AI Verdict · Sample
Illustrative · fictional firm · not a client
The decision
A fictional 14-person accounting firm asks: should we use AI to draft client intake summaries and engagement letters?
Verdict
Conditionally Ready
The work is repetitive and the inputs are consistent, so the case is real. But nobody owns intake today, and there is no written rule for what client data may go into an AI tool. The verdict is never an average: that one ownership gap caps it until it is closed.
Read across the 4Cs
- Capitalization
- Ready
- The tool cost fits the budget. Payback depends on partner hours recovered from intake, which the firm will measure.
- Capabilities
- Gap
- No named owner for intake or for reviewing what the AI drafts. This is the gap that caps the verdict.
- Capacity
- Conditionally ready
- Intake runs three different ways depending on who handles it. Standardize first.
- Connections
- Ready
- The practice management system already exports the fields a draft needs.
- Discernment
- Boundary set
- Augment, do not automate: AI drafts the letter and a partner signs it. Tax positions and client advice stay human.
The sequence
- 01Name an intake owner and write a one-page rule for client data and AI tools.
- 02Move intake to one checklist that everyone follows, before any tool touches it.
- 03Pilot AI drafting on engagement letters only, with partner review, and track time per letter for thirty days.
The ownership map
- Office manager, as intake owner
- Runs the process, reviews every draft, and flags exceptions.
- Partner
- Signs every letter and owns what the firm promises a client.
- Managing partner, not delegable
- Decides what the firm tells clients about its use of AI.

