A folder of completed checklists
Every quarter, supervisors are asked to review a few files for each fee earner. They pick some matter numbers, open each file, and work through a Word checklist: client care letter sent, ID on file, conflict check recorded, estimate given, key dates in the diary. They type 'yes' or 'no' and a comment, save the document somewhere and move on.
The checklist asks the same questions every time, and half of them could be answered by looking at the system. The actions ('chase ID', 'update estimate') go into an email to the fee earner, and nobody checks later whether they were done.
Why reviews do not find much
Random selection spreads the effort evenly, but risk is not spread evenly. The files most likely to have problems are the dormant ones, the ones with no recent time recorded, matters well over estimate, those handled by new starters, and those with a complaint. Random picks often miss them.
Manual checklists also waste the reviewer's time on facts the system already knows, leaving less time for the judgement questions that only a supervisor can answer.
| Review question | Can the system answer it? |
|---|---|
| Client care letter on file? | Yes, from the document record |
| ID check outcome recorded? | Yes, from the matter's compliance fields |
| Estimate given and current? | Yes, if estimates are recorded as data |
| Is the advice appropriate? | No, this needs the reviewer |
| Is the matter progressing properly? | Partly, from activity; the reviewer judges |
What weak reviews cost
Problems that a review should catch get found later by a client, an insurer or an external audit. Supervisors spend hours on checklists and have little to show for it. The firm has a stack of completed forms but cannot say which issues were found across the firm, or whether they were fixed.
Fee earners often experience reviews as a box-ticking chore, which is a shame, because a good review is one of the more useful things a supervisor can do.
How we build a file review tool
- Risk-weighted selection: the tool proposes files for each fee earner using signals your firm chooses, such as inactivity, time over estimate, open undertakings, missing key documents, recent complaints and fee earner experience, plus a random element.
- Pre-filled facts: for each selected file, the factual checks are answered from your practice management system and document system, with links to the evidence. The reviewer confirms or corrects them.
- Reviewer judgement: the judgement questions are left for the supervisor, with space for comments and a rating your firm defines.
- Actions with owners: each finding can become an action with an owner and a due date. The fee earner sees their actions in one list.
- Follow-up: open actions are chased and shown to the supervisor until closed. Files with serious findings can be scheduled for a second look.
- Firm-wide view: compliance sees themes across all reviews (which checks fail most often, in which teams) rather than a folder of Word documents.
What reviews become
Supervisors spend their review time on the questions that need a supervisor. Selection finds the files most worth looking at. Actions are followed through rather than lost in an email. Your COLP can see patterns and show how reviews lead to changes.
Fee earners get specific, trackable points instead of a form that disappears into a folder.
Check your own reviews
- Files for review are chosen at random or by the fee earner.
- The checklist is a Word document filled in by hand.
- Reviewers answer questions the system could answer.
- Actions from reviews are not tracked to completion.
- Nobody can see themes across all the reviews done this year.