Legal matter, document and deadline management system
Lawyers see documents, deadlines and tasks at a case or transaction. The team can track the actions, budget, and remaining work.
Task limits, assumptions, responsibilities, pricing and changes remain in offers, emails and partner agreements. The client and team have different understandings of the scope, increasing number of unpaid work and billing disputes.
How the solution works
- Receive a decision of acceptance and agreed scope of service
- Assigning Responsible Works and Term Basis
- Prepare and revise a specific version of the document
- Perform submission, signing or other agreed action
- Meet the outcome, remaining conditions and service economy
Key challenges
- The scope of service, budget and additional work are not managed clearly enough.
- File or transaction documents and versions split
- Procedural and contractual terms are managed in a fragmented manner
- The profitability of a case, transaction or client is seen too late
Solution capabilities
Volume and Order
The case is associated with a genuine decision of acceptance, contract and mandate.A new issue has a clear discussion of scope and price when it is needed.
Document editorials
Working, received, presented and signed versions by the other party are separated. A set of annexes and a comparison are stored with a specific document.
Term basis
The event of receipt or service, jurisdiction, and applicable calculation rule are checked by the lawyer responsible. The uncertain date is not concealed under the allegedly exact calendar.
Proof of action taken
Dispatch, receivership and subsequent procedural result have different status. Signing in the transaction does not cancel the remaining terms of fulfillment.
Labor economics
Actual time, external costs, contractual consideration and write-off reason are linked to the case. The additional expense does not become an automatic amount payable by the customer.
Business context
- The scope of service, budget and additional work are not managed clearly enough.
- Task limits, assumptions, responsibilities, pricing and changes remain in offers, emails and partner agreements. The client and team have different understandings of the scope, increasing number of unpaid work and billing disputes.
- File or transaction documents and versions split
- Files, attachments, other country versions, comments, and signed documents are stored in directories, e-mails, and multiple tools. It is difficult to determine the valid version who replaced it and which document was submitted or signed.
- Procedural and contractual terms are managed in a fragmented manner
- Deadlines come from documents, courts, registers, agreements and staff comments, but are not tied to a single system of case assignments. The risk of missed deadlines, urgent work and professional liability increases.
- The profitability of a case, transaction or client is seen too late
- The scope of the contract is not tied to lawyers' working hours, external costs, write-offs, additional work and bills. Budget overruns and unpaid work become apparent after the fact, and pricing is adjusted late.
- It is clear to the client how the legal order is executed
- The client of a case or transaction wants to understand the remaining actions, deadlines and costs. Linked documents and work done allow the lawyer to respond specifically. Additional scope can be matched by the change in commission, clearly distinguishing it from the original agreement.
Core features
- Volume and Order
- Document editorials
- Term basis
- Proof of action taken
- Labor economics
Key integrations
- The course of the client's acceptance and contract
- Permission to undertake a specific task, authorization and agreed conditions.
- Sources of documentation and external presentation
- The specific version, the actual event of service or acceptance and the response of the action performed.
- Sources of Time and Accounting
- Actual work, expenses and contractual settlement.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Deadline omitted due to internal progress
2–12%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that the controls described can address 10-30% of discrepancies. That share is assumed to fall by 20-40%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Counting delays due to failure to hand over an event, improper application of a rule, or failure to notice a submission rejection.
Document and volume reconciliation work
16–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 40-70% of information searches and repeated cross-checks can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure the working minutes for matching the edits of a package of documents and to match the agreed scope.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Several versions of documents, procedural deadlines and specialist assignments need to be followed in legal work.
- The scope and cost of the work are compared to the agreed budget only at the end of the task or case.
Project scope and implementation
Work and document management is combined with the tools used by lawyers. A one-time brief conclusion may be sufficient for a secure review of the task and document. A wider process is required to coordinate several specialists, document versions and procedural deadlines.
Further development options
- Other practices follow a review of the basis for their deadline, submission response, and completion conditions.