Knowing where every matter stands without asking anyone
The situation
In a small practice, where each matter stands lives in email threads and in people’s heads. A partner who wants the picture has to ask around.
A matter that has gone quiet stays hidden until a client chases it. By then, the silence has usually been the firm’s.
Why it is hard
The facts are in email, not in a system anyone keeps up to date. Asking busy lawyers to update a tracker by hand fails within weeks.
- Silence alone is not the problem. A matter waiting on the other side is fine, and one waiting on the firm is not.
- Who owes the next move is the fact that matters, and no email subject line says it.
- A summary written by software can be wrong and sound certain. Every claim has to be checkable against the email it came from.
- The same matter arrives under different names in different threads, and a wrong merge is worse than a duplicate.
The approach
We built a tracker that reads the email instead of asking people to type. Lawyers copy or forward threads to one shared mailbox, and the tracker reads it every few minutes.
- A language model reads each thread and fills in the matter. It records the stage, who owes the next move, and each open item with its owner.
- It must quote the latest message word for word. The code checks the quote really appears in the email, and shows any that fail.
- It re-reads a thread only when the thread changes, and then only the new messages.
- Possible duplicates are flagged by how alike the names and clients are. A person confirms every merge.
- Access to the mailbox is read-only. The tracker never sends anything to anyone.
- Deals move through scoping, drafting, negotiating and signing. Who owes the next move is the firm, the client, the other side or nobody.
There are three views: by matter, by person, and a list of what to follow up. Every line on that list says why it is there.
A matter is listed when the next move is the firm’s and it has been silent for 14 days. It is also listed after 21 days of silence, whoever owes the move.
An urgent item is listed after 14 days too. People can correct the stage, who owes the move and the client, and tick items done.
A worked example
This is a synthetic practice with 24 open matters, run through the same rule. Eight of them show how it decides.
| Matter | Stage | Next move owed by | Days silent | Urgent item | Listed | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matter B | Drafting | Us | 16 | No | Yes | 16 days silent, and the next move is ours |
| Matter D | Negotiating | Other side | 24 | No | Yes | 24 days silent |
| Matter G | Signing | Nobody | 30 | No | Yes | 30 days silent |
| Matter H | Negotiating | Other side | 15 | Yes | Yes | urgent item, 15 days silent |
| Matter K | Negotiating | Nobody | 19 | No | No | quiet, but the next move is not ours |
| Matter P | Drafting | Other side | 17 | No | No | quiet, but the next move is not ours |
| Matter S | Negotiating | Nobody | 14 | Yes | Yes | urgent item, 14 days silent |
| Matter C | Drafting | Nobody | 9 | Yes | No | recent |
Silence is not enough on its own. Here, two matters silent for two weeks stay off the list, because someone else owes the next move.
A matter waiting on the firm is listed sooner. That is the one a client will chase.
The rule lists seven of the 24 matters today, each with its reason. Nobody had to ask anyone.
Where it breaks
- It sees only what is forwarded to the mailbox. A matter handled by phone is invisible to it.
- It reads the conversation, not the attachments. A changed draft shows up only if someone mentions it.
- A ticked item can come back if the model words it differently on the next read.
- The same person can appear under two names, which splits the view by person.
- Reading stops for the day at a spending cap. On a busy day, the view can fall a few hours behind.
If you find out where work stands by asking, start by recording who owes the next move on each matter.