Mass Tort Intake, Screened to Your Case Criteria
Mass Tort Marketing Agency handles pre-qualified mass tort intake for plaintiff PI law firms — screening callers against your exact case criteria across 16+ active litigations. You pay per signed retainer, not per click or per lead. Response in under five minutes during business hours.
What is mass tort intake?
Mass tort intake is the process of screening potential plaintiffs against a law firm’s case criteria — verifying injury, exposure, medical documentation, and jurisdiction — before the firm signs a retainer. An outsourced mass tort intake partner handles inbound calls and forms, applies the firm’s screening logic, and hands off only qualified plaintiffs who are ready to sign.
How our mass tort intake process works
Five steps between an inbound claimant and a signed retainer, instrumented end-to-end so every dollar of spend ties back to a signed case.
Screening Criteria Intake
We start with your case criteria — exposure windows, injury markers, prescribing or use dates, state eligibility, and any tort-specific documentation requirements — so every screened caller maps to your acceptance model.
Multi-Channel Plaintiff Acquisition
Our acquisition engine runs across TV, digital, social, and community outreach, then routes inbound calls and forms to our screening team with your criteria loaded in the intake script.
Case-Criteria Pre-Qualification
Trained intake specialists screen every claimant against your criteria — identity verification, injury confirmation, exposure timeline, medical documentation, statute-of-limitations check, and jurisdiction match — before the lead is ever handed off.
Warm Handoff to Your Firm
Qualified claimants are delivered in real time via live transfer or verified form with TrustedForm or Jornaya TCPA consent tokens. Your intake team receives a retainer-ready conversation, not a raw lead.
Retainer-Signed Feedback Loop
You report signed retainers weekly. We reconcile against delivered leads to compute cost per signed retainer, tune screening criteria, and reallocate spend toward the channels producing signed cases.
Inside each step: timing, script logic, and failure modes
The five-step outline above is the shape of the process. What makes a mass tort intake operation hold up under volume is the detail inside each step — when it happens, how the script branches, and the specific failure it is built to prevent.
Screening Criteria Intake
Completed before a dollar of media runs — a 45-to-60-minute criteria-mapping session with your intake lead, then re-run whenever a bellwether ruling, settlement matrix, or MDL order shifts the eligibility posture.
Every acceptance rule becomes an explicit branch in the intake script: a hard include, a hard exclude, or a flag-for-review. Ambiguous rules are resolved with counsel before launch, never improvised on a live call.
The failure we design against is the vague criterion — 'recent diagnosis,' 'long-term use' — that two agents read differently. Each rule is reduced to a date, a count, or a named condition so screening stays consistent across the floor.
Multi-Channel Plaintiff Acquisition
Runs continuously once criteria are locked, with inbound calls and forms routed to screening the moment they land. The same speed-to-lead standard applies to every channel, not just phone.
Source and tort are stamped on each inbound record, so the agent opens the correct tort-specific script automatically. A Roundup caller never gets an AFFF screen; routing keys off the campaign the claimant responded to.
The risk is a channel that delivers volume but not fit — a broad audience that fills the queue with out-of-criteria callers. Channel-level CPSR reporting exposes this within a reporting cycle, so spend is pulled before it compounds.
Case-Criteria Pre-Qualification
A screened call typically runs six to twelve minutes — long enough to walk every checkpoint, short enough to hold a motivated claimant. Disqualifying facts are surfaced early so no one is kept on a call that cannot proceed.
Checkpoints are ordered cheapest-to-hardest: jurisdiction and statute of limitations first as a fast, decisive exclude, then injury and exposure, then documentation availability last. The order minimizes handling time on callers who will not match.
Two errors are tracked separately: a false accept (a caller passed who should not have been) and a false decline (a qualified caller turned away). Both are tuned against, because a false decline is a case the firm never sees.
Warm Handoff to Your Firm
Qualified claimants reach your team in under five minutes during business hours, by live transfer or verified form. The consent token, screening notes, and disposition travel with the record — not in a follow-up email an hour later.
