Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From legal-aid
Funding-source-aware eligibility screening for legal aid intake (income, assets, residency, citizenship, conflicts, case-type priority). Produces a screening result for staff attorney review and managing attorney approval.
npx claudepluginhub lawdroidai/legal-aid-pluginHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/legal-aid:eligibility-screening [optional: funding-source hint, e.g., 'lsc', 'ioltaonly', 'dvgrant'][optional: funding-source hint, e.g., 'lsc', 'ioltaonly', 'dvgrant']The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-aid/CLAUDE.md` → funding sources, eligibility guidelines, jurisdictions, supervision style, flag triggers.
Structures legal aid client intake after eligibility screening: routes to practice-area template, spots cross-area issues, runs conflict check, propagates screening flags, classifies urgency, and produces a formatted case summary.
Structures legal clinic client intake with practice-area templates, cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags, and triage classification. Produces a formatted case summary for student analysis and professor review.
Opens a new legal matter file with standardized intake questions: party identification, conflict of interest, mediation status, case value, risk triage, outside counsel, internal stakeholders, evidence preservation, and deadlines. Creates matter.md and history.md files, appends a structured entry to _log.yaml.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-aid/CLAUDE.md → funding sources, eligibility guidelines, jurisdictions, supervision style, flag triggers./legal-aid:eligibility-screening
Eligibility screening is the front of the funnel and the most common reason a legal aid office ends up in compliance trouble. Income, assets, residency, citizenship, conflicts, and funder-specific case-type rules all have to be cleared before the office takes on a matter, and the rules vary by funding source on the same matter.
This skill structures the screening, applies the office's configured eligibility guidelines, surfaces flags for managing-attorney review, and produces a result the intake specialist can verify and the managing attorney can approve.
What it doesn't do: decide acceptance. Acceptance is the managing attorney's call. This skill recommends.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-aid/CLAUDE.md → funding sources, eligibility guidelines (income, assets, residency, citizenship policy, priority case types, out-of-scope case types), conflict-check process, supervision style, flag triggers.
Check for a practice-area guide at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-aid/guides/<practice-area>.md. If one exists for the area this screening is likely heading into, read its priority criteria and any practice-area-specific eligibility nuances (DV exceptions to citizenship restrictions, elderly age cutoff, immigration-specific bars). If one doesn't exist, use the office defaults from CLAUDE.md.
Open with a short framing line. Do not lead with eligibility questions — lead with the situation, so the prospective client doesn't feel pre-screened out before they've explained why they called.
"Tell me what's going on — what brought you to the office today?"
Capture the narrative in the prospective client's own words. This determines practice area, urgency, and which funding source's rules apply. It does not decide eligibility yet.
From the narrative, identify:
Urgent matters get screened on a fast path: a quick income screen, a fast conflict check, and immediate managing-attorney routing. Do not run a full screen on someone whose lockout is tomorrow morning — flag the urgency and route.
Read the office's income standard from CLAUDE.md. Common patterns:
| Funding source | Typical standard | Office variant |
|---|---|---|
| LSC | 125% FPL | Read CLAUDE.md |
| IOLTA / state appropriation | 200% FPL (varies) | Read CLAUDE.md |
| Elderly programs | 300% FPL or no cap (varies) | Read CLAUDE.md |
| DV / VAWA / VOCA | Often no income test for DV-related matters | Read CLAUDE.md |
| Foundation-specific | Per grant terms | Read CLAUDE.md |
Ask:
Output a comparison against each funding source the office runs, not just one. A matter may not qualify for LSC funding but may qualify under IOLTA — the screen surfaces both.
Do not state a specific FPL dollar figure as if you know the current year's number. Tag every dollar comparison with [VERIFY: current FPL table for household size N]. The intake specialist verifies against the office's posted FPL chart, which the managing attorney is responsible for keeping current.
Read the office's asset rules from CLAUDE.md. Ask about:
If the office has no asset test for this funding source, skip this step and note it in the output.
Read the office's residency rules. Ask about:
Flag any mismatch between residence and venue for managing-attorney review.
This is the most sensitive step. Approach with care.
LSC-funded programs operate under 45 CFR § 1626, which restricts representation of certain aliens with explicit exceptions for:
Non-LSC funding (IOLTA, private foundations, state appropriation) typically has different — and usually broader — rules. An office may serve a person with non-LSC funds even when LSC restrictions would prevent serving them with LSC funds.
The skill:
[FUNDING RESTRICTION: LSC § 1626 — confirm exception or non-LSC funding source] whenever the matter may engage LSC alien restrictionsIf the prospective client appears to be a DV survivor or trafficking victim and the matter relates to that, flag the relevant § 1626 exception by name and route to the office's DV/trafficking specialist if one exists.
