Law firms / Mississippi
AI agents and intake automation for Mississippi law firms.
Connect inquiry handling, internal knowledge, and document preparation around the firm’s own review standards. ShepBuild helps Mississippi law firms scope useful AI agents and automation while attorneys retain the decisions and professional judgment.
A useful first scope
Better preparation, clear ownership, and an attorney at the decision point.
Work directly with Bud Sheppard, who operates Sheppard Law Firm and builds AI systems. Begin with one defined workflow and selected information, rather than broad access to every matter.
The inquiry path
Collect a useful request without deciding the engagement.
A first intake flow can gather the firm’s selected contact and request fields, identify the responsible person, and prepare a consultation request. Incomplete inquiries and duplicate contacts need a visible place to wait for review.
After-hours collection should explain what happens next. It should not imply that a matter has been accepted, a conflict check completed, a deadline calculated, or an attorney engaged. Lead intake automation connects the record and the next action; receptionist setup addresses a phone or chat channel when it fits.
Internal knowledge
Give a narrow agent selected sources and explicit users.
The initial knowledge job might be finding an internal procedure or assembling selected reference material for staff review. The firm chooses which sources are in scope, which people may use them, and where the resulting material can go.
Matter separation, access, logs, retention, provider handling and source visibility must be assessed for the actual system. A local model alone does not settle those questions. The permissioned knowledge guide and private AI service explain the approach.
Preparation and review
Keep the evidence beside the proposed work.
A document-preparation flow can assemble selected inputs, identify missing material, and prepare a draft for review. The output needs an understandable source trail and a responsible attorney rather than a polished answer that appears final.
Legal conclusions, citations, advice, acceptance of a matter, and filings stay in the firm’s review process. The scope should name what the system may prepare and what it cannot finalize or send without approval.
- Identify the source set and users for one job.
- Expose missing inputs and uncertainty.
- Separate draft preparation from approved external action.
- Record review ownership and the final task state.
Relevant operating experience
A builder who also runs a legal practice.
Bud’s Sheppard Law Firm provides the operating context for this work. ShepBuild’s selected builds include the law firm website and public descriptions of legal and AI systems he has developed.
Those are first-party examples, not independent customer testimonials or a promise of a particular result for another firm. We discuss the public workflow and scope without sharing client information, matter material or private system details.
A first evaluation
Prove one bounded job using non-client examples.
Begin with synthetic or otherwise approved test material. Include missing inputs, wrong-source retrieval, access restrictions and a task that must stop for a person. Review the result against the firm’s acceptance criteria before connecting live information.
The implementation process covers discovery through training. Hosting, ownership, support and the firm’s access and review requirements belong in the engagement scope.
Useful answers before a tool is chosen.
01Can ShepBuild build AI agents for Mississippi law firms?
We scope implementation around a defined inquiry, knowledge or preparation workflow, selected sources and explicit review rules. The firm’s requirements determine whether AI, ordinary automation or a new interface fits.
02Will an intake agent decide whether we accept a client?
No. Collection and routing are separate from the firm’s decisions about conflicts, engagement and representation.
03Do you need access to every client file to start?
No. Discovery can describe the workflow without client material. Initial evaluation should use synthetic or otherwise approved examples with a deliberately limited source set.
04Is this legal advice or a legal answering service?
No. ShepBuild provides software and AI implementation. Attorneys retain professional decisions, and a staffed answering service is a separate offering.
05Where should a firm start?
Pick one repeated intake, retrieval or preparation job with a named owner and a clear review point. Avoid giving an agent broad matter access before that job has been evaluated.
One problem. One useful first build.
Describe one firm workflow that needs a better handoff.
Tell Bud the repeated job, the staff involved, and the decisions that must remain with an attorney.
Tell Bud what you need