The handoff packet is standardized: verified contact detail, the checkpoints passed, the exposure or diagnosis summary in the claimant's own words, and the TrustedForm or Jornaya token. Your team opens a retainer conversation, not a re-screen.
The classic failure is the dropped transfer — a warm claimant who reaches voicemail. Live transfers are bridged agent-to-agent with a verified-form fallback, and any incomplete handoff is re-queued rather than discarded.
Retainer-Signed Feedback Loop
Reconciled weekly. Firms report signed retainers against delivered claimants, so cost per signed retainer is computed on real outcomes rather than projected conversion.
Each signed retainer is matched back to its source channel, script version, and screening agent. That attribution is what lets spend and criteria be re-tuned toward the combinations actually producing signed cases.
The blind spot is the unreported retainer — a signed case the firm forgets to log — which understates channel performance and can defund a channel that is working. Weekly reconciliation and a simple reporting handshake close the gap.
What “pre-qualified” means for a mass tort lead
A pre-qualified mass tort lead has passed six screening checkpoints before your intake team ever picks up the call. A pre-qualified handoff should not require your team to disqualify — it should be a warm, retainer-ready conversation.
Identity Verification
First-party contact details verified before any qualification questions — no ghost callers reach your intake team.
Injury Confirmation
Claimant confirms the specific injury or condition tied to the tort, in their own words, before criteria matching.
Exposure or Use Timeline
Product exposure, prescription dates, or event windows are captured against the litigation's eligibility calendar.
Medical Documentation Availability
We confirm the claimant has, or can obtain, the diagnosis records the retaining firm will need to work the case up.
Statute-of-Limitations Check
State-by-state SOL windows are checked against injury date so ineligible callers are declined at intake, not after retainer.
Jurisdiction Match
State eligibility is verified against your firm's licensed jurisdictions before the lead is routed.
What unique services mass tort intake adds
Mass tort intake is a distinct function — not the acquisition engine that generates the inquiry, and not the legal work-up your attorneys perform after a retainer is signed. It sits between them and does work neither side is built to do. Lead generation optimizes for qualified volume; the firm’s case team optimizes for litigation. Intake exists to turn a raw inbound contact into a screened, consented, documented, retainer-ready handoff — and to keep that screen calibrated as the litigation moves.
Live criteria triage
Every caller is measured against your current acceptance model in real time, on the first call — not batched, scored overnight, and returned as a spreadsheet. Criteria live in the script, so the screen reflects your latest posture.
Statute-of-limitations gatekeeping
SOL windows are checked against the injury or diagnosis date at first contact, state by state, so time-barred callers are declined at intake rather than surfacing after your team has invested work-up hours.
Medical-documentation feasibility
Intake confirms whether the claimant has, or can reasonably obtain, the diagnosis and exposure records your team will need — separating a documented match from an unverifiable one before the handoff.
Consent capture and token stewardship
Every qualified contact is captured with a TrustedForm or Jornaya token under the one-to-one consent standard, with disclosure language, IP, and timestamp preserved. The consent record is packaged with the lead and owned by your firm.
Criteria-drift monitoring
As bellwether rulings, settlement matrices, and MDL orders move eligibility, the screen moves with them. Drift is monitored and criteria re-cut with counsel, so the intake script never screens to a stale standard.
Bilingual screening parity
English and Spanish intake apply identical checkpoint logic, so a Spanish-speaking claimant is screened to the same standard — not routed to a lighter script or a callback queue where drop-off is highest.
Retainer-ready handoff packaging
The output is a structured handoff — verified contact, checkpoints passed, exposure summary, and consent token — delivered warm, so your team starts at the retainer conversation instead of re-screening from zero.
What a retainer-ready mass tort intake handoff contains
The deliverable of mass tort intake is not a name and a phone number — it is a retainer-ready handoff packet. Everything your team needs to open a retainer conversation travels with the record, delivered into your case-management system, so no one re-screens the claimant from scratch.
