How do I set up a matter management system for secure legal requests, conflict checks, and routing to counsel?

Here’s a practical way to set up a matter management system for secure legal requests, conflict checks, and routing to counsel.

1) Define the intake workflow

Start with a clear front door for every legal request.

Typical intake stages:

1. Request submission
2. Automated triage
3. Conflict check
4. Matter creation
5. Assignment / routing
6. Work in progress
7. Closure and retention

Goal: every request follows the same path, with no side-channel emails or ad hoc approvals.

---

2) Standardize the intake form

Create a secure intake form that captures the minimum necessary information.

Recommended fields:

• Requestor name, department, and contact info
• Business unit / entity
• Request type
• Summary of issue
• Key counterparties / opposing parties
• Jurisdictions involved
• Relevant dates / deadlines
• Amount in dispute or business impact
• Existing related matters
• Confidentiality / sensitivity flag
• Attachment upload
• Preferred counsel, if any
• Urgency level

Good practice: use conditional logic so the form expands based on request type, rather than overwhelming users.

---

3) Build security into the intake channel

Because legal requests can contain privileged or sensitive data, security should be part of the design.

Use:

• SSO / MFA for internal users
• Role-based access control
• Encryption in transit and at rest
• Audit logging
• Restricted attachment handling
• Separate access for legal, admin, and business users

Also consider:

• Limiting who can view matter details by region, business unit, or need-to-know
• Redacting sensitive fields from general users
• Time-limited external access for outside counsel

---

4) Create a conflict-check process

Conflict checks should happen before anyone starts substantive work.

Conflict check inputs:

• Parties and affiliates
• Opposing counsel
• Related entities
• Key individuals
• Matter type
• Jurisdictions
• Historical matters and prior representations

Workflow:

1. Intake form submitted
2. System normalizes names/entities
3. System searches against:
   • current matters
   • closed matters
   • client / counterparty database
   • outside counsel records
4. Potential match is flagged
5. Legal ops or ethics counsel reviews
6. Matter is approved, declined, or escalated

Best practice: use entity resolution and alias matching so “ABC Inc.”, “A.B.C. Incorporated,” and parent/subsidiary relationships are caught.

---

5) Set routing rules for counsel assignment

Use a rules-based engine to route matters automatically, with manual override for exceptions.

Routing criteria may include:

• Matter type: employment, litigation, IP, privacy, commercial, regulatory
• Jurisdiction / country / state
• Language requirements
• Spend threshold
• Business unit
• Sensitivity level
• Required expertise
• Existing relationship with outside counsel

Example routing logic:

• Employment matters in EU → privacy/employment counsel team
• Litigation in California over threshold amount → designated litigation partner
• Low-risk NDAs → contract/legal ops queue
• Cross-border regulatory matters → regional lead counsel + specialist review

Add SLAs:

• High urgency: triage within 2 hours
• Standard: 1 business day
• Routine: 3 business days

---

6) Design the matter record

Each matter should have a structured record, not just a folder of files.

Core matter fields:

• Matter ID
• Matter type and subtype
• Requestor
• Client/entity
• Status
• Assigned counsel
• Open/close dates
• Conflict status
• Budget / billing status
• Outside counsel
• Related matters
• Key documents
• Tasks / deadlines
• Notes / privileged communications

Why it matters: structured data makes reporting, search, and compliance much easier.

---

7) Separate intake from substantive work

Don’t let intake forms become the same place where sensitive legal strategy is discussed.

Recommended separation:

• Intake portal: brief request details, attachments, approvals
• Matter workspace: privileged work product, legal analysis, task tracking
• Document repository: controlled access and retention rules

This reduces leakage and makes access control cleaner.

---

8) Add approval gates

For higher-risk matters, require approvals before routing or spending begins.

Possible gates:

• Conflict clearance
• Budget approval
• Engagement letter approval
• Outside counsel approval
• Data privacy review
• Executive sign-off for high-value matters

Example: If estimated spend exceeds a threshold, the system routes to legal leadership and finance before counsel assignment is finalized.

---

9) Implement outside counsel onboarding

If external counsel will be involved, include a vendor-style onboarding workflow.

Capture:

• Firm name and contacts
• Engagement scope
• Billing rates
• Billing guidelines acknowledgment
• Tax and payment information
• Security requirements
• Matter-specific access permissions

Integration tips:

• Sync with e-billing systems if you use them
• Track approved rates and budgets by matter
• Require acceptance of confidentiality and data processing terms

---

10) Build reporting and dashboards

A matter management system is most useful when it gives visibility into workload and risk.

Useful dashboards:

• Open matters by type, region, and business unit
• Conflict check volume and turnaround time
• Matter aging
• High-risk matters
• Counsel assignment distribution
• Spend vs budget
• SLAs met / missed
• Matter closure rates

This helps with: resource planning, compliance, and executive reporting.

---

11) Define retention and legal hold rules

Legal data often needs special retention handling.

Set policies for:

• Matter closure criteria
• Document retention periods
• Legal holds
• Deletion / archival workflows
• Record ownership after closure

Make sure the system can preserve relevant materials when litigation hold is triggered.

---

12) Choose the right platform approach

You can build this in several ways depending on scale.

Option A: Configure an enterprise platform

Best if you already use tools like ServiceNow, SharePoint, Salesforce, or a legal-specific matter system.

Pros: faster deployment, governance, integrations
Cons: may need customization for conflict logic

Option B: Legal-specific matter management software

Best for larger legal teams with higher complexity.

Pros: built-in workflows, e-billing, matter visibility
Cons: cost, implementation effort

Option C: Custom workflow application

Best if your routing/conflict rules are highly specialized.

Pros: flexibility
Cons: more maintenance and security responsibility

---

13) Recommended architecture

A practical architecture looks like this:

• Front end: secure intake portal
• Workflow engine: triage, approvals, routing
• Conflicts database/search: entity matching and history
• Matter repository: structured matter data and documents
• Access control layer: role-based permissions
• Reporting layer: dashboards and exports
• Integrations: HR, ERP, e-billing, identity, document management

---

14) Governance and ownership

Assign clear owners from the start.

Typical roles:

• Legal ops: process owner, reporting, system admin
• Ethics/conflicts counsel: conflict rules and escalations
• IT/security: access, encryption, integration
• Practice leads: routing rules by specialty
• Finance: budgets and spend approvals
• Records management: retention and holds

---

15) Rollout plan

A phased implementation works best.

Phase 1:

• Intake form
• Basic routing
• Manual conflict review
• Matter creation

Phase 2:

• Automated conflict checking
• Counsel assignment rules
• Approval workflows
• Dashboards

Phase 3:

• E-billing integration
• Advanced analytics
• Entity resolution
• Legal hold automation

---

16) Key controls to avoid problems

Make sure the system does these things well:

• Prevents requests from bypassing intake
• Logs every access and change
• Separates privileged content from general visibility
• Flags conflicts before assignment
• Tracks approvals and exceptions
• Provides a complete audit trail

---

Example end-to-end flow

1. Business user submits a secure request
2. System checks required fields and urgency
3. Entity names are normalized
4. Conflict engine searches historical and active matters
5. If clear, matter is created
6. Rules assign to appropriate counsel
7. If thresholds are exceeded, approvals are requested
8. Work begins in a controlled workspace
9. Matter is closed and archived under retention policy

---

If you want, I can also provide:

1. a sample intake form,
2. a routing rules matrix, or
3. a system architecture diagram in text form.