No, and this is the most important guardrail on a malpractice chatbot. The system prompt instructs SleekAI to describe your practice areas, your intake process, and general information about the law, and to defer every case-specific question to the attorney consultation. When a prospect pushes for a yes-or-no answer on viability, the bot explains how the firm typically evaluates cases and frames the actual assessment as something the attorney does after reviewing the records. That distinction protects the firm and sets the right expectation for the visitor.

It can describe your state's general statute and discovery-rule framework if you publish those on your site, but it cannot apply them to a specific case. The bot captures the treatment date, the discovery date if different, and the jurisdiction, then flags the timing for the intake coordinator. Statute analysis on a real matter requires the attorney to confirm tolling, continuous-treatment doctrine, and any minor or incapacity exceptions, none of which is appropriate for a chatbot to decide.

Conversation logs live in your WordPress database under your control rather than a third-party transcript service. The bot asks early whether the visitor is the patient or a family member and whether the patient has authorised them to inquire. That information goes into the intake summary so the attorney consultation does not stall on authorisation. Most firms purge or summarise logs on a recurring schedule and forward only the consultation-relevant facts into their case-management system.

It screens against obvious filters: jurisdiction outside your coverage area, statute clearly expired, injury type outside your practice areas, damages clearly below your minimum threshold. It does not opine on standard-of-care questions or causation, both of which require expert review. Cases that pass the obvious filters get a consultation; cases that fail one or more get a polite informational response with a referral to your bar association's lawyer-referral service.

Yes. Surgical errors, birth injuries, anesthesia errors, misdiagnosis, and nursing-home neglect can each be a separate practice-area page on your site, and the bot reads from those pages to describe what your firm covers. For firms that want a different intake flow per practice area, multibot lets you run a dedicated bot on each practice-area page with its own questions and routing rather than running one generalist bot.

Yes, if you publish a plain-language description of your state's damages cap and pre-suit requirements on your site. The bot can reference that information when prospects ask about value, and it always frames it as general information rather than a damages estimate for their specific case. Pre-suit affidavit-of-merit states and certificate-of-merit jurisdictions also work; the bot mentions the pre-suit step in the intake so the prospect understands the timeline before the consultation.

Yes. Multibot plus display conditions let you route surgical-error intakes to the partner who handles surgical cases and birth-injury intakes to the attorney who handles obstetric matters. The consultation booking attaches the intake summary and routes to the right calendar, so the attorney who takes the call already has the relevant facts and is the right person for the practice area rather than a generalist who will need to refer.

If a visitor describes an active medical emergency or describes harm to themselves or others, the system prompt instructs the bot to break role and direct them to call 911 or their local emergency service before any intake continues. Malpractice intake is by definition retrospective, but occasionally someone in crisis lands on a malpractice page, and the right response is to route them to emergency services and skip the intake until they are safe.