Spot minority-owner disputes worth a consultation
The intake asks whether a prospective client holds a minority stake, has been excluded from decisions, or denied their share of profits, then collects governing documents and financial records before the matter reaches your CRM.
The exact intake your shareholder oppression leads complete
This is the real 8-question guided intake for Shareholder Oppression — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified shareholder oppression lead should tell you
A dispute in which a minority owner of a closely held corporation, LLC, or partnership is disadvantaged by the controlling owners — through exclusion from decisions, denied profits, or misuse of company funds — and the intake needs to establish ownership status, the control structure, and the specific conduct alleged.
- Owner Business ( Example,
- Own Minority Share Business
- There At Least One
- Been Cut Out Important
- Been Denied Fair Share
- Believe Controlling Owners Or
- This Situation Caused Significant
- Any These Problems Happen
The questions your team needs answered
Every shareholder oppression intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Are you currently an owner of the business (for example, a shareholder, member, or partner) in a U.S. company? | Confirms the prospective client actually has standing as an owner before any oppression claim can proceed. |
| Do you own a minority share of the business (meaning you do not control most votes or decisions)? | Separates a true minority-oppression fact pattern from a majority-owner boardroom fight that likely belongs elsewhere. |
| Is there at least one other owner or manager who controls the company and whose actions are part of the problem? | Confirms there's an identifiable controlling party whose specific conduct can form the basis of the claim. |
| Have you been cut out of important decisions, meetings, votes, or access to company information that owners usually get? | Exclusion from meetings, votes, or information is a core factor courts look at in oppression cases. |
| Have you been denied your fair share of profits or benefits (like dividends/distributions, salary, or other payments) while others received them? | Denied dividends, salary, or other payments gives the claim a concrete, quantifiable financial harm. |
| Do you believe the controlling owners or managers used company money or opportunities mainly for themselves (for example, paying personal expenses, self-dealing, or taking business deals for themselves)? | Self-dealing or misuse of company funds signals a stronger case and possible overlapping breach-of-fiduciary-duty exposure. |
| Has this situation caused you significant financial harm or put your ownership interest at serious risk? | Confirms the stakes are significant enough to justify pursuing litigation rather than a lower-value grievance. |
| Did any of these problems happen within the last 3 years (or are they still happening now)? | Flags whether the conduct is still ongoing or old, which affects statute-of-limitations exposure and urgency. |
How Cliont scores shareholder oppression leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- Owner Business ( Example,: yes
- Own Minority Share Business: yes
- There At Least One: yes
- Been Cut Out Important: yes
- Been Denied Fair Share: yes
- Believe Controlling Owners Or: yes
See the lead your team receives
Shareholder Oppression Lead
From first click to qualified lead
Follow people and businesses seeking counsel through one smooth, guided flow.
They land & meet you
Your video greeting plays instantly — a real face instead of a blank form.
They explain the matter
Smart questions adapt to their matter and capture the full scope.
They share the documents
The facts, dates, and any paperwork come attached, so you can assess the matter before the consultation.
You get a ready lead
Scored and qualified — waiting for you to win it.
Built for shareholder oppression workflows
| Cliont capability | Shareholder Oppression application |
|---|---|
| Weighted scoring engine | Weighs ownership status, minority stake, exclusion from decisions, denied profits, and self-dealing allegations together to separate a real oppression claim from a general ownership gripe. |
| Conditional branching logic | Only surfaces the self-dealing and financial-harm questions once the prospective client confirms minority ownership and an identifiable controlling owner, keeping the intake relevant instead of generic. |
| Document upload capture | Collects the operating agreement, cap table, and financial or distribution records tied to the denied-profits answer before the file lands in your CRM. |
| CRM routing with score and band | Sends the completed shareholder oppression intake, along with its ownership and conduct answers, directly into your CRM so you can triage before offering a consultation. |
Common shareholder oppression lead scenarios
Locked out of company decisions
A minority owner has been cut off from meetings, votes, and financial records by a controlling co-owner. The intake ties ownership status, minority stake, and exclusion together as a high-value match.
Distributions withheld, insiders profit
A minority owner reports no dividends or salary for months while the controlling owner allegedly runs personal expenses through the company. Both the denied-profits and self-dealing answers surface together.
Old dispute resurfacing later
The prospective client describes conduct from several years back with nothing recent. The recency answer separates this from an active, ongoing dispute even when the underlying facts look similar.
Majority owner feels outvoted
Someone controls more than half the company but feels outmaneuvered by a minority partner. The minority-share question filters this out of the classic oppression profile before it reaches a consultation.
Connect Cliont to your workflow
Send leads
HubSpot, HighLevel, Salesforce, JobNimbus
Book matters
Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly
Notify your team
Email, SMS, Slack
Automate follow-up
Zapier, Webhooks, API
Simple, transparent pricing
Choose the plan that works for your business.
Professional
Unlimited intake forms and leads for your growing business.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Advanced analytics dashboard
Pay Per Lead
Only pay when you receive a qualified lead.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Charged only for submitted leads
More business and corporate law intake templates
Shareholder Oppression lead-intake FAQs
How does the intake tell a shareholder oppression claim apart from a general partnership disagreement?
It checks whether the prospective client is a minority owner with a controlling co-owner making decisions against them, rather than a dispute between equal partners. If the ownership split doesn't fit that pattern, the lead may be better suited to a sibling matter like Partnership Disputes or Business Divorce.
What if the prospective client isn't sure whether they're a minority owner?
The intake starts by confirming ownership status and then asks specifically whether they hold a minority stake without control over most votes or decisions, so uncertainty gets resolved before the questions about exclusion or profit denial.
Can the intake distinguish a simple profit dispute from a self-dealing allegation?
Yes — denied dividends or salary is captured separately from the question about whether the controlling owner used company money or opportunities for personal benefit, so you can see whether both, one, or neither is in play.
What documents does the intake collect before the consultation?
It requests governing documents like the operating agreement or bylaws, financial or distribution records, and any correspondence showing exclusion from meetings or decisions, so the file is ready before the first call.
Does the intake flag older disputes differently from ongoing ones?
It asks whether the conduct happened within the last three years or is still occurring, which helps you weigh statute-of-limitations exposure alongside the other ownership and conduct answers.
What happens to a lead who turns out to be a majority owner, not a minority one?
The minority-stake answer weighs against the profile of a typical oppression claim, so that lead is scored lower and still routed to your CRM for review rather than dropped silently.
Turn shareholder oppression visitors into qualified cases
Give every shareholder oppression visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.