MVA acquisition with a clear path from intake to firm review

Know what “MVA leads” means in the proposal

The terms MVA leads, auto accident leads, and car accident leads describe a market category, not a consistent delivery standard. One proposal may cover contact details and screening answers. Another may cover a connected call or a signed agreement. Compare the actual handoff before comparing unit prices.

CaseLead’s signed-case offering is for law firms evaluating acquisition support. Confirm the agreement to be used, the screening and intake scope, and the information that will accompany delivery. Your firm’s acceptance review remains a distinct step, even when signing has occurred.

Build an MVA profile your reviewers can apply

Start with the accident categories and geographic scope your firm wants to review. Then document the incident, injury, treatment, insurance, and representation information needed to assess fit. Let the firm’s designated reviewers set the criteria; avoid replacing their decisions with a supplier’s undefined “qualified” label.

Give each criterion a delivery rule. A field might be required at handoff, permitted to remain pending, or reserved for firm review. Include a way to record conflicting answers and the person responsible for follow-up. This gives intake a usable work queue when information is incomplete.

• Incident: reported date, location, accident type, and account source.
• Injury and treatment: reported information, available evidence, and unresolved questions.
• Insurance and representation: information supplied, documents available, and items requiring firm review.
• Signing and handoff: agreement identity, signature status, packet contents, and receiving owner.

Keep reported answers and reviewed evidence separate

An intake answer can be useful without being independently verified. Label information as reported, verified for a specific field, or unknown. Record the source and date so the firm can see how the answer was obtained.

For example, a prospective client may report an incident date and say a report exists. That does not establish that the report has been received or reviewed. If a reviewer later checks a document, record what it confirms and preserve any disagreement with the earlier account.

This structure helps the firm ask precise follow-up questions. It also avoids treating an entire matter as verified because one document or field has been checked.

Specify the signed-case handoff

A handoff should allow your team to identify the matter, understand the agreed screening record, and see the next action. Discuss the delivery method, unique matter identifier, contact information, required fields, agreement copy or status, and any missing items before work starts.

Confirm whether supporting records are included, requested, or outside the scope. Do not infer that an MVA signed-case arrangement includes incident reports, medical records, insurance verification, or completed conflict checks. Name the receiving reviewer and define how delivery acknowledgment differs from acceptance.

When a packet changes, retain a dated update. That makes it possible to understand what your team received initially and what became available later.

Agree on exclusivity, billing, and exception handling

If your firm requires exclusivity, write down what is exclusive, to whom, for how long, and under which exceptions. Include a rule for repeat inquiries and matters already known to your firm. “Signed” and “screened” do not answer those questions.

Billing should have a specific trigger and a clear relationship to the review process. Confirm the review window, evidence required for disputes, and any agreed credit or replacement terms. Track a replacement against the original delivery so neither the cost nor the matter is counted twice.

An engagement discussion should establish the proposed quantity or pacing, if any, alongside intake readiness. Do not treat a requested volume as a delivery guarantee.

Prepare your intake team before delivery

A partner can approve the buying scope while an intake director sets up the review workflow. Identify who receives new matters, who resolves missing information, and who records the firm’s final decision. Make sure the people doing this work can access the agreed handoff channel.

Use a sample packet or illustrative field map to test the workflow. Your team should be able to distinguish a delivery acknowledgment, a pending review, a decline, and an acceptance without searching through unstructured notes.

Agree how feedback returns to the acquisition team. A specific reason such as “required location information missing” is actionable; a general quality label leaves the underlying issue unresolved.

Measure the MVA cohort using consistent stages

Group unique matters by first delivery date and report their status as of a stated date. Keep signed, accepted, declined, and pending counts explicit. Signed status may overlap with the review statuses; it should not be added to them as though it were a separate group.

Calculate cost per accepted case with charges and confirmed applicable credits from that same cohort. If reviews are still pending, label the result provisional. Report intake labor separately when comparing the total work required by different delivery models.

Our MVA engagement studies show recurring firm acquisition and a defined assignment, including the work our team handled across acquisition, qualification, human intake, and signing. Read them alongside your own case criteria to plan the handoff your practice needs.

Questions law firms ask