Matter management and compliance workflows for law firms, legal service providers, and in-house teams.
Screenshots
The sun and moon switch a screen between light and dark, and a click opens it full size.
See all 77 screens in the product tourEach one is purpose-built for legal operations rather than a generic template. They are set out in full below.
Manage cases, documents, deadlines, and billing from a single platform built for UK law firms and legal service providers.
Fee earners waste hours each week hunting for case details spread across disconnected tools. Key documents go missing, deadline reminders are manual, and management has no real-time view of work-in-progress, putting SRA compliance and client service at risk.
Fragmented case information
Matter details live in email threads, local folders, and outdated spreadsheets, making it impossible to get a single source of truth.
Manual deadline tracking
Court deadlines and limitation dates are managed in diaries or calendar entries that are easily missed when workloads peak.
Poor visibility for partners
Partners and practice managers rely on ad-hoc status updates rather than live dashboards, limiting capacity planning.
SRA audit exposure
Without a structured audit trail, demonstrating compliance with SRA Accounts Rules and file-management standards is time-consuming.
Unified matter workspace
Every document, note, time entry, and communication linked to a single matter record accessible by the whole team.
Automated deadline alerts
CPR limitation dates, hearing dates, and internal milestones trigger escalating reminders so nothing is overlooked.
Live WIP dashboards
Real-time views of matter status, fee earner utilisation, and unbilled time give partners instant oversight.
Full audit trail
Every action is timestamped and attributed, providing a record for SRA inspections and client audits.
Configurable workflows
Build matter-type templates (conveyancing, litigation, corporate) with stage gates, checklists, and approval steps.
A new matter record is created from a template, pre-populating key dates, checklists, and document folders.
Fee earners log time, upload documents, and advance the matter through defined workflow stages.
Dashboards surface overdue tasks and approaching deadlines; automated alerts escalate to supervisors.
Matters are closed with a compliance checklist, final bill generated, and files archived per retention policy.
Less
Admin time
Fee earners reclaim hours previously spent searching for documents and chasing updates.
Earlier
Deadline warnings
Automated alerts and escalation put limitation dates and court filing deadlines in front of the right person well before they fall due.
Faster
Reporting
Partners generate practice performance reports in minutes instead of waiting for end-of-month spreadsheets.
Automate CPR limitation dates, court filing windows, and regulatory deadlines so your fee earners can focus on casework, not calendars.
Relying on manual diary entries and spreadsheet reminders for court deadlines is a professional negligence claim waiting to happen. When fee earners juggle dozens of active matters, critical dates slip through the cracks, exposing the firm to claims, costs orders, and reputational damage.
Manual diary management
Fee earners maintain their own calendars with no centralised oversight, creating blind spots for supervisors.
CPR calculation errors
Manually computing limitation periods under the Civil Procedure Rules is error-prone, especially for complex multi-party claims.
No escalation mechanism
When a fee earner is absent or overloaded, approaching deadlines have no automatic failsafe to alert a colleague or supervisor.
Auto-calculated deadlines
Enter the cause of action date and SwiftCase computes limitation periods, CPR response windows, and appeal deadlines automatically.
Escalating reminders
Multi-tier alerts notify the fee earner, then their supervisor, then the practice manager as deadlines approach.
Centralised deadline dashboard
A firm-wide calendar view shows every upcoming deadline, filterable by team, matter type, or fee earner.
Compliance audit log
Every deadline creation, acknowledgement, and completion is logged, providing evidence for PI insurers and SRA reviews.
When a matter is opened or a court order received, key dates are calculated and recorded automatically.
Escalating notifications fire at configurable intervals, e.g. 28 days, 14 days, 7 days, and 1 day before.
The assigned fee earner confirms they have actioned the deadline, updating the audit trail.
If the deadline is not acknowledged, automatic escalation routes it to a supervisor or head of department.
Once the task is filed or submitted, the deadline is marked complete with a timestamped record.