Verified contact and identity
First-party name, phone, and email confirmed on the call, so your team reaches the person who was screened — not a disconnected number.
Checkpoint results
The disposition on each of the six screening checkpoints — identity, injury, exposure timeline, documentation, statute of limitations, and jurisdiction — recorded as pass or flag, with notes.
Exposure and diagnosis summary
The claimant's account of the injury, the exposure or use window, and the diagnosis, captured in their own words for your case team to work from.
Documentation status
Whether the diagnosis and exposure records exist and are obtainable, so the file's evidentiary footing is known before work-up begins.
TCPA consent token
The TrustedForm or Jornaya token with disclosure language, IP, and timestamp preserved — owned by your firm and audit-ready.
Source and attribution metadata
Campaign, channel, and UTM data, so a signed retainer can later be reconciled back to the spend that produced it.
Call recording and screening notes
The recording and the agent's screening notes, delivered into your case-management system rather than held on our side.
Preferred next-step routing
Whether the claimant expects a call back, a text, or a retainer link, noted so your team's first touch matches the claimant's expectation.
Mass tort intake vs. a call center vs. a staffing agency
Firms sometimes weigh outsourced mass tort intake against a general answering service or a staffing agency. The three are not substitutes. The table below maps where they differ on the dimensions that decide whether a screened contact becomes a signed retainer.
| Dimension | Mass tort intake | General call center | Staffing agency |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it optimizes for | Signed retainers per screened contact | Calls answered and handle time | Seats filled and hours billed |
| Screening depth | Tort-specific six-checkpoint screen | Message-taking or generic FAQ | Depends entirely on who is placed |
| Criteria tuning | Re-cut with counsel as the MDL moves | Static script, rarely updated | Not a function they perform |
| TCPA consent capture | TrustedForm or Jornaya token per lead | Not a standard deliverable | Not a standard deliverable |
| Measurement | Cost per signed retainer, weekly | Cost per call or per minute | Cost per hour or per seat |
| Data ownership | Firm owns contacts, tokens, recordings | Varies by vendor | Not applicable |
None of this makes a call center or a staffing agency worse at what they do — it makes them the wrong tool for mass tort intake. Screening to tort-specific criteria, capturing enforceable consent, and measuring on signed retainers are the load-bearing functions here, and they are what a dedicated mass tort intake operation is built around.
How we measure mass tort intake quality
Intake quality is only meaningful if it is measured. Every screened call is scored against a fixed scorecard, a sample is independently audited, and agents are calibrated against one another so that a “qualified” handoff means the same thing on Monday as it does on Friday — and the same thing from any agent on the floor. The scorecard is reported to your firm, not kept internal.
The mass tort intake quality scorecard
Criteria adherence
Did the agent apply every include, exclude, and review branch correctly and reach a defensible disposition against the firm's current criteria?
Disclosure and consent capture
Was the required disclosure delivered as written and a valid TCPA consent token captured with timestamp and IP preserved?
Data completeness
Are contact detail, the exposure or diagnosis summary, and documentation status fully and accurately recorded on the handoff?
Disposition accuracy
Does the qualified, declined, or review outcome match what the call actually supports when a reviewer re-listens to the recording?
Claimant clarity and rapport
Was the claimant handled with clear, respectful, jargon-free communication in their own language throughout the screen?
Speed-to-lead
Was first contact and, for qualified callers, the warm handoff completed inside the response-time standard for the campaign?
Sampling, calibration, and reporting
Call sampling. A rolling sample of screened calls per agent, per tort, is pulled each week and scored against the scorecard by a QA reviewer independent of the intake floor.
Dual-scoring and calibration. A subset of calls is scored by two reviewers and compared in weekly calibration sessions, so reviewers and agents converge on one interpretation of every criterion.
Agent-level scorecards. Each agent carries a running scorecard. Dimensions trending below threshold trigger targeted coaching on recorded calls, not a generic refresher for the whole floor.
