Choose legal case management software by tracing a fictional matter from its client record to assigned work, controlled access and an explainable handover. Define who may see each part of the matter and who verifies a deadline before testing reminders. A restricted matter screen is useful evidence, but it does not establish that every reporting or billing route hides the same information.
Begin with the firm’s own matter-opening and responsibility rules. Identify the client, the person responsible for the matter and the work that someone must perform next. Then translate those decisions into a demonstration using invented names and documents. The exercise should reveal configuration gaps without exposing actual client information.
What should the matter record identify?
Clio Manage provides one documented example. A matter must attach to a contact, either an existing record or a new contact created before saving. Its matter form distinguishes the responsible lawyer from the originating lawyer and includes a responsible-staff field for matter-related tasks. Those distinctions help the evaluator ask who is accountable, who brought the work in and who will perform supporting work. Create Matters.
Keep client identity separate from other relationships. Clio describes related contacts as people connected to a matter but not represented by the firm, such as opposing counsel or witnesses. Ask the demonstrator to show the fictional client’s record and a related contact without treating both as clients merely because both appear on the matter. Clio matter contacts.
A useful opening record should also identify the firm’s own reference and the next accountable action. Decide which information belongs in structured fields and which belongs in supporting documents. For the broader document lifecycle, use the separate document management guide; this exercise focuses on the matter, its responsibilities and access boundaries.
Which access controls need separate examination?
Clio’s dedicated permissions guide says matters are visible to all firm users by default. Selecting specific users or groups limits access to the selected people. The same guide says matter permissions and rates cannot be set in Clio Grow. Establish which product the demonstration uses before accepting an access-control explanation. Matter Permissions and Rates.
Distinguish ordinary matter access from administrative actions. The dedicated guide describes setting permissions when creating or editing a matter, while its bulk viewing and permission-update functions are administrator actions. The creation guide also notes that role permissions can restrict creating, editing or viewing matters. Test the actual role combination rather than interpreting a general instruction as unlimited authority for every account. Permissions guide, creation guide.
The decisive exception is that users without matter access may still see its bills through billing or accounts permissions, or matter details through reporting permissions. An access test must therefore examine those routes too. A hidden matter in the ordinary list is not sufficient evidence that its information is unavailable elsewhere. Clio access exceptions.
Original permissions checklist: a reassigned fictional matter
Create an invented matter with a fictional client, a related contact and a harmless sample document. Assign a responsible lawyer and supporting staff member. The exercise then changes responsibility while a colleague is deliberately excluded from the matter.
Use this checklist to agree expected behaviour before running the demonstration. The expectations are a proposed firm-specific test, not a claim about a configuration already examined.
| Test route | Person to use | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Matter list and direct matter opening | Ordinary permitted user | Matter reference and observed access |
| Matter document route | Permitted and excluded users | Which document each account can actually reach |
| Billing or accounts route | Account with the relevant permissions | Whether matter information remains visible there |
| Report route | Account with reporting permission | Which matter details appear in output |
| Group access after an explicit block | Blocked member of an allowed group | Result of the conflicting access conditions |
| Reassigned responsibility | New responsible person | Current owner and retained handover record |
Start with the allowed ordinary route, then repeat the relevant attempts with the excluded account. Record the configured permissions and observed result for each. If a report reveals information the firm expected to hide, write down the exact route and field. Do not describe the overall permission test as passed because the main matter screen was inaccessible.
Clio documents that blocking a user overrides group permissions. Test that condition using a fictional group membership, then inspect the result through the relevant routes. Preserve the billing and reporting exception as a separate question; do not assume one blocking rule settles every information path. Blocking users.
How can bulk changes create an unintended access gap?
Clio’s bulk permission edits replace existing permissions. Previously permitted people must be selected again if they are to retain access. Prepare the intended final access set before a bulk change, rather than treating the operation as simply adding another colleague. Bulk matter permissions.
For the fictional reassignment, compare the access list before the change with the proposed final list. Identify who should leave, who should remain and who should join. Then inspect the resulting access and notifications separately. Retaining a person on one list does not explain which work they are responsible for after the reassignment.
The bulk blocking instructions also say a previously blocked user must be selected again to retain the block. Include that condition when preparing the change sheet. A successful save does not establish that earlier exclusions survived the administrator’s selection. Bulk blocking instructions.
What should deadline and task evidence establish?
Use a fictional internal follow-up for the exercise, with its date supplied by the reviewer. Record the source of the date, the person who verified it, the assigned person and what completion should mean. Do not infer a court deadline from a software default or use this planning exercise to calculate a legal time limit.
Clio’s creation guide documents adding task lists when creating a matter, with an optional notification to assignees. That supports a task-assignment demonstration; it does not prove delivery or acknowledgement of a reminder in an unseen account. Ask the recipient to inspect the actual assignment and explain the next action. Matter task lists.
Now reassign the matter while the fictional follow-up remains open. Ask who reviews the date, who acts next and how the previous owner learns the handover is complete. If the software does not demonstrate that continuity, retain it as an implementation requirement rather than letting a changed responsible-person field stand in for the whole handover.
Finish with the matter reference, the access-route results and the deadline-verification record. These show what the proposed configuration still needs to establish. They provide a practical software evaluation, without asserting a legal or regulatory conclusion. See business systems for the wider brief, and bring the fictional checklist when you get started.
By Spout Team. AI-assisted drafting by Codex using the linked Clio publisher documents; independent editorial review remains pending.