Independent governance of a practice-management platform migration for a regulated law firm — matter data integrity, retention obligations, and migration risk, assessed before you commit.
You’re considering, or already committed to, moving practice-management systems — Clio, NetDocuments, iManage, Actionstep, or between them. A law firm’s data isn’t ordinary business data: matter records, client confidentiality obligations, and jurisdiction-specific retention rules all attach specific, non-negotiable requirements to how that migration has to run. What most firms don’t have is independent oversight confirming the migration plan actually respects those requirements, rather than the vendor’s own generic playbook.
That is what this engagement is.
€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a presentation to whoever needs to hear it.
Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. No referral relationship with any practice-management vendor.
Why firms commission this before migrating
- A migration is planned or underway, and the managing partners want independent confirmation the plan genuinely protects matter data integrity throughout.
- Retention obligations for closed matters, under the firm’s specific regulatory regime, haven’t been explicitly mapped into the migration plan.
- Client confidentiality and access control requirements need to be verified as genuinely preserved across the migration, not just assumed to carry over.
- The firm has been through a difficult platform migration before and wants this one independently governed from the start.
Who this is for
Managing partners and firm administrators planning or executing a practice-management platform migration who want independent governance over the process.
Regulated law firms where matter data integrity and retention compliance carry professional obligation weight, not just operational convenience.
Who this is not for
Firms wanting the migration itself executed. We govern and verify; the migration work is carried out by the vendor or your chosen implementation partner.
Firms still deciding which platform to move to — that’s Vendor Selection & RFP Governance, the step that precedes this one.
What you receive
The Review gives you independent confirmation the migration plan is sound before you commit, or a clear list of what needs to change before it is. Five artefacts, delivered together, in plain language.
A matter data integrity assessment. Confirmation the migration plan preserves matter records, document history, and audit trail completely and verifiably, not just “in most cases.”
A retention obligation mapping. Closed-matter retention requirements under your specific regulatory regime, checked against how the migration plan actually handles archived data.
An access control and confidentiality verification. Confirmation that client confidentiality walls and access permissions carry over correctly, not just broadly.
A migration risk register. Every material risk in the plan as it stands, ranked by consequence, with what to fix before proceeding.
A partner presentation. A one-hour session with managing partners or the firm’s leadership, findings presented, challenged, and discussed in the room.
How the Review runs
Three to four weeks, in four phases: scoping and plan review, interviews and evidence gathering with the firm’s technology and compliance contacts and the vendor or implementation partner, synthesis and writing, then presentation and revisions ahead of your migration timeline.
Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your partnership that you have not read first.
What this is not
Legal or regulatory advice on retention obligations themselves. We verify the migration plan meets the requirements as you’ve defined them; confirming what those requirements are is a matter for your own compliance or regulatory counsel.
The migration itself. We govern and verify; we do not execute the data migration.
Proof
References available on request.
What happens next
Start a ConversationThirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing against your migration schedule. The earlier this happens relative to the migration date, the more genuinely preventable any issue found actually is.