Criteria-drift audits. When eligibility criteria change, a targeted audit re-checks recent calls against the new standard, so the change is reflected on the floor within the cycle rather than a month later.
Firm-facing QA reporting. Your firm receives the scorecard trend alongside cost-per-signed-retainer reporting, so intake quality is visible next to intake economics and the two are read together.
Because the scorecard sits next to the retainer feedback loop, a dimension that slips — say, disposition accuracy — can be traced to its effect on signed retainers and corrected at the source rather than treated as an isolated coaching note.
Calls that do not fit the include or exclude branches cleanly — an unusual exposure history, a borderline date, a condition adjacent to the qualifying diagnosis — are marked for review rather than force-fit to a disposition. Review-flagged calls are escalated to a senior screener and, where the criteria themselves are unclear, back to the retaining firm’s counsel for a ruling that is then written into the script. That is how a genuinely ambiguous mass tort intake call becomes a documented criterion instead of a judgment call, and how the criteria-adherence score keeps tightening month over month.
Mass tort intake coverage matrix
Every litigation screens to its own facts, so a mass tort intake script is only as strong as its fit to the specific tort — the exposure or use window, the qualifying diagnosis or injury, and the documentation the retaining firm will need. The matrix below maps the intake criteria we build against for the major active litigations. It reflects what the intake team confirms on the call; the retaining attorney makes every eligibility and merit determination.
| Litigation | Core exposure / use window | Qualifying diagnosis or injury | Documentation intake confirms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camp Lejeune | On-base residence or service at Camp Lejeune, Aug 1953–Dec 1987 (30+ cumulative days). | A named qualifying condition (certain cancers, Parkinson's, and other listed illnesses). | Proof of presence on base plus medical records confirming the diagnosis. |
| Roundup | A documented history of Roundup / glyphosate exposure (occupational, agricultural, or residential). | Non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis. | Exposure history plus oncology and pathology records. |
| AFFF (Firefighting Foam) | Occupational or community exposure to AFFF firefighting foam over a defined period. | A named cancer or thyroid condition linked to the exposure. | Exposure history plus diagnosis records. |
| Ozempic / GLP-1 | Prescription and use history for the named GLP-1 medication. | Gastroparesis or another severe gastrointestinal injury diagnosis. | Pharmacy records plus gastrointestinal diagnosis records. |
| Bard PowerPort | Implant of the device within the relevant window. | Device fracture, migration, or associated infection injury. | Implant records plus revision or complication records. |
| Talcum Powder | Long-term use history of talc-based products. | Ovarian cancer or mesothelioma diagnosis. | Product-use timeline plus pathology records. |
| Hair Relaxer | Duration and frequency of chemical hair-relaxer use. | Uterine, endometrial, or ovarian condition diagnosis. | Use history plus diagnosis records. |
| NEC (Infant Formula) | Preterm birth followed by cow's-milk-based infant formula feeding. | Necrotizing enterocolitis diagnosis. | Birth and NICU records plus the diagnosis record. |
| PFAS | Documented PFAS 'forever chemical' exposure through water or occupation. | A named cancer or condition associated with PFAS exposure. | Exposure-source evidence plus diagnosis records. |
| Depo-Provera | Injection history over the relevant period of use. | Intracranial meningioma diagnosis. | Prescription or injection history plus imaging records. |
| Hernia Mesh | Mesh implant within the relevant window. | Revision surgery or another named mesh complication. | Implant records plus revision or complication records. |
| Suboxone | Prescription and use history for the sublingual film. | Severe dental injury or tooth decay. | Prescription records plus dental records. |
| Paraquat | Occupational or agricultural exposure to paraquat herbicide. | Parkinson's disease diagnosis. | Exposure history plus neurology records. |
| Paragard IUD | Implant and removal history of the Paragard device. | Device breakage on removal or a related injury. | Implant and removal records plus complication records. |
Windows, conditions, and documentation requirements above are illustrative of how intake scripts are structured; they are calibrated per firm and updated as each MDL evolves. Intake confirms criteria match and documentation availability only — it does not assess legal merit, which rests entirely with the retaining firm. See the full active-campaign list →
Retainer-first pricing — why we charge on signed retainers, not cost per lead
We charge on signed retainers, not on clicks or on screened callers. Cost-per-lead pricing incentivizes the intake provider to send volume, not fit. Retainer-first pricing aligns our margin with your case pipeline — we only earn when your firm actually onboards a plaintiff.