Earlier
Deadline escalation
Automated multi-tier escalation puts a CPR date or filing window in front of a supervisor if the fee earner has not acted.
Less
Admin overhead
Cutting manual diary reconciliation frees fee earners to focus on billable work.
Full
Audit coverage
Full traceability gives professional indemnity insurers and SRA file reviewers the record they ask for.
Auto-populate contracts, witness statements, court forms, and client letters from your matter data, cutting copy-paste errors and drafting time.
Fee earners spend hours copying client details into Word templates, adjusting formatting, and cross-referencing case data. A single transposition error in a court form can delay proceedings, while inconsistent branding across letters undermines the firm's professional image.
Copy-paste errors
Manually transferring client names, addresses, and case references between systems leads to embarrassing and sometimes costly mistakes.
Inconsistent formatting
Different fee earners produce documents with varying styles, undermining the firm's professional appearance.
Slow turnaround
Drafting routine letters and forms from scratch delays client communication and slows matter progression.
Version control issues
Multiple versions of templates circulate on shared drives, making it unclear which is the current approved version.
Merge-field templates
Build templates with dynamic fields that auto-populate from matter data: client name, address, court reference, and more.
Clause library
Maintain a centralised library of approved clauses that fee earners can insert with a click, ensuring consistency.
One-click generation
Select a template, confirm the matter, and generate a fully formatted document ready for review and signature.
Centralised template management
Administrators control the master template library, versioning updates and retiring outdated documents.
Finished PDF output
Generate finished PDFs for distribution and court filing, filed on the matter as they are made.
The fee earner chooses from the approved template library, e.g. client care letter, witness statement, N1 claim form.
SwiftCase merges matter data into the template, filling client details, dates, references, and relevant clauses.
The generated document opens for review; the fee earner can make bespoke amendments before finalising.
The final document is saved to the matter record and sent to the client or filed with the court.
Faster
Drafting
Routine documents are generated from the matter data in moments, ready for review.
Fewer
Data-entry errors
Merge fields pull directly from the matter record, cutting manual transcription mistakes.
Consistent
Branding
Every document follows the firm's approved formatting, headers, and clause library.
Collate hearing bundles from the matter record in minutes, merging the documents you pick into a single PDF in the order you choose.
Preparing court bundles is one of the most time-consuming tasks in litigation. Paralegals spend days collating documents, creating indexes, adding pagination, and ensuring CPR compliance, only to repeat the process when new evidence is disclosed. Late or incorrectly formatted bundles risk costs orders and judicial criticism.
Hours of manual collation
Gathering documents from multiple sources, ordering them chronologically, and inserting section dividers is tedious and error-prone.
Pagination nightmares
Adding continuous page numbers across hundreds of documents manually leads to errors that undermine the bundle's usability.
Last-minute amendments
Late disclosure or additional witness evidence means rebuilding the index and re-paginating the entire bundle.
Point-and-click assembly
Select documents from the matter record in the order they should appear in the bundle.
Single PDF output
The selected documents are merged into one PDF, saved back to the matter with the file name you give it.
Password protection
Lock the merged bundle with a password before it leaves the firm, where the recipient needs that.
Quick rebuild
Add or remove a document and run the merge again to regenerate the full bundle.
Choose relevant documents from the matter record and assign them to bundle sections (e.g. Pleadings, Witness Evidence, Correspondence).
Order documents within each section, add descriptions, and flag any documents requiring redaction.
SwiftCase merges the selected documents into one PDF in the order chosen, with a password if needed.
The assembled bundle is reviewed, approved, and either e-filed or printed for the court and opposing parties.
Less
Paralegal time
Collating a bundle takes a fraction of the paralegal time that manual assembly needs.
Single
Bundle PDF
The documents you pick are merged into one PDF in your chosen order, ready to review and file.
Faster
Rebuilds
A late addition means running the merge again with the extra document included.
Issue, track, and enforce litigation hold notices across your organisation, ensuring relevant data is preserved and defensible deletion policies are paused on time.
