Practice Automation for Traffic Attorneys

Your next traffic case,
already in Clio.
Before you pick up the phone.

cLawVana reads the citation the moment it hits your intake mailbox — court date, county, charge, officer, FTA flags — and builds the Clio matter before you call the client back. No typing. No missed fields. Your review gates stay exactly where they belong.

▸ Works with any intake mailbox
cLAWde — calm mode cLAWde — alert mode
12+
Fields Auto-Filled
0
Manual Data Entry
100%
Human Review
Interactive Demo
See what cLawVana reads
from a citation.
Click Analyze to see exactly what lands in your Clio intake record — before you've said a word to the client.
— NC Uniform Citation (sample) —
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA — UNIFORM CITATION
NCAOC Form AOC-CR-500 • District Court Division
Citation No.
W-2026-048821
Date of Offense
06/15/2026 · 2:47 PM
Defendant Name
MITCHELL, JAMES ALAN
County
WAKE
State/License No.
NC · B1234567
Location of Offense
I-40 WB mm 289, Wake Co.
Charge / Violation (G.S. Section)
G.S. 20-141(b) — SPEEDING 74/55 MPH
Accident Involved
NO
Mandatory Appearance
NO
Court Date
07/28/2026
Court Time
8:30 AM
Court Location
Wake County District Court · Rm 5D · 316 Fayetteville St
Officer / Agency
Cpl. R. Torres #7834 · NCHP
FTA / Suspension Ref.
NONE
— Extracted Data (cLawVana Output) —
▸ cLawVana Parser v1
OCR Confidence: 97%
Click "Analyze This Citation"
to watch cLawVana work.
▸ cLawVana ready. Awaiting citation input.
What Gets Captured
What lands in Clio.
Every intake.
These fields are extracted, confidence-scored, and written to your Clio intake record automatically. Low-confidence fields route to a staff review task instead of auto-populating — so nothing slips through as garbage data.
👤
Client Name
Full name from citation defendant field, cross-referenced with Clio contacts.
Auto-extracted
#️⃣
Citation Number
Unique matter identifier for cross-referencing eCourts and Clio records.
Auto-extracted
📍
County
Court routing and jurisdiction determination. NC has 100 counties — all supported.
Auto-extracted
📅
Court Date
Proposed calendar date. Staff verification required before Clio calendar entry.
Verify required
🕐
Court Time
Session time extracted from citation. Confirmed against NC District Court schedules.
Verify required
🏛️
Court Location
Courthouse name, address, and room — linked to Clio calendar entry location.
Auto-extracted
⚖️
Charge / Offense
G.S. section, offense description, and speed data for attorney legal review.
Auto-extracted
🚔
Officer / Agency
Issuing officer name, badge number, and law enforcement agency.
Auto-extracted
⚠️
Accident Indicator
Accident involvement flag triggers mandatory Daniel review — cannot be waived.
Daniel review
🚨
FTA / Suspension
Failure to appear or license suspension references flagged as urgent priority.
Priority flag
📎
Attachment Status
PDF/image saved to Clio matter documents. Missing attachments generate a follow-up task.
Auto-captured
📊
OCR Confidence
Per-field confidence scores. Low-confidence fields route to manual staff review instead of auto-populating.
Quality gate
How It Works
One forwarded email.
Complete intake record.
Forward the client's email to your intake mailbox. cLawVana handles the rest — contact match, OCR parse, matter creation, task list — while you finish your current call.
📧
Citation Email
Daniel or Pattie forwards the client's email to the intake mailbox
→
🔍
Contact Match
cLawVana searches Clio for existing contacts. Creates new or flags duplicates
→
🤖
OCR + Parse
Citation attachment is OCR'd. All 12+ fields extracted with confidence scores
→
📋
Clio Intake Record
Matter created in Clio Grow with all fields, email body, and attachment preserved
→
✅
Task List Launched
Staff and attorney task list generated. Every intake gets the same workflow
→
⚖️
Attorney Review
Daniel clears conflicts and approves representation. Nothing moves without this step
Professional Responsibility
Automation handles the data.
You keep every
decision that matters.
cLawVana is built around your professional responsibility obligations. These review gates are hardwired — the system cannot accept representation, send engagement documents, or calendar a court date without a human sign-off.
No engagement letter sends. No representation is confirmed. No court date is calendared. Every one of those steps requires a human decision — logged, auditable, and defensible.
1

Conflicts Review

Daniel checks every matter for conflicts of interest before any engagement step.

▸ Reviewer: Daniel T. Barker, Esq.
2

Representation Acceptance

The firm's decision to accept representation. No automation touches this gate.

▸ Reviewer: Daniel T. Barker, Esq.
3

Engagement & Payment

Signed engagement documents and confirmed payment before matter activation.

▸ Reviewer: Pattie / Staff
4

Court Date Verification

Staff verifies the court date before it is calendared. cLawVana proposes — humans confirm.

▸ Reviewer: Pattie (escalate to Daniel)