No. The system prompt explicitly declines police-interaction questions, search-and-seizure analysis, and any advice about cooperating or staying silent. The bot consistently refers the visitor to an attorney consultation. This is the most common edge case in drug-defense intake; visitors phrase it many ways ("should he just explain", "is it better to cooperate") and the refusal must hold across phrasings. Run adversarial audit tests quarterly to verify the guardrail is intact, and update the declined-categories list if new phrasings slip through.

The bot collects names of any co-defendants, alleged accomplices, or related parties mentioned by the visitor, and flags potential conflicts for the conflicts team to clear before consultation. The bot itself does not make conflict decisions. For drug cases the conflict posture matters: representing one defendant when the firm has spoken to a co-defendant elsewhere can create issues quickly. The intake template asks the question structurally so it does not get missed in the rush of an overnight call.

Pre-engagement, conversations are not yet privileged. State this clearly in the widget header or initial message. Privilege begins at formal engagement and depends on jurisdictional rules. Logs in your WordPress database stay under firm control, and retention can match your records-retention policy. For criminal defense most firms keep short retention on pre-engagement chats and migrate the structured intake into the case-management system once an engagement starts.

Yes. Multibot lets state and federal drug cases route to different attorneys with different intake fields. A state-court bot can ask about county and bond posture; a federal bot can ask about charge under the Controlled Substances Act, indictment stage, and pretrial-detention exposure. Display conditions gate each bot to the right URL patterns on your site. Scoping the bots per court system improves both routing accuracy and intake quality.

Yes, configure a juvenile-specific intake that routes to attorneys who handle juvenile court, captures the parent's contact rather than the minor's, and flags the matter for the juvenile-court intake protocol. The bot recognises age indicators in the visitor's description and adjusts the routing. Juvenile-court conflicts and confidentiality rules differ from adult court, so the bot's intake fields differ accordingly to support the case team's clearance work.

BYO API key with the standard provider terms means data is not used for training by default. Conversation logs live in your WordPress database under your control. For drug-defense firms the typical posture is short retention with structured handoff to the case-management system once an engagement starts. Document the bot in your privacy notice and align retention with engagement-letter terms. The plugin gives you the building blocks; the policy posture is yours.

Yes. Many drug-defense practices serve significant Spanish-speaking populations and SleekAI replies in the language the visitor writes in. The booked consultation is flagged with the visitor's preferred language so the attorney prepares accordingly. Legal-advice refusal language remains intact across translation because the prompt rules apply in any language; the model translates the structural answers but keeps the guardrails on.

Configure the bot to recognise immigration-status concerns alongside the criminal charge (ICE holds, detainers, removal proceedings tied to drug charges) and route to attorneys who handle the criminal-immigration intersection or to a partner firm if your practice does not. Speed matters more than the standard intake flow. The system prompt should escalate routing posture explicitly and shorten the intake to the minimum needed for conflicts clearance so the matter can be picked up on a compressed timeline.