We are curious to know how you handle the dilemma of conforming to internal compliance relating to matter name standards yet meeting clients’ needs and wants? We find at times that we have a hard time reconciling the two and find ourselves having to make exceptions to our policies, which is not advisable. For example, a client insists (according to the submitting attorney) that their new matter must be named “Contract Review.” This goes against our no-general-matter policy and we would request that separate matters be opened for each contract.
We are trying to use the system to create a workaround and are wondering if any of you have solved this predicament. I envision something like a “master matter,” which is the general matter (but blocked for time entry) so you cannot bill to it, and then we open the specific matters as submatters, and somehow funnel all of that time up into the master matter, which is used to create the invoice. So to the client, it looks like one matter, but we still have the separate matters in the background and are continuing to reduce risk. I know this can be done manually, but are hoping for a more efficient solution.
Thanks in advance,
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
Client Intake & Records Manager