What is an AI voice receptionist for attorneys?

An AI voice receptionist for attorneys is a system that answers your phone calls 24/7, conducts a professional intake conversation with callers, and emails you a full summary — including the caller's name, number, email, practice area, and preferred callback time — within 60 seconds. Presently is built specifically for solo and small law firms.

How much does Presently cost?

Presently is $8,150 per year for standard access. Founding firms who join during our early access period pay $4,000 per year — a rate that is locked in for life. There are no per-call fees, no overage charges, and no long-term contracts beyond the annual subscription.

Does Presently integrate with Clio or other legal practice management software?

Presently delivers intake summaries by email immediately after each call. Integration with Clio, MyCase, and other practice management platforms is on the product roadmap. Founding firms will be the first to access native integrations when they launch.

Can Presently answer calls in Spanish?

Yes. Presently conducts intake conversations in both English and Spanish. If a caller begins speaking Spanish, Presently automatically continues the conversation in Spanish and delivers the intake summary to you in English.

How quickly do I receive the intake summary after a call?

You receive a full intake summary by email within 60 seconds of the call ending. The summary includes the caller's full name, best callback number, email address, practice area, preferred callback time, urgency level, and any additional notes the caller shared.

What practice areas does Presently support?

Presently is trained to handle intake for estate planning, personal injury, employment law, family law and divorce, criminal defense, and general matters. For each practice area, Presently asks the right follow-up questions — for example, asking personal injury callers about treatment status and insurance contact.

How does call forwarding work with Presently?

You forward calls to your Presently number using your existing carrier's call forwarding feature — typically by dialing a short code on your phone. No hardware or app is required. Setup takes under five minutes and can be activated or deactivated instantly.

Is Presently compliant with call recording laws?

Yes. Presently discloses at the start of every call that the call will be recorded and transcribed for intake purposes, and identifies itself as an AI assistant. This disclosure satisfies federal one-party consent requirements and is designed to meet two-party consent requirements in states like California, Florida, and Washington.

Can Presently handle multiple calls at the same time?

Yes. Presently handles simultaneous calls — every caller reaches a live AI immediately regardless of how many calls come in at once. There is no queue, no hold music, and no missed calls due to the line being busy.

What happens after Presently takes a message?

As soon as the call ends, you receive an email with the full intake summary. The summary flags urgent matters and high-priority leads so you can triage quickly. You call the client back directly — Presently handles the intake so you can focus on the follow-up that wins the case.

What ABA Opinion 512 and Texas Bar Opinion 705 Require Before You Deploy an AI Receptionist

ABA Opinion 512 and Texas Opinion 705 impose a concrete compliance checklist before any solo attorney can lawfully deploy an AI receptionist for intake.

Ninety percent of documented AI-tainted court filings involved solo or small law practices, according to a Stanford Center for Internet and Society analysis of 114 cases published in October 2025 — and the same attorneys driving that statistic are the most likely to deploy an AI receptionist without a compliance checklist. Three converging authorities now define what that checklist must contain: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024), Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 (February 2025), and the Stanford CIS data. No AI receptionist vendor explains all of this before you sign. This article does.

ABA Opinion 512 Maps Three Ethics Rules Directly to AI Intake Tools

ABA Formal Opinion 512 identifies Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3 as the operative framework when a lawyer uses any AI tool that touches client information.

Rule 1.1 — Competence requires that an attorney understand the technology well enough to evaluate its output. Applied to AI intake: you must be able to assess whether a summary generated by your AI receptionist accurately captured the caller's legal situation, flagged conflict indicators, and avoided unauthorized legal advice.

Rule 1.6 — Confidentiality requires that you not transmit client information to a third-party system without informed consent. Opinion 512 specifically addresses self-learning AI systems: if the vendor's model trains on intake data, client consent is required before the first call is processed. A standard terms-of-service checkbox is not sufficient.

Rule 5.3 — Supervision of Nonlawyer Assistants applies to AI tools the same way it applies to a paralegal. The supervising attorney is responsible for the AI's work product. An intake summary that misidentifies a statute of limitations or fails to flag a conflict is the attorney's problem — not the vendor's.