When litigation is anticipated, organisations must preserve all potentially relevant documents and data. Without a structured process, hold notices are issued inconsistently, custodians ignore reminders, and routine data-deletion schedules destroy critical evidence, exposing the organisation to spoliation claims and adverse inferences.
Inconsistent issuance
Hold notices are sent via ad-hoc emails with no confirmation of receipt, leaving gaps in the preservation chain.
Custodian non-compliance
Employees forget or ignore hold obligations because there is no follow-up mechanism or escalation process.
No release process
Holds remain active long after matters close because no one tracks which holds are still necessary, increasing storage costs.
Automated hold issuance
Generate and distribute hold notices to custodians with a single action, capturing acknowledgement receipts automatically.
Custodian tracking
Monitor which custodians have acknowledged, which are overdue, and escalate non-responders to their line manager.
Periodic reminders
Automated reminder cycles ensure custodians reaffirm their preservation obligations at regular intervals.
Hold release workflow
When a matter concludes, release notices are issued and documented, allowing normal retention policies to resume.
When litigation is anticipated, the legal team creates a hold record linked to the matter and defines the custodian list.
Hold notices are generated from a template and distributed to all custodians, with acknowledgement tracking enabled.
Dashboards show acknowledgement status; automated reminders chase non-responders and escalate as needed.
Once the matter is resolved, release notices are issued and the hold is archived with a full audit trail.
Tracked
Acknowledgements
Automated reminders and escalation chase each custodian until they confirm receipt of the litigation hold notice.
Less
Admin effort
Legal teams spend less time chasing custodian responses by hand.
Lower
Spoliation risk
Structured hold management guards against accidental destruction of relevant evidence.
Capture enquiries, run conflict checks, track ID verification, and open matters automatically, so onboarding stops taking days.
Prospective clients expect a fast, professional response. When intake relies on emailed forms, manual conflict checks, and paper-based ID verification, it takes days to onboard a new client, by which time they may have instructed a competitor. Firms also risk AML and sanctions non-compliance when checks are performed inconsistently.
Slow response times
Enquiries sit in shared inboxes for hours or days before a fee earner picks them up.
Manual conflict checks
Searching previous matters for conflicts is done by memory or keyword search, missing subtle connections.
Paper-based ID verification
Clients are asked to bring physical documents to the office, adding friction and delaying instruction.
Inconsistent AML screening
Without a standardised process, some clients are screened thoroughly while others slip through with minimal checks.
Digital intake forms
Online forms on your website pass client details, matter type, and supporting documents into SwiftCase through its API, at any hour.
Automated conflict search
New client and party names are automatically checked against your entire matter history for potential conflicts.
ID verification tracking
Each ID and AML check is recorded on the matter, or your eKYC provider is connected through the API so its results land there automatically.
Automated matter opening
Once intake is approved, a new matter record is created with pre-populated data, assigned to a fee earner, and a client care letter is generated.
The prospective client completes a digital intake form on the firm's website or is guided through it by a receptionist.
SwiftCase runs the conflict search and sets the AML, sanctions, and ID checks as tasks, recording each result on the matter.
A fee earner reviews the intake summary, resolves any flagged conflicts, and approves onboarding.
An approved intake triggers automatic matter creation, document generation, and task assignment.
Faster
Onboarding
Clients move from enquiry to instructed sooner, which helps conversion.
Standard
AML screening
Each client goes through the same anti-money-laundering steps, set as a mandatory stage in the workflow.
Less
Admin
Reception and secretarial staff spend less time on intake paperwork, freeing capacity for other tasks.
Search your entire matter history for potential conflicts of interest quickly, helping protect your firm from SRA breaches and professional embarrassment.
SRA rules require firms to identify and manage conflicts of interest before acting. When this relies on memory, keyword searches across disparate systems, or asking around the office, subtle conflicts are missed, exposing the firm to regulatory action, negligence claims, and the cost of disengaging from a matter mid-stream.
