Evidence Intake Guide for Legal Case Teams

A rushed handoff is where a case record often starts to lose context. A ZIP file arrives with chat exports, a former employee supplies an email archive, or a client grants access to a business folder. This evidence intake guide sets out a practical way to receive those materials, preserve what was received, and make later factual review traceable to the original source.

Intake is not just an administrative step. It establishes what the team received, from whom, when, and in what form. That record helps reviewers distinguish a source file from a later working copy, locate omissions early, and explain how a particular fact entered the case file.

Start the evidence intake guide before review begins

Do not begin by extracting favorable passages. First, create a matter specific intake record that identifies the submitting person or organization, the date and time of receipt, the transfer method, the stated source, and any access limitations. Record the material as received, including its folder structure, file names, and any accompanying explanation.

A useful intake record also notes the expected scope. If a client provides correspondence from January through June, state that range and identify whether the collection appears complete or partial. If the person supplying material says that a phone was replaced, an account was deleted, or a folder contains only selected documents, capture that statement as context. It is not proof of the assertion, but it may guide follow up.

Preserve the original delivery separately from any material prepared for review. Review copies can be indexed, annotated, or converted as needed. The received source should remain identifiable as the item that arrived at intake. This distinction matters when a reviewer later needs to compare a quote, an attachment, or a file version with the original supplied material.

Receive evidence in source appropriate form

The collection method should reflect the system that created the material. A chat transcript pasted into a document may be useful for orientation, but it does not carry the same source context as the platform's export. The same is true of screenshots in place of an email mailbox or a folder assembled from selected attachments.

For WhatsApp, request the chat export ZIP file produced on the relevant iPhone or Android device. Preserve the export as received and note the device owner or custodian identified by the provider. For email, collect the mailbox in MBOX format or the relevant messages as EML files, rather than relying solely on printed copies or forwarded text.

For documents maintained in OneDrive, preserve the folder relationship and grant read only access to the relevant folder when the collection method permits. A connected folder can retain the practical context of related documents, including names and organization, that is often lost when individual items are gathered informally.

The right method depends on the matter. A narrow request may properly focus on a defined custodian, date range, or project folder. A broader dispute may require a more complete collection and a documented explanation of exclusions. The legal team determines scope, authority, and any preservation obligations. An intake system organizes facts and source material. It does not make those legal judgments.

Check completeness without changing the record

Initial quality control should answer basic questions: Is the archive readable? Does the stated date range appear present? Are expected attachments included? Is a mailbox file unusually small for the period described? Are there empty folders, duplicate exports, or password protected items that need follow up?

These checks should be documented as observations, not conclusions. For example, write that an email archive contains messages dated March 3 through August 19, while the stated period was January through August. Do not state that January and February are missing unless the source and collection circumstances support that conclusion.

Where a source contains scanned PDFs, distinguish between the document image and extracted text. OCR can make a scanned PDF searchable, but the review team should return to the page image when a word, number, signature, or formatting detail matters. The searchable text assists finding. The page remains the source location for verification.

Photos require the same discipline. A photo may be described to help locate relevant content, such as a deed photograph, damaged equipment, or a whiteboard. That description is not OCR and should not be treated as a transcription of text shown in the image. If wording visible in a photo matters, the reviewer should inspect the photo itself.

Preserve provenance from receipt through analysis

A strong intake process keeps source, derivative material, and reviewer work distinct. File names should not be casually normalized if the original naming has evidentiary value. If a team creates a chronological spreadsheet, issue list, or witness preparation file, label it as work product or an internal analysis document according to the team's own practices. It is not the source record.

At arrival, TranscriptMe records a SHA-256 hash of each file, and the same content sent again to the case is refused as already received. The hash provides a fixed identifier for the file as it was received. Each case is isolated in the database, and data is encrypted in transit. These controls support orderly handling of the material, but they do not authenticate a source, establish custody before receipt, or answer questions of legal admissibility.

Provenance also depends on detail that technology cannot infer. Record who supplied access to a OneDrive folder, who exported a chat, whether the material came directly from a custodian, and whether there were known gaps. If a vendor, investigator, or client representative performed a collection, retain the information they provided about the process. Facts about collection should be stated with the same care as facts about the underlying dispute.

Make review findings traceable to a passage

Once intake is complete, convert the collection into a reviewable case record. The aim is not merely to search for names. It is to let a reviewer move from a proposition back to the exact source material that supports it.

A useful system can surface a WhatsApp message in its conversation context, point to the relevant second in an audio or video recording, cite a PDF page, or identify the relevant section in a Word file or spreadsheet. Consider a few common examples. A voice note may contain a statement about when keys were returned. An email chain may show who received a contract revision. A hearing video may capture a statement that conflicts with a later summary. A settlement spreadsheet may contain figures discussed in related correspondence.

On paid plans, TranscriptMe transcribes English and Portuguese audio and video and can describe photos and videos with AI. It reads PDFs, including scanned PDFs through OCR, along with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and text files contained in the supported sources. A reviewer can ask a natural language question and receive an answer with the cited source and passage. The lawyer then evaluates relevance, credibility, legal significance, and how the fact fits the case theory.

That division of responsibility is essential. A citation tells the team where a statement appears. It does not determine whether the speaker was accurate, whether a document is complete, or what legal consequence follows.

Build an intake exception process

No intake procedure eliminates exceptions. Password protected archives, inaccessible accounts, unsupported source types, corrupted files, duplicate collections, and unclear ownership are routine possibilities. The response should be a documented exception, not an informal workaround.

State what was received, what could not be processed, what follow up was requested, and whether an alternative source may exist. If a client supplies a loose PDF, photograph, or audio file, record the limitation and obtain the appropriate supported source where possible, rather than treating an isolated file as equivalent to its original collection context. If a chat export appears incomplete, ask for the underlying export process and any additional exports before drawing conclusions from silence.

The most useful closing question at intake is simple: can each later factual assertion be traced back to a received source, a precise location within that source, and a documented path into the case record? When the answer is not yet clear, the right next step is usually better collection, not faster analysis.