Contract terms are month-to-month with weekly performance reporting against cost per signed retainer. No annual minimums. No contractual lead-volume commitments. Continuation is justified by signed cases, not by contract clauses.
Active Litigations
Mass tort intake across the country's active MDLs — Camp Lejeune, Roundup, Ozempic, Talcum Powder, Depo-Provera, AFFF, PFAS, Hair Relaxer, and more.
Response Time
First contact in under five minutes during business hours. Speed-to-lead is the difference between a warm claimant and a lost retainer.
Retainer-First Pricing
Priced on cost per signed retainer, not cost per lead. Our margin only earns when your firm actually onboards the plaintiff.
Mass tort intake: pricing, qualification, and speed
Straight answers to the questions plaintiff firms ask before outsourcing mass tort intake.
- What is mass tort intake?
- Mass tort intake is the process of screening potential plaintiffs against a law firm's case criteria — verifying injury, exposure, medical documentation, and jurisdiction — before the firm signs a retainer. An outsourced mass tort intake partner handles inbound calls and forms, applies the firm's screening logic, and hands off only qualified plaintiffs who are ready to sign.
- What does 'pre-qualified' actually mean for a mass tort lead?
- A pre-qualified mass tort lead has passed six screening checkpoints: identity verification, injury confirmation, product-use or exposure timeline, medical documentation availability, statute-of-limitations check, and jurisdiction match. A pre-qualified lead should not require your intake team to disqualify — every handoff is a warm, retainer-ready conversation.
- How is the retainer-first pricing model different from cost per lead?
- We charge on signed retainers, not on clicks or on screened callers. Cost-per-lead pricing incentivizes the intake provider to send volume, not fit. Retainer-first pricing aligns our margin with your case pipeline — we only earn when your firm actually onboards a plaintiff. Contract terms are month-to-month with weekly performance reporting against cost per signed retainer.
- How fast do you respond to a new inbound claimant?
- First contact is under five minutes during business hours. Speed-to-lead is the single largest lever in intake conversion — the drop-off between a five-minute response and a thirty-minute response is measured in retainers lost.
- How is TCPA consent captured and preserved?
- Every lead carries a TrustedForm or Jornaya authentication token captured under the FCC's one-to-one consent standard, with the disclosure language, IP address, and timestamp preserved for audit. Your firm owns the consent record.
- Do you offer Spanish-language intake?
- Yes. Bilingual English and Spanish intake is available for every campaign, with screening criteria applied identically in both languages.
- How is mass tort intake different from a call center or staffing agency?
- A call center answers calls. A staffing agency places bodies. Mass tort intake is a case-acquisition function — screening criteria are tuned to a specific litigation, criteria drift is tracked as retainer rates change, and the whole operation is instrumented against signed retainers. We treat intake as part of the acquisition engine, not a switchboard.
- Who owns the lead data and call recordings?
- Your firm. Contact data, consent records, call recordings, and screening notes are the firm's property. We do not resell, syndicate, or share qualified claimant information with any other firm.
- How is the quality of mass tort intake measured?
- Every screened call is scored against a fixed QA scorecard — criteria adherence, disclosure and consent capture, data completeness, disposition accuracy, claimant clarity, and speed-to-lead. An independent reviewer audits a rolling sample of each agent's calls per tort, dual-scores a subset in weekly calibration sessions, and reports the scorecard trend to your firm alongside cost-per-signed-retainer data. Quality and economics are read together, not separately.