Incomplete searches
Keyword searches miss name variations, associated companies, and historical connections buried in closed files.
Slow turnaround
Manual conflict checks delay intake and frustrate prospective clients waiting for a response.
No audit trail
Verbal checks and email confirmations leave no defensible record for SRA inspections.
Name and entity search
Search client, party, and associated-entity names across the firm's records in one go.
Full matter-history search
Every client, party, and associated contact across all matters (open and closed) is included in the conflict search.
Conflict flagging & resolution
Potential conflicts are flagged with context, and the supervising partner records their resolution decision in the system.
SRA-ready audit trail
Every search, result, and resolution decision is logged with timestamps, providing a defensible record for regulatory review.
Enter the prospective client name, opposing party, and any associated entities to trigger the conflict search.
The system returns a list of potential matches with matter context, highlighting the nature of any connection.
The supervising partner reviews each flag, records their decision (no conflict, waivable conflict, or absolute bar), and signs off.
If cleared, the intake continues; if an absolute conflict exists, the prospective client is declined with a documented reason.
Faster
Conflict searches
Conflict checks that took hours of manual research run as a single search.
More
Conflicts caught
Full-history searches surface conflicts that manual methods miss.
Logged
Conflict decisions
Each conflict check and resolution is recorded, ready for SRA file review.
Manage means assessments, LAA reporting, and cost limitations from a single platform, ensuring compliance with Legal Aid Agency rules while maximising recoverability.
Firms undertaking legal aid work face stringent rules from the Legal Aid Agency on eligibility, cost limits, reporting, and billing. Manual processes lead to rejected claims, overspend on non-recoverable work, and failed LAA audits that put contracts at risk.
Means-test complexity
Assessing client eligibility across different scheme types is error-prone when done manually, leading to rejected applications.
Cost limitation risks
Fee earners exceed authorised cost limits without realising, resulting in unrecoverable work and financial losses.
LAA reporting burden
Preparing CCMS submissions and audit returns manually consumes hours that could be spent on casework.
Contract compliance gaps
Failing to meet LAA contract KPIs (such as timeliness and outcome recording) puts the firm's legal aid franchise at risk.
Means-test calculator
Built-in eligibility calculators guide fee earners through financial assessments, reducing rejection rates.
Cost-limit tracking
Real-time cost tracking alerts fee earners as they approach authorised spend limits, preventing unrecoverable overspend.
LAA reporting automation
Produce the data for CCMS submissions and audit returns from case data with minimal manual intervention.
Contract KPI dashboards
Monitor key performance indicators (outcome recording, timeliness, peer-review grades) in real time.
Audit-ready file management
Structured case records with mandatory fields ensure every file meets LAA peer-review and audit standards.
The fee earner runs the means-test calculator using the client's financial details to confirm legal aid eligibility.
SwiftCase prepares the data for the CCMS application from the case, reducing form-filling and improving accuracy.
Time and disbursements are tracked against the authorised cost limit, with alerts as thresholds approach.
At case conclusion, outcome data and cost claims are prepared for submission to the LAA in the required format.
Fewer
Claim rejections
Structured eligibility checks and accurate cost recording cut LAA claim rejections.
Less
Reporting time
Audit returns and CCMS data produced from the case free supervisors from hours of manual collation.
Earlier
Cost-limit warnings
Real-time spend alerts warn fee earners before they exceed authorised cost limits.
From initial instruction through medical evidence, settlement negotiation, and costs recovery: automate every stage of your personal injury caseload.
Personal injury firms handle hundreds of active cases simultaneously, each with its own medical appointments, expert reports, limitation dates, and portal submissions. Without automation, fee earners drown in admin, cases stall, and the firm's cost-to-income ratio deteriorates.
Portal submission delays
Manually preparing and submitting claims via the MOJ Claims Portal is slow and error-prone, causing unnecessary delays.
