No. Helmet-defence interpretation is jurisdiction-specific and case-specific, and is explicitly listed as a declined category in the system prompt. Some states allow evidence of non-helmet use to be admitted; others do not. The bot captures whether a helmet was worn but does not interpret the implication. That is the case-screening attorney's call. Audit testing each quarter verifies the guardrail holds against adversarial prompts ("would no helmet hurt the case", "is this state a comparative state").

Configure multibot per state, or a single bot with state-aware intake fields. Universal-helmet states (e.g. California) have different field defaults than partial-coverage states or no-requirement states. The bot reads the state from the visitor's input and adjusts the intake accordingly. Helmet-defence and modified-comparative-negligence rules vary enough that the intake should reflect the right posture; the case-screening attorney handles the actual legal analysis on the consultation.

The bot captures the structural inputs the case-screening team uses, injury severity, treatment status, time since crash, opposing-driver insurance posture, gear and training context. It does not make the viability decision. The intake gives the screening attorney the structured fields before the call so low-viability matters get routed to a decline letter and high-severity matters get senior-partner attention on a fast cadence. The bot is the funnel-shaping layer, not the gatekeeping layer.

Yes. The bot captures the hit-and-run posture, uninsured-motorist coverage status, witness contact if any, and police-report details. Hit-and-run motorcycle cases have their own intake pattern because the UM carrier becomes the practical opposing party, and the bot adjusts the intake fields to reflect that. The case-screening attorney handles the UM-claim strategy on the consultation; the bot captures the facts the attorney needs to start the analysis.

Yes. Many motorcycle-injury practices serve significant Spanish-speaking communities and SleekAI replies in the language the visitor writes in. The booked consultation flags preferred language so the attorney prepares accordingly. Legal-advice refusal language remains intact across translation because the prompt rules apply in any language. For markets with Vietnamese, Tagalog, or Mandarin speakers, the same multilingual capability extends naturally without changing the guardrails.

BYO API key (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, OpenRouter) with the standard terms means data is not used for training by default. Conversation logs live in your WordPress database. For motorcycle-PI practices the typical posture is medium-length 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 provides the building blocks; the policy posture is the firm's.

Yes. Configure the bot to recognise catastrophic-injury signals (ICU admission, TBI mention, spinal injury, multiple fractures, fatality language) and escalate the booking posture to senior-partner same-day attention. Catastrophic motorcycle cases warrant a different intake cadence than routine matters and the bot should flag the matter for the senior-partner queue rather than routing through standard case-screening. The system prompt makes the escalation explicit so the routing is consistent.

The bot recognises wrongful-death language and switches the intake posture immediately, capturing the surviving-family-member relationship, the decedent's information, and the time-sensitive estate-administration context. Wrongful-death motorcycle cases route directly to a senior partner. The bot's tone shifts appropriately; the structural intake remains tight to respect what the family is going through. The bot does not opine on damages, statute of limitations, or estate strategy, those are attorney calls without exception.