist

Pin feedback to specific matter events that already exist in the PMS — engagement letter countersigned, first substantive deliverable sent, post-deposition or post-closing, and matter close. Avoid the temptation to survey during active litigation flare-ups; responses skew and clients resent it.

Family law and criminal defense clients respond very differently than transactional clients. Decide whether the program covers all matter types or excludes sensitive practice areas where a survey email could itself be a confidentiality concern.

Compare options the firm already pays for (Clio Grow, MyCase, Lawmatics, Smokeball Intake) against standalone tools (Typeform, SurveyMonkey, Jotform). Confirm the tool's data residency and whether responses sync into the PMS matter record. Avoid free tools that mine response data.

Keep it under 8 questions. Mix one NPS-style score, two-to-three Likert items (responsiveness, clarity of fees, outcome relative to expectations), and one open-ended. Do not ask for facts about the matter that could become discoverable in a downstream dispute.

Confirm survey copy doesn't request privileged content and doesn't function as solicitation under your state's Rule 7.x. If responses will be repurposed as testimonials, build the consent and disclaimer flow now — not after the fact.

State-specific advertising disclaimers vary — Florida, New York, and Texas each have particular requirements for prior-result language. Add the opt-in checkbox, the no-guarantee disclaimer, and the right-to-withdraw clause before the form goes live.

Specify who at the firm can read responses (firm administrator, managing partner, responsible attorney), how long responses are retained, and where they live. Align with the matter file retention schedule — feedback tied to a matter typically follows the underlying matter's retention period.

Cover what triggers send a survey, what the firm will and won't do with negative responses, and the script for clients who ask whether the survey is required. Make clear that retaliation against a client for a low score is a Rule 5.1 / 5.3 supervisory issue.

In Clio, MyCase, or Lawmatics, set the automation to fire on matter-status change (Active → Closed) or on a tagged event. Stagger the post-close survey by 5–7 business days so clients aren't surveyed the same day they receive a final invoice.

Pick a mix of practice areas and outcomes — at least one matter with a difficult resolution. Watch for survey-link rendering issues, broken merge fields (client name, matter number), and any responses that flag confidentiality concerns.

Loop the affected attorneys, the PMS administrator, and (if needed) the tool vendor. Re-pilot once fixes are in place. Don't push to general rollout with known broken merge fields — clients receiving 'Dear [FIRST_NAME]' is a credibility loss.

The firm administrator pulls the response report each Monday and tags responses by sentiment. Anything mentioning a billing dispute, missed deadline, or attorney conduct is escalated immediately rather than waiting for the weekly summary.

Triggered when a response signals a fee dispute, a missed deadline, or attorney-conduct concerns that could become a bar grievance. Include the matter number, responsible attorney, response text, and recommended outreach. Loop malpractice carrier counsel if the response describes a potential claim.

For routine responses, a thank-you note within a week. For service concerns, the responsible attorney calls the client — not an email. Document the call in the matter file. Never argue with the rating; acknowledge, ask what would have made it better, and close the loop.

Aggregate by practice area, responsible attorney, and matter type. Pull NPS trend, response rate, and the open-ended themes. Strip identifiers before circulating beyond the partnership — even internally, comments should be summarized rather than quoted with client names attached.

Standing agenda item. Tie themes to concrete actions — intake script changes, billing-narrative training, calendar discipline — with named owners and a check-in date. Avoid the failure mode where feedback is read aloud and then nothing changes.

Trim questions that consistently get skipped. Add questions targeted at the year's improvement themes. Re-run the Rule 1.6 / 7.x review on any new question before pushing the change live.