The letter that went out with the wrong name
Every consultancy has one. An invite letter to a meeting, adapted from a previous case, still had the old employee's name in the second paragraph. Or the date of the meeting was right in the heading and wrong in the body. The client spotted it, or worse, the employee's representative did.
It happens because letter drafting is a copy and edit job, done at speed, often late in the day, for several clients at once. Invite letters, adjournment letters, outcome letters, appeal invites, appeal outcomes, suspension letters, return to work letters. The structure repeats. The details do not.
Why letters keep taking so long
- The case details (names, dates, allegations, companion, venue) are held in emails and notes, not in one place the letter can read from.
- Templates exist but live in a folder of Word files that consultants have tweaked over time.
- Allegations are retyped into each letter, with the wording drifting slightly each time.
- Letters go to the client for approval, come back with edits, and the edited version is not always the one sent.
- There is no record against the case of which letters went, when and to whom.
The consultant ends up doing a clerical job with professional consequences, which is the worst combination.
What it is costing
Errors in letters undermine a process your consultancy has otherwise run carefully. Wording that changes between the invite letter and the outcome letter creates arguments about what the allegation actually was. Consultant hours disappear into formatting. And because nobody logs sent letters consistently, checking whether an outcome letter went out is an inbox search.
| Letter | Common slip | How generation prevents it |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting invite | Old name or date left in | All details filled from the case record |
| Adjournment | Original date still referenced | New date replaces old everywhere |
| Outcome | Allegation worded differently | Allegation text reused exactly from the case |
| Appeal invite | Wrong appeal manager named | Manager chosen from the case, checked against the original decision maker |
How we build case letter generation
- Your advisers' letter templates are converted into structured templates with named fields and optional paragraphs, one per letter type and stage.
- Case details are held once on the case record: employee, client, manager, allegations as separate items, dates, venue, companion and any adjustments agreed.
- When the consultant chooses a letter, the draft is generated from the template and the record, in the client's letterhead.
- The consultant edits the draft in Word or in the browser. Any free text they add is kept separate from the approved template wording, so you can see what was changed.
- If the client needs to approve, the draft goes to them through a link and their comments return to the consultant, with one version as the master.
- The final letter is sent or handed to the client to send, and the case record logs the letter, date, method and recipient.
- Simple checks run before sending, such as a meeting date that has already passed or an appeal manager who was also the original decision maker, and are shown as warnings for the consultant to consider.
Letter wording belongs to your advisers. The system fills approved templates and flags obvious inconsistencies. It does not choose what a letter should say about the case.
A normal day, afterwards
Consultants produce a letter in the time it takes to read and adjust it. Names, dates and allegations are consistent from the first letter to the last. Client approvals happen on one version. Anyone looking at the case can see every letter that went out, which also helps if the case later needs a complete file.
Signs your letters need this
- Letters start from 'the last one like this'.
- You have sent a letter with a detail from another case.
- Allegation wording changes from letter to letter.
- Client approval happens over several emailed versions.
- Checking whether a letter was sent means searching someone's inbox.