Texas Opinion 705 Applies the Same Framework Under State Disciplinary Rules

Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705, issued February 2025, reaches identical conclusions under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Texas treats AI tools as nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.03 and holds the supervising attorney responsible for reviewing and correcting AI-generated output before it influences any legal decision.

Opinion 705 also addresses the confidentiality obligation under Texas Rule 1.05, which mirrors ABA Rule 1.6. An AI receptionist that stores or transmits prospective client information must operate under a written data processing agreement that meets the attorney's confidentiality obligations — not just a generic vendor privacy policy.

Rule 1.18 Starts the Clock at the First Word of the Intake Call

ABA Model Rule 1.18 extends full confidentiality protection to prospective clients. The moment a caller begins describing why they are calling, they are a prospective client. That means every AI receptionist conversation — before any retainer is signed, before any conflict check is run — is covered by Rule 1.6 confidentiality.

The practical implication: your AI receptionist vendor must execute a Data Processing Agreement before a single call is processed, and that DPA must prohibit using intake transcripts to train any model without explicit per-client consent.

The Four-Item Compliance Checklist Most Vendors Skip

Opinion 512, Opinion 705, and Rule 1.18 converge on four concrete requirements:

Signed Data Processing Agreement — executed before deployment, specifying that intake data is not used for model training without client consent and that the vendor maintains appropriate security controls.
Attorney Review of Every AI Intake Summary — the supervising attorney must review each AI-generated summary before it is acted upon. Automated-only workflows with no human review step violate Rule 5.3 and Texas Rule 5.03.
Conflict-Check Integration — the intake workflow must route caller information through the firm's conflict-check system before the attorney engages substantively. An AI receptionist that captures a prospective client's adverse party without triggering a conflict check creates Rule 1.18 exposure.
Client Disclosure of AI Use — callers must be informed that their conversation is being processed by an AI system. Disclosure is a precondition to informed consent under both Rule 1.6 and Opinion 705's confidentiality analysis.

What to Ask Any AI Receptionist Vendor

Before signing any contract, ask for: (a) a copy of the vendor's standard DPA; (b) written confirmation that intake transcripts are not used for model training; (c) documentation of their data retention and deletion policy; (d) a description of how attorney review is built into the workflow.

Presently provides a compliant DPA at contract signature, does not use intake data for model training, and routes every intake summary to the supervising attorney for review before any follow-up action is taken. The disclosure language played to every prospective-client caller meets the informed-consent standard under Opinion 512 and Opinion 705. Presently is priced at $799/month (core plan) or $8,150/year billed annually plus a $499 setup fee.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does ABA Opinion 512 prohibit AI receptionists outright? No. Opinion 512 permits AI tools in legal practice but requires that the supervising attorney satisfy Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3 — competence, confidentiality, and supervision. An AI receptionist deployed with a proper DPA, attorney review workflow, conflict-check integration, and caller disclosure is compliant.

What does Texas Opinion 705 add beyond ABA Opinion 512? Opinion 705 applies the same framework under Texas state disciplinary rules and explicitly characterizes AI tools as nonlawyer assistants whose output the supervising attorney is responsible for under Texas Rule 5.03. It also engages Texas Rule 1.05 on confidentiality directly, making a vendor DPA a state-specific requirement, not just a best practice.

When does Rule 1.18 apply to an AI receptionist call? From the first word. ABA Model Rule 1.18 protects prospective clients the moment they begin disclosing information to determine whether to hire the attorney. Every AI-processed intake call is a Rule 1.18 confidentiality event, regardless of whether the caller ultimately becomes a client.

Is a generic vendor privacy policy sufficient to satisfy Rule 1.6? No. Opinion 512 requires that the attorney affirmatively evaluate the vendor's data practices — including whether intake data is used for model training — and obtain informed client consent if it is. A privacy policy that reserves the right to use data for product improvement does not meet this standard.

What happens if an AI intake summary contains an error? Under Rule 5.3 and Texas Rule 5.03, the supervising attorney is responsible. If an AI summary misses a statute-of-limitations issue and the attorney relies on it without independent review, the attorney faces potential malpractice exposure and a disciplinary rule violation. Attorney review of every summary is required, not optional.

Book a free demo →