Never tell a prospective client "you are not eligible because of your status." That is a managing-attorney determination, made after the screen.
Per the office's process described in CLAUDE.md. At minimum:
If the office's case management system is connected, run the check against the CMS. If not, output the names and the structured query the intake specialist should run manually.
Flag for managing-attorney review. Don't resolve the conflict — surface it.
Read the office's priority case types and out-of-scope case types from CLAUDE.md. Classify the matter:
| Classification | Means |
|---|---|
| Priority case type — accept track | Falls within the office's stated priorities and capacity exists |
| Standard case type — assess capacity | In scope; managing attorney weighs capacity |
| Out-of-scope — refer | Outside practice areas or funder-restricted |
| Fee-generating — refer | LSC-restricted if office is LSC-funded |
| Mixed (priority for one funding source, out-of-scope for another) | Surface the dual classification |
Note any specific funder restrictions that apply, by funder, with the rule cite where applicable.
# Eligibility Screening: [Caller name or ID]
---
[AI-ASSISTED DRAFT — requires staff analysis and managing-attorney review]
**Privilege and confidentiality.** This screening contains information disclosed in the course of a prospective client consultation and is subject to Rule 1.18 duties of confidentiality regardless of whether the office accepts the matter. Keep it in the office's privileged file store; distribution decisions go through the managing attorney.
---
**Date:** [date] | **Screener:** [intake specialist] | **Practice area:** [primary + any cross-area] | **Urgency:** [urgent / time-sensitive / standard]
## Bottom-line recommendation
[Accept under [funding source] | Decline / refer because [reason] | Needs managing-attorney review on [specific issue]]
## Caller's situation (in their words)
[Narrative as given, before legal categorization]
## Screening result by category
### Income
- Household size: [N]
- Monthly gross income: $[amount] `[VERIFY: client-stated — confirm at intake]`
- vs. LSC standard (125% FPL, [N]-person household): `[VERIFY: current FPL table]` — [over / under / at]
- vs. IOLTA standard ([office's IOLTA standard]): [over / under / at]
- vs. [other funding sources]: [over / under / at]
### Assets
- [Per office's rules]
### Residency
- State: [state] | County: [county] — [in service area / out of service area / partially]
- Matter venued in: [court / agency] — [match / mismatch flag]
### Citizenship / immigration
- Status disclosed: [per office's policy on what to ask]
- LSC § 1626 implications: [no engagement / exception applies (cite) / restriction applies — non-LSC funding required]
`[FUNDING RESTRICTION: ...]` if applicable
### Conflicts
- Opposing party: [name(s)] — [CMS clear / CMS hit — see entry [ID] / manual check needed]
- Related parties: [list]
- Positional: [any concerns]
### Case-type priority
- Practice area: [housing / family / etc.]
- Classification: [priority / standard / out-of-scope / fee-generating / mixed]
- Out-of-scope flags: [list, with rule cite if funder-restricted]
## Cross-practice-area flags
[Any issue outside the primary area that the office may want to address, refer, or both]
## Funding-source matrix
| Funding source | Income OK | Assets OK | Status OK | Case type OK | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSC | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Eligible / Ineligible / Needs review] |
| IOLTA | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Y/N/?] | [Eligible / Ineligible / Needs review] |
| [Other] | | | | | |
## Managing-attorney review flags
- [Any item that should be reviewed before acceptance, e.g., "Income within 5% of LSC cap; verify against pay stubs"]
- [Any FUNDING RESTRICTION flag]
- [Any conflict requiring resolution]
- [Any urgency requiring fast-path routing]
## Suggested next step
- If accept-track: route to `/client-intake` under [funding source]
- If decline: route to `/client-letter referral` with referral candidates [list]
- If needs-review: queue per supervision style (formal queue / configurable flag / case rounds)
## Premises this screening rests on
- [Each premise the screen used, e.g., "LSC 2024 FPL table applies until [date]"]
- [Office's eligibility profile last updated: [date from CLAUDE.md]]
## Verification prompts before relying on this screen
- Verify household size and income against documentation at intake (pay stubs, benefit letters, last filed tax return)
- Verify residency against any document available (lease, utility bill, ID)
- Run the CMS conflict check if not already automated
- Confirm current FPL table date and the office's current eligibility profile
- Re-run any FUNDING RESTRICTION flag against current funder guidance
[FUNDING RESTRICTION: ...] raised here propagates into /client-intake, /draft, /memo, and /status for the matter if accepted./lsc-report reads it for CSR categorization.