No. The system prompt instructs SleekAI to describe the firm's practice, the SSA's procedural framework at a high level, and the firm's intake process, and to defer every eligibility judgment to the attorney consultation. Disability determinations under the SSA's rules turn on a multi-step framework involving listings, residual functional capacity, and medical-vocational guidelines, and the right answer for any specific caller depends on a record review that the bot cannot perform. The attorney makes that judgment. The bot captures the facts and books the consultation.

Yes, at the framing level. The bot recognises that SSDI is the insurance-based program tied to work credits and date last insured, while SSI is the needs-based program tied to resources and income limits. It captures work history, application date, and a general sense of resources so the attorney consultation can confirm which program the caller is in or whether concurrent claims are possible. The bot does not opine on which program a caller should pursue. That is an attorney decision after intake.

Yes, and these are often the most time-sensitive. A caller who has a hearing scheduled in front of an administrative law judge needs representation quickly enough that the attorney can review the file, identify any updated medical evidence to develop, and prepare the testimony approach. The bot recognises the hearing posture from the caller's description and prioritises the consultation booking. Hearing-stage attorneys typically work the same fee-agreement structure, which the bot can mention generally.

It describes the standard SSA fee-agreement cap framework at a general level: the fee comes out of past-due benefits if the case prevails, the cap is set by SSA regulation, and there is typically no out-of-pocket cost to the claimant. It does not quote specific dollar amounts for any individual case because the fee depends on the past-due benefits award, which the bot cannot predict. The attorney explains the specifics in the consultation.

Continuing-disability-review notices are a distinct posture: the caller is already receiving benefits and has been selected for review, which has its own evidence-development and appeal procedures. The bot recognises the CDR posture from the caller's description and routes the consultation to the attorney who handles CDRs at your firm. Many firms treat CDR representation as a separate practice line because the medical-improvement standard is different from the initial disability standard.

Yes. SSDI and SSI claimants come from a wide range of language backgrounds, and GPT-4o and Claude both handle Spanish natively along with several other languages. The bot detects the caller's language from the first message and responds in the same language. Many SSD firms run a bilingual bot to capture Spanish-speaking callers who prefer to discuss the claim in Spanish even when they can read English notice letters.

Carefully and without giving advice. Many callers ask whether they can do any work while a claim is pending or whether part-time work will hurt their case. The bot describes the substantial gainful activity framework at a general level and routes the specific question to the attorney. That question is one where bad advice can cause real harm to a claim, and it is exactly the kind of question the bot must defer rather than answer.

If a caller describes thoughts of self-harm, an active medical emergency, or any immediate crisis, the system prompt instructs the bot to break role and direct them to call 988 (the US Suicide and Crisis Lifeline) or 911 as appropriate before continuing. Disability intake conversations sometimes surface mental-health crises, and the right response is to route to crisis services and pause the legal intake until the caller is safe.