Legal project management for transactions and programmes.
Break the work into ordered steps, each with an owner and its own approvers — sequential or parallel — and let the system say what can happen next.
A company formation is not a case. Neither is a share transfer, or a regulatory filing programme. Each has eleven steps, four of which need somebody else's sign-off, and two of those people do not work for you.
So it gets run from a spreadsheet and a standing meeting, and the honest answer to "where are we?" is whatever the person who last updated the spreadsheet believed at the time. When a step stalls, it stalls silently — the only signal is that the next meeting is uncomfortable. A firm feels this on the deal that slips; a department feels it on the filing that misses.
Steps, approvals, and what happens next.
- 01
Break the work into ordered steps
Each step carries the number of days it should take, the person responsible for it, and its own set of approvers. Steps can be reordered as the work changes, and one can be inserted after another when reality intervenes.
- 02
Decide how each step gets signed off
Sequential, where approvers act one after another in a set order, or parallel, where everyone is asked at once. Different steps in the same project can work differently — a filing needs the head of legal after the tax lead, while a share transfer needs the partner and the client to agree in either order.
- 03
The system says what can happen next
A step knows whether it can be completed, sent for approval, chased, or resubmitted after rejection. You cannot send something for approval that is already approved, and a rejected step offers resubmission rather than leaving someone to work out the route back.
- 04
Chase the person who is actually holding it up
Reminders can go to one named approver who has not responded, or to all of them. A step waiting on somebody says whose it is, so following up is directed rather than broadcast.
- 05
Completion is evidenced, not asserted
A step is completed with its actual date and a reference to the meeting or document that produced it. "Done" points at the thing that made it done.
What changes for the team running it.
- "Where are we?" is a screen rather than a question.
- An approval needing three people in order gets three people in order.
- A stalled step names the person it is waiting on.
- Completion points at the meeting or document that produced it.
- Reminders reach the approver who has not responded, not everybody.
- The plan survives the work changing, because steps can be reordered.
Everything included, in one place.
Sequential and parallel approvals
Each step defines its own approvers and whether they act in order or all at once, so an approval chain matches how the decision is actually made rather than forcing every step through one shape.
A state machine, not a status field
Every step reports which actions are legal for it — complete, send for approval, remind, resubmit — so the interface cannot offer a move the process does not allow, and nothing ends up in a state nobody can explain.
Targeted reminders
Chase a single named approver who has not responded, or all outstanding ones, with a comment. Following up stops being a message to everyone in the hope that the right person reads it.
Evidenced completion
Steps are closed with an actual date and references to the meeting or document that produced the outcome, so a completed project is auditable rather than merely marked green.
Meetings and minutes on the project
Meetings, their minutes and their attachments belong to the project, so the decision that moved a step forward sits with the step rather than in an inbox.
An approval inbox
Approvers see what is waiting on them in one place, with notifications, rather than discovering it when someone asks why a filing has not gone out.
Common questions about this feature.
Matter management runs an individual case. Project management plans larger, multi-workstream work — a company formation, a transaction, a compliance programme — as ordered steps with their own owners, durations and approval chains. Both live on the same platform, and a project can hold cases beneath it. A law firm uses it for corporate and transactional work; an in-house team uses it for programmes the business hands over.
Yes, and different approval modes. One step can require three people in a fixed sequence while the next asks two people simultaneously, because that is how sign-off actually works in most organisations.
The step moves to rejected and offers resubmission, so the route back is part of the process rather than something the responsible person has to invent. The rejection and its comment stay on the record.
Yes. Approvers have an inbox of the steps awaiting their decision, with notifications — so a filing does not sit unapproved because the person who needed to sign it never knew.
Works with the rest of the platform.
Service requests
Structured intake so a request arrives with what legal actually needs, agreed turnaround times, and a breach that shows up on the dashboard rather than in a complaint.
Read ›External counsel
Outside counsel work inside your system on the matters they are instructed on — and on nothing else, enforced at the record rather than by hiding a screen.
Read ›See it on your own matters
A short walkthrough with our team, using the kind of work your team handles day to day.