CRM and workflow systems for firms that bill their time
Law firms, accountancies and consultancies run on matters, not deals — and most CRM software was built for deals. We build and integrate systems around how your firm actually works: intake, conflicts, matters, time, billing and the documents that go with them.
A matter is not a deal
Most CRM products are built around a sales pipeline: a prospect moves through stages toward a close, and then the record goes quiet. A professional services firm works the other way round. The relationship begins at the close and the real record — the matter, the case, the engagement — accumulates for years afterwards, across multiple people, with obligations that outlive it.
Firms end up bending sales software into that shape, or buying practice management software that handles matters well and marketing badly, and then bridging the two with spreadsheets and inbox rules. That bridge is usually where the money leaks.
Where the time and money actually go
- Enquiries arriving by phone, email and web form, tracked in three different places
- Conflict checks run by asking whoever has been at the firm longest
- Billable time reconstructed at the end of the month from calendar entries and memory
- Matter documents spread across a shared drive, a mailbox and someone’s desktop
- Deadlines and limitation dates held in individual diaries rather than the system
- Work in progress that nobody can total until the month closes
- Aged debt chased by hand, when somebody remembers
None of these are unusual, and none of them need the firm to be rebuilt. They need the handoffs between systems to stop being manual.
What we build
Intake that captures once. Every enquiry — web form, phone, referral — lands in one place with its source attached, gets acknowledged automatically, and carries its details forward into the matter without anyone retyping them. Conflict screening runs at this point, before a file is opened rather than after.
Matter-centric records. The matter is the organising object: parties, correspondence, documents, time, disbursements and deadlines all hang off it. Anyone picking it up can see its state without asking the person who normally handles it.
Time capture at the point of work. Recording time from where the work happens, rather than from a separate timesheet screen visited under duress on a Friday. The measure of success is how much previously unrecorded time starts appearing.
Billing that builds itself. Invoices assembled from recorded time and disbursements, with the firm’s own rules for rates, fixed fees, caps and write-offs applied automatically rather than remembered.
Documents and deadlines. Templates populated from the matter record instead of last month’s copy. Key dates in the system with escalation, so a limitation date does not depend on one person’s calendar.
Reporting partners will use. Utilisation, realisation, work in progress, aged debt and matter profitability, from data that is captured consistently enough to trust.
Confidentiality, access and retention
Client files are confidential and frequently privileged, which makes access control a design requirement rather than a setting. Who can see which matter, what gets logged, and what happens to access when someone leaves the firm are questions to answer while building, not afterwards. We build to least privilege by default and make the audit trail something you can actually read.
Retention is the other side of it. Professional bodies set minimum retention periods that continue long after a matter closes, and UK GDPR expects you not to hold personal data indefinitely without reason. Those two pull in opposite directions, so the system needs a deliberate archival policy rather than a default of keeping everything forever or deleting whatever looks finished.
We would rather integrate than replace
If you already run a practice management or accounts system that works, the fastest useful project is almost never replacing it. It is closing the gaps around it — connecting intake to the matter record, the matter record to time capture, time capture to billing, and billing to the accounts package — so that the spreadsheets in between stop being load bearing.
Replacement is worth it when the existing system genuinely blocks the firm: when it cannot hold the data you need, or the vendor has stopped developing it. Being irritating is not the same as being blocking, and we will say so.
Questions we get asked
We already use a practice management system. Is this a replacement?
Usually not, and we will tell you early if replacing it is a bad idea. Most firms have a system that handles one thing well — accounts, or case management — and a set of gaps around it that get filled with spreadsheets and email. Integrating and automating around what works is cheaper, faster and less disruptive than a migration. Replacement makes sense when the existing system is genuinely blocking you, not merely annoying.
Can it handle conflict checks?
That depends on how your firm defines a conflict, which is why it is a build question rather than a feature checkbox. A searchable record of every party across every matter is straightforward. Automating the check at intake — flagging a prospective client against existing and former parties before anyone opens a file — is achievable and is usually where the real value sits. What the system cannot do is exercise professional judgement, and it should not pretend to.
How does time capture work?
Time that is not captured on the day is generally not billed at all, so the aim is to make recording it take seconds rather than to build elaborate reporting on top. In practice that means capture at the point of work — from the matter record, from a calendar entry, from an email — and a weekly view that makes gaps obvious before the month closes.
What about client data and confidentiality?
Client files are confidential and often privileged, so access control matters more here than in most sectors: who can see which matter, what is logged, and what happens when someone leaves. We build to least privilege by default. On retention, professional bodies set minimum periods that outlive the engagement, so the system needs a deliberate archival policy rather than deleting whatever looks finished.
Can it produce the reports our partners actually want?
Yes, and this is worth scoping properly at the start. Utilisation, realisation, work in progress, aged debt and matter profitability are all derivable if the underlying data is captured consistently. The constraint is never the reporting layer; it is whether time and disbursements are being recorded the same way by everyone.
How long does something like this take?
An integration and automation project scoped around an existing system is typically weeks rather than months. A full intake-to-billing build is longer, and the honest answer depends on how many exceptions your firm has. We would rather scope it properly on a call than quote a number here that turns out to be wrong.
Tell us where the friction is
Most firms already know which part of the month costs them the most. Describe it in your own terms and we will tell you what can be automated, what should not be, and what it would take.
Book a free consultation