Exclusive vs. shared personal injury leads

Compare the commitment your firm is buying

Exclusive and shared describe distribution. Qualification describes screening, while lead, transfer, and signed case describe the delivery stage. Ask for each dimension separately so one product label does not silently stand in for another.

An exclusive inquiry can still require your team to contact the person and complete intake. A shared inquiry can still include screening against a stated profile. The table identifies what to compare without assuming a standard package or recipient count.

Define whether exclusivity covers the inquiry or the matter

The covered unit matters when the same person submits another form. A commitment tied to one submission can differ from a commitment tied to the underlying accident. Ask how the provider identifies repeat inquiries and how the agreed restriction applies to them.

Illustrative example: someone submits an inquiry on Monday and a new form about the same incident later in the week. The submission IDs differ. Before purchase, establish whether the second form is a duplicate, a new billable delivery, or covered by the original recipient restriction. Your team should be able to find that answer in the agreed terms.

Name the parties and events that change the restriction

Identify which supplier entities and distribution partners are covered by the commitment. Ask who is responsible for investigating a routing question and what record supports the answer. A statement about one part of the acquisition chain does not describe every participant’s responsibilities.

Record the start, duration, and any event that changes the restriction. These may include a decline, failed contact, a pause, or termination, depending on the proposed terms. Intake needs to know if an action or missed deadline changes how a matter may be distributed.

Illustrative example: a proposal allows redistribution after the firm declines. Confirm what counts as a decline and who can record it. An automated acknowledgment or an unanswered follow-up should not accidentally be treated as that decision unless the agreed process expressly makes it so.

Ask about prior distribution and independent inquiries separately

An exclusive arrangement going forward does not answer whether the provider previously sent the inquiry elsewhere. Ask what earlier handling is disclosed, how it is recorded, and whether that history meets your buying requirement.

The prospective client’s own activity is another question. A person may independently contact several firms. Keep that reported activity separate from evidence about the supplier’s distribution. Neither a statement that someone called another firm nor an exclusive label alone establishes what the provider actually did.

Bring a short terms worksheet into procurement

Before approval, record the answers in one place and point to the agreement or proposal version supporting them. Use the worksheet to surface open decisions rather than fill gaps with assumptions.

• Covered unit: the submission, person, incident, or other defined matter.
• Permitted recipients: the recipient limit and the identity or category covered.
• Bound parties: the supplier and relevant distribution partners.
• Timing: start, duration, sequence, and events that change the restriction.
• Prior distribution: required disclosures and the record supplied at handoff.
• Duplicates: matching criteria, treatment of resubmissions, and billable status.
• Exceptions: review owner, supporting records, deadline, and agreed remedy.

Match either arrangement to your intake process

For a shared offer, ask how recipient limits and distribution timing work, then assess whether your intake team can operate within that arrangement. For an exclusive offer, evaluate whether the additional restriction solves a real buying requirement. Exclusivity does not remove the need for reliable follow-up.

Compare equivalent screening and handoff stages where possible. If one offer supplies an inquiry and another includes signing, the difference in remaining work can be more consequential than the distribution label. Keep the firm’s acceptance decision separate from both delivery and signature status.

Investigate duplicate concerns using the agreed definition

When intake flags a possible duplicate, preserve the relevant identifiers, incident context, and receipt dates through the firm’s approved process. Compare the information needed to apply the agreed duplicate rule. A matching phone number can flag a review without proving the same incident; a different submission ID does not prove a new matter.

Ask the supplier to explain the routing or matching record and record the disposition. An illustrative sample during procurement can show which fields exist, while an actual dispute needs the relevant delivery record. Keep a requested credit open until confirmed, and track a replacement against the original delivery so reporting remains reconcilable.

Evaluate exclusivity alongside the rest of the purchase

Use a consistent delivery cohort and acceptance definition when comparing arrangements. Show accepted, declined, and pending matters, along with net supplier charges and attributable intake work. Retain differences in case profile, screening, delivery stage, and review age.

If an exclusive cohort has a lower cost per accepted case, that observation does not by itself show exclusivity caused the difference. The case mix or work included may also differ. Use the result to make the next scoped buying decision and identify which question a further evaluation should answer.

CaseLead Agency’s acquisition work connects sourcing, qualification, human intake, and signing for personal injury firms. Bring your distribution requirements into the acquisition review alongside the handoff and case profile so the proposed arrangement addresses the work your team needs.

Questions law firms ask