No. The system prompt instructs SleekAI to describe the firm's practice areas, capture intake facts, surface preservation guidance, and defer every case-specific question to the attorney consultation. The bot does not opine on whether a particular product is defective, whether a particular failure is design or manufacturing, or whether a strict-liability theory applies. Those are attorney judgments after records review. The bot's job is to make sure the consultation has the facts it needs to start, not to predict the answer.

Preservation guidance is the first thing the system prompt surfaces on any product-injury intake. The bot tells the caller not to throw away the product, the packaging, or any receipts and photographs, and to take a photo of the model number plate if they can find one. That conversation matters because most product cases that fail in the records phase failed at preservation, often in the days right after the injury when the family was just trying to clean up. Catching it at the first website visit is the only point at which the bot can save a case from spoliation.

Yes. Pharmaceutical drug defects, medical device failures, automotive defects, consumer-product injuries, industrial equipment failures, and toxic exposure each work as separate practice-area pages on your site. The bot reads from those pages to recognise which type the caller is describing and routes the consultation to the attorney who handles it. For firms with one partner doing product liability broadly, you can run one general bot with the system prompt distinguishing intake patterns.

Yes. Many product-liability firms participate in active MDLs, and an MDL intake has a different shape than a one-off product case. You can publish MDL-specific pages with the criteria and dates for the current cases, and the bot will reference those pages when callers describe matching facts. The intake summary flags MDL candidates for the attorney consultation so the firm can decide whether to add the matter to an existing case or work it up as standalone.

Yes, and the intake flow is slightly different because preservation includes the vehicle itself. The bot tells callers not to repair or sell the vehicle, asks for the make, model, VIN if available, and recall status, and captures whether the airbag deployed or any component failed. Automotive cases often interact with comparative-negligence rules from the underlying collision, but the bot stays at the intake level and leaves the legal analysis to the attorney.

Conversation logs live in your WordPress database under your control. Most firms configure a 30 to 60 day retention window and forward intake summaries into their case-management system on a recurring schedule. Product-liability intakes often include sensitive medical details and product-purchase information, so many firms also redact specific identifiers at write time and rely on the summary for long-term archival rather than the full transcript.

Yes. Multibot plus display conditions let you route pharma intakes to the pharma attorney and consumer-product intakes to the consumer attorney without making the caller describe their situation twice. The consultation booking attaches the intake summary and routes to the right calendar, so the attorney who takes the call is already the correct specialist for the product type rather than a generalist who will need to refer.

If a caller describes an active medical emergency, an ongoing fire or chemical release, or any imminent danger, the system prompt instructs the bot to break role and direct them to call 911 or their local emergency service before any intake continues. Product-injury intakes are usually retrospective, but occasionally a caller is describing an active situation, and the right response is to route them to emergency services and pause the intake until they are safe.