- What happens to callers who do not meet the case criteria?
- They are declined courteously at intake, with the disqualifying reason logged — wrong exposure window, out-of-jurisdiction, statute expired, or no qualifying diagnosis. Declined callers are recorded as a disposition, never resold, syndicated, or shared with another firm. That disposition data also feeds channel reporting, so a source producing mostly out-of-criteria callers is identified and defunded.
- Can a single mass tort intake campaign screen for more than one tort?
- Yes. Each inbound record is stamped with the campaign and tort it originated from, so the agent opens the correct tort-specific script automatically. A caller responding to a Camp Lejeune ad is screened against Camp Lejeune criteria; an Ozempic caller against Ozempic criteria. Running multiple torts through one intake operation is standard — the screening logic branches per tort rather than blending into a generic script.
- How do you keep mass tort intake criteria current as an MDL evolves?
- Screening criteria are treated as living, not fixed at launch. When a bellwether ruling, settlement matrix, or MDL order shifts the eligibility posture, criteria are re-cut with the retaining firm's counsel and pushed into the intake script, and a targeted audit re-checks recent calls against the new standard. This criteria-drift monitoring keeps the screen from qualifying claimants to a stale threshold.
- What hours does mass tort intake operate?
- First contact is under five minutes during business hours, applied across every channel. After-hours and weekend coverage is available per campaign so inbound claimants are screened when they respond to advertising rather than routed to a next-day callback queue, where drop-off is highest. Coverage windows are set per firm based on the tort's channel mix and geography.
- Which case-management systems do you deliver qualified intakes into?
- Litify, Filevine, MyCase, Lead Docket, Lawmatics, HubSpot, Salesforce, and any system with an inbound webhook. Live-transfer calls are logged with recording and TCPA consent tokens attached; form intakes are delivered as structured records with source, UTM, screening notes, and consent metadata preserved. The qualified intake lands in your system ready to work, not as an email to re-key.
- Does mass tort intake retrieve medical records?
- Intake confirms whether the claimant has, or can reasonably obtain, the diagnosis and exposure records the matter will require, and records that documentation status on the handoff. Ordering and retrieving the records themselves is part of the retaining firm's case work-up, not the intake screen. The distinction keeps intake focused on qualification and consent while your team owns the evidentiary file.
- How do you handle duplicate or previously represented claimants?
- Every inbound contact is checked against prior records for duplicates, and the script asks directly whether the claimant is already represented for the same matter. Duplicates and already-represented callers are flagged and held back from handoff, so your firm is never delivered a claimant it already has or one under existing representation elsewhere. The check runs before the warm handoff, not after.
Adjacent pillars: the mass tort marketing agency overview, mass tort lead generation, personal injury lead generation, the 2026 mass tort advertising landscape. Compare providers in the top mass tort marketing firms guide, or see tort-by-tort pricing in cost per signed retainer 2026.
Keep going
Related reading
Personal injury lawyer marketing
The 20 channels that produce signed cases, CPL and cost-per-signed-case benchmarks, and a 90-day measurement plan.
Pricing
Engagement models, minimums, and what is included at each tier — published, not gated.
Mass tort marketing agency
What a mass tort marketing agency does, how engagements are structured, and what to expect in month one.
Mass tort leads by litigation
Every active tort we run campaigns for, with qualification criteria and current claimant volume.
Mass tort marketing guide
The full channel breakdown — paid social, search, TV, direct response — and what each costs per signed case.
Ready to review your next mass tort campaign?
Tell us about your firm, target cases, and intake capacity. A strategist will respond in under 5 minutes during business hours with practical next steps.
Speed-to-lead is the largest single lever in intake conversion: the gap between a 5-minute and a 30-minute callback is measured in retainers lost, not opportunities lost. The same clock is running on the torts you have not claimed yet.
Built for personal injury firms, intake teams, and mass tort dockets