Defamation intake that captures proof and timing up front
Ask prospective clients whether the statement was presented as fact, whether it caused real harm like lost work or threats, and whether they can share screenshots, links, or recordings as proof — before you offer a consultation.
The exact intake your defamation and media litigation leads complete
This is the real 8-question guided intake for Defamation and Media Litigation — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified defamation and media litigation lead should tell you
A dispute over a specific published or broadcast statement that a prospective client believes is false and has caused them reputational or financial harm, ranging from a social media post to a televised segment.
- Someone Publish Or Share
- Statement Presented As Fact
- Believe Statement False Or
- Know Who Made Statement
- This Happen Within Last
- Statement Caused Real Harm
- Have Any Proof Can
- Help With Media-Related Dispute
The questions your team needs answered
Every defamation and media litigation intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Did someone publish or share a statement about you (or your business) to other people (online, on TV/radio, in print, or in a public setting)? | A "yes" flags a higher-value, higher-urgency lead you’ll want to reach first. |
| Was the statement presented as a fact (not clearly an opinion, joke, or obvious exaggeration)? | A statement framed as opinion rather than fact is far harder to litigate, so this answer separates viable defamation claims from general grievances. |
| Do you believe the statement is false or seriously misleading? | A "yes" flags a higher-value, higher-urgency lead you’ll want to reach first. |
| Do you know who made the statement or which outlet/account published it (or can you likely find out)? | Without an identifiable publisher, pursuing a claim or sending a demand letter becomes significantly harder, which is why this weighs heavily in the score. |
| Did this happen within the last 12 months? | Defamation claims are time-sensitive, so a statement outside the recent window may signal a limitations issue worth flagging before a consultation. |
| Has the statement caused you real harm (for example, lost work or business, lost opportunities, threats/harassment, or significant damage to your reputation)? | Demonstrable harm such as lost work or threats is often what turns a complaint into a matter worth pursuing, so it carries top weight. |
| Do you have any proof you can share (such as screenshots, links, recordings, messages, or witnesses) showing what was said and when? | A "yes" flags a higher-value, higher-urgency lead you’ll want to reach first. |
| Are you looking for help with a media-related dispute (such as getting a retraction/takedown, stopping further spread, negotiating a settlement, or filing a lawsuit) in the United States? | Confirming the desired outcome and U.S. jurisdiction upfront prevents booking a consultation for a matter outside your scope of practice. |
How Cliont scores defamation and media litigation leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- Someone Publish Or Share: yes
- Statement Presented As Fact: yes
- Believe Statement False Or: yes
- Know Who Made Statement: yes
- This Happen Within Last: yes
- Statement Caused Real Harm: yes
Urgency signals
- Help With Media-Related Dispute
See the lead your team receives
Defamation and Media Litigation 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 defamation and media litigation workflows
| Cliont capability | Defamation And Media Litigation application |
|---|---|
| Guided branching logic | If a statement is flagged as opinion rather than fact, the intake still completes but the lead scores lower, helping you distinguish genuine defamation claims from general complaints. |
| Document and media upload | Prospective clients can attach screenshots, links, recordings, or messages showing what was said and when, directly answering the proof question in the catalog. |
| Automated lead scoring | Publication, falsity, harm, and recency answers are weighted so a recent, provable, damaging statement scores well above a stale or unsubstantiated complaint. |
| CRM routing | Only leads that clear the scoring threshold — with clear harm, identifiable publisher, and a stated desired outcome — are sent to your CRM for consultation scheduling. |
Common defamation and media litigation lead scenarios
Viral post with clear proof
A prospective client has screenshots of a factual-sounding statement posted within the last 12 months, knows who published it, and points to lost business. Every high-value signal is satisfied, so the matter routes straight to your CRM as a priority lead.
Old grievance resurfacing
The statement caused real harm but was published well over a year ago, which lowers the score even though the underlying facts are strong — flagging a possible timing issue before you spend consultation time on it.
Opinion piece complaint
Someone is upset about a negative review or commentary that reads as opinion rather than a factual claim, so the intake captures that answer and the lead scores lower than a fact-based allegation.
Anonymous online rumor
The client believes a statement is false and harmful but can't identify who posted it or produce proof yet, giving you a lower-confidence lead you can triage differently than one with a named publisher and documentation.
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 entertainment sports and media law intake templates
View all entertainment sports and media law intake templates →
Defamation and Media Litigation lead-intake FAQs
How does the intake separate a real defamation claim from someone unhappy with a negative opinion or review?
One question asks whether the statement was presented as a fact rather than an obvious opinion, joke, or exaggeration, and the answer is weighted heavily in scoring so opinion-based complaints surface as lower-priority than factual allegations.
What happens if a prospective client doesn't have screenshots or recordings yet?
The intake still accepts the lead — the proof question is answered yes or no, and a 'no' simply lowers the score rather than blocking submission, so you can see at a glance whether documentation still needs to be gathered.
Does the intake account for how long ago the statement was published?
Yes, one question asks whether the statement was made within the last 12 months, which factors into the score so you can spot potential timing concerns before booking a consultation.
Can the intake tell whether someone wants a retraction versus a lawsuit?
Yes, the intake asks directly whether they're seeking a retraction/takedown, negotiation, or litigation, so you know the requested outcome before you engage.
What if the client doesn't know who made the statement or which outlet published it?
That's captured as its own yes/no question, and answering 'no' reduces the score since an unidentified publisher makes the matter harder to pursue.
Does this intake filter out matters outside the United States?
The final question confirms whether the client is seeking help with a media dispute in the United States, which lets you flag or deprioritize out-of-jurisdiction inquiries.
Turn defamation and media litigation visitors into qualified cases
Give every defamation and media litigation visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.