Medical evidence bottlenecks
Chasing medical agencies, tracking appointment dates, and managing report timelines is a constant administrative burden.
Settlement tracking gaps
Without structured workflows, Part 36 offers and settlement windows are missed, costing clients and the firm.
High caseload per fee earner
Fee earners each carry a heavy caseload, making it impossible to stay on top of every action without system support.
Stage-gated case progression
Cases move through defined stages (instruction, medical, negotiation, settlement, costs) with mandatory actions at each gate.
Portal tracking
Prepare the data for MOJ Claims Portal submissions from the case record and track each claim through the portal stages, reducing re-keying.
Medical evidence tracker
Track medical agency instructions, appointment dates, report receipt, and any follow-up actions from a single dashboard.
Settlement & Part 36 management
Record offers made and received and track each acceptance window, with alerts before it closes.
Caseload analytics
Dashboards show case volumes by stage, average settlement times, and fee earner performance metrics.
New instructions are captured, triaged by claim type and value, and assigned to the appropriate fee earner.
Medical agency instructed, liability investigated, and all evidence collated against the case record.
Part 36 offers tracked, settlement negotiations managed, and approval workflows ensure proper authority levels.
Settlement executed, costs schedule prepared, and the case is closed with a comprehensive audit trail.
Faster
Settlements
Automated stage progression and deadline tracking shorten the path from instruction to settlement.
More
Cases per fee earner
Workflow automation lets each fee earner manage more cases without sacrificing quality.
Higher
Costs recovery
Structured Part 36 tracking and costs management help the firm recover more of its costs.
Centralise regulatory obligations, automate compliance checks, and maintain audit-ready records, giving your COLP and COFA confidence that nothing is being missed.
The SRA Standards and Regulations place extensive obligations on law firms, from client account management to complaints handling and ongoing competence. COLPs and COFAs shoulder enormous personal risk, yet most firms still track compliance in spreadsheets and rely on annual reviews rather than continuous monitoring.
Spreadsheet-based compliance registers
Regulatory obligations tracked in static spreadsheets quickly become outdated and fail to provide real-time assurance.
Reactive rather than proactive
Compliance issues are discovered during annual reviews or SRA visits rather than caught and resolved in real time.
Personal risk for COLP and COFA
Compliance officers bear personal regulatory risk but lack the tools to monitor obligations across the firm effectively.
Inconsistent complaints handling
Without a structured process, complaints are handled differently by each partner, risking SRA reporting breaches.
Compliance obligation register
A centralised, living register of all SRA obligations, each with an owner, review date, and evidence requirements.
Breach & incident logging
Log compliance breaches and near-misses with root-cause analysis and remediation tracking to satisfy SRA reporting obligations.
Complaints workflow
A structured complaints-handling process with acknowledgement deadlines, investigation steps, and outcome recording.
COLP / COFA dashboards
Real-time dashboards give compliance officers a single view of outstanding obligations, open breaches, and upcoming review dates.
Policy & training tracker
Track firm-wide policies, staff training records, and CPD compliance to demonstrate ongoing competence.
All SRA regulatory obligations are documented in the register with assigned owners, review frequencies, and evidence requirements.
Dashboards surface overdue reviews, open breaches, and approaching deadlines in real time for the COLP and COFA.
Compliance breaches and complaints are logged, investigated, and remediated through structured workflows.
Generate compliance reports for the management board, SRA returns, and professional indemnity insurers from live data.
Periodic reviews update the obligation register, capture lessons learned, and strengthen the firm's compliance posture.
Full
Obligation visibility
Each SRA obligation has an owner, a review date, and documented evidence.
Faster
Breach resolution
Structured incident workflows move each breach through investigation and remediation without anyone having to chase it.
Earlier
Reporting reminders
Automated reminders and dashboards put SRA reporting deadlines in front of the COLP and COFA in good time.
Tell us the one process causing the most pain and we will tell you whether it fits a 30-day pilot, and what the scope and fixed price would be.
