New CounselLink Feature Brings Intake Requests Into The Matter Management Fold
The new tool introduced by LexisNexis allows non-legal users to submit legal requests directly into CounselLink.
December 05, 2017 at 11:00 AM
6 minute read
Although corporate legal departments are known within the legal community as leaders and drivers of technology and innovation, that reputation doesn't carry so well into the business sector. After all, in many instances, connecting a matter to the legal department is still a fairly low-tech process.
“Managing those requests can be an inefficient, manual process, consisting mostly of email, spreadsheets, and even paper forms,” says Aaron Pierce, director of product management for LexisNexis' enterprise legal management platform CounselLink. “Most legal departments we talked to were managing these types of requests via a mixture of email, SharePoint, spreadsheets, etc.”
In an effort to bring this process into the 21st century, CounselLink released an update including a new “legal request” feature, allowing the business division to automatically funnel legal concerns to the legal department.
Here's a look at the new tool:
Who it serves: Even if your in-house team is still actually using paper forms to manage requests, it's probably time for an upgrade, whether to CounselLink's tool or another. Pierce said CounselLink's tool is especially useful for companies with high volume needs for legal review because the tool integrates with the platform's analytics features and is particularly useful for managing and prioritizing legal requests from multiple sources.
How it works: The tool is essentially a way for the business side of an operation to access and input information to CounselLink without having to actually use the platform. Legal departments can customize the information they need in legal requests, and then that information comes through to the legal department in CounselLink to be assigned and dealt with.
“Multi-step approvals, re-routing of requests, automatic assignment to specific individuals, and communication back to the original requester are all supported,” Pierce said of the tool, adding that the information drawn from the tool can also easily be set up to start a full matter.
Where analytics come in: Sending over new requests from outside the legal department isn't much good without the ability to keep track of what they are, where they need to be, and how much work has been done on them. “The legal request feature in CounselLink provides analytics directly within the application to easily report on the number of requests in flight, who is working on them, how long it is taking to complete tasks and more,” Pierce explained.
Where it stands relative to its peers: CounselLink sits in a fairly crowded field of ELM tools, among them tools like Serengeti, a Thomson Reuters product, and TyMetrix 360, a Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions product. Recent data from the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) finds that, at least where e-billing is concerned, CounselLink is used by less than 8 percent of in-house tools.
That said, few in-house departments plan to use any ELM system “out of the box.” The addition of this feature could be the thing that makes CounselLink seem like the best base platform to work from.
Although corporate legal departments are known within the legal community as leaders and drivers of technology and innovation, that reputation doesn't carry so well into the business sector. After all, in many instances, connecting a matter to the legal department is still a fairly low-tech process.
“Managing those requests can be an inefficient, manual process, consisting mostly of email, spreadsheets, and even paper forms,” says Aaron Pierce, director of product management for
In an effort to bring this process into the 21st century, CounselLink released an update including a new “legal request” feature, allowing the business division to automatically funnel legal concerns to the legal department.
Here's a look at the new tool:
Who it serves: Even if your in-house team is still actually using paper forms to manage requests, it's probably time for an upgrade, whether to CounselLink's tool or another. Pierce said CounselLink's tool is especially useful for companies with high volume needs for legal review because the tool integrates with the platform's analytics features and is particularly useful for managing and prioritizing legal requests from multiple sources.
How it works: The tool is essentially a way for the business side of an operation to access and input information to CounselLink without having to actually use the platform. Legal departments can customize the information they need in legal requests, and then that information comes through to the legal department in CounselLink to be assigned and dealt with.
“Multi-step approvals, re-routing of requests, automatic assignment to specific individuals, and communication back to the original requester are all supported,” Pierce said of the tool, adding that the information drawn from the tool can also easily be set up to start a full matter.
Where analytics come in: Sending over new requests from outside the legal department isn't much good without the ability to keep track of what they are, where they need to be, and how much work has been done on them. “The legal request feature in CounselLink provides analytics directly within the application to easily report on the number of requests in flight, who is working on them, how long it is taking to complete tasks and more,” Pierce explained.
Where it stands relative to its peers: CounselLink sits in a fairly crowded field of ELM tools, among them tools like Serengeti, a Thomson Reuters product, and TyMetrix 360, a Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions product. Recent data from the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) finds that, at least where e-billing is concerned, CounselLink is used by less than 8 percent of in-house tools.
That said, few in-house departments plan to use any ELM system “out of the box.” The addition of this feature could be the thing that makes CounselLink seem like the best base platform to work from.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250