Law firms are being asked to do something that sounds simple but is operationally hard: deliver more predictable outcomes, with better cost control, while navigating growing complexity across matters, teams, and technology. In this webinar, I walked through how law firms can model common legal workflows into structured, repeatable processes – then reduce operational friction through automation, improve data completeness, and gain real-time oversight through reporting.
I’ve spent the last 20 years in legal technology (I’m a legal technologist by trade, not an attorney), and over the past two years at Workstorm I’ve worked closely with law firms and legal operations leaders to understand what’s breaking down in day-to-day execution. The themes are consistent: too many disconnected systems, too much manual coordination, and not enough visibility to manage risk, budgets, and timelines at scale.
Below is a summary of the key points from the presentation, with practical takeaways for law firms.
Why workflow automation for the legal industry matters right now
Legal has historically moved more cautiously than other industries when adopting new technology. Many firms still rely on deeply entrenched tools and habits because they “work,” even if they’re inefficient. But the environment has changed.
Clients are increasingly applying pressure in two ways:
- They expect firms to adopt AI and modern workflows, not as experimentation, but to demonstrably improve service delivery.
- They are scrutinizing value more than hours. The market is steadily moving away from purely billable-time logic toward outcome-driven expectations – faster execution, fewer preventable errors, more transparency, and better predictability.
If firms want to scale sustainably, they need operational systems that help teams execute consistently.
The biggest operational challenge: disjointed systems and “toggle tax”
Most firms work across a large ecosystem every day: email, document management (DMS), billing, eDiscovery platforms, calendaring, and other specialized tools. Each of those systems may be excellent at what it does, but the problem is that they don’t talk to each other cleanly.
That creates a major administrative burden:
- Information must be copied from one system into another
- Work gets tracked in spreadsheets or ad hoc notes
- Assignments live in email threads
- Status updates are requested repeatedly because no one has a single source of truth
This is what I refer to as the “toggle tax”, which is every time you have to leave one tool to update another, you lose time, focus, and context. That tax increases human error and forces highly skilled legal professionals to spend time on low-value coordination work instead of legal work.
Workstorm’s role: collaboration first, then integration, automation, and reporting
Workstorm was founded by two finance professionals – an industry with similar needs for regulated, secure systems. The platform’s backbone is collaboration, but with a structure designed for regulated environments and the realities of legal work.
A few concepts from the demo are especially relevant for law firms:
- Private-by-default collaboration: Streams (matter dashboards) are designed to support internal and external collaboration while preserving ethical walls and access controls.
- A “best-of-breed” philosophy: Workstorm is not trying to replace your DMS, billing platform, or eDiscovery system. Instead, the focus is to integrate and enhance those systems so teams can work without constantly switching contexts.
- Automation and reporting built on structure: Once workflows are structured, automation becomes possible and reporting becomes meaningful.
Meet attorneys where they are: turning email into structured work
Change management is one of the biggest barriers in any law firm technology initiative. Attorneys are often overwhelmed with tools already, and asking them to adopt “one more system” can fail unless it fits how they already work.
In the demo, I showed how Workstorm integrates with Microsoft so that an email can be converted into a task without the user having to manually recreate context.
For example, an email requesting review of a draft employment agreement can be turned into a task associated with a specific matter (Stream), with:
- The subject and email body captured as the task description (creating a running journal)
- Attachments pulled in automatically
- Required fields applied (phase, deliverable type, work package)
- An assignee set so the task isn’t orphaned
- Notifications sent to the right team member immediately
The goal is simple: reduce friction and prevent work from disappearing into inboxes.
Structured workflows: phases, work packages, and enforceable completeness
A major theme of the presentation was moving away from one-off project tracking (often in spreadsheets) into workflows that are repeatable and role-based.
Within a Stream, tasks can be organized with custom fields that reflect how your practice works such as:
- Phase
- Work package
- Deliverable type
- Priority
- Due dates
- Matter-specific metadata
Importantly, teams can enforce data completeness by making fields required. This is critical: reporting is only as good as the data captured. If firms want reliable oversight, they need workflows that nudge (or require) people to enter the information that turns activity into intelligence.
Workstorm also logs activity at the task and stream level, creating a defensible history of decisions and actions, especially helpful when matters go dormant and later reactivate. Instead of hunting through old email folders (or relying on institutional memory), teams can quickly answer: What happened, when, and why?
Files without breaking permissions: modern attachments and DMS connectivity
Another operational pain point is file sprawl. Documents get duplicated, emailed around, and saved in different places, creating version confusion and security risk.
In the demo, I showed Workstorm’s approach to working with documents across systems like iManage and OneDrive. The intent is to let firms keep documents where they belong (in their DMS or Microsoft environment) while making them easily accessible inside the workflow.
Key points:
- Files can be surfaced in the matter workspace without replacing the underlying repository.
- Existing permissions are respected – Workstorm does not break DMS controls.
- Files can be associated with tasks, chats, or streams so context and content stay connected.
This reduces the “where is the latest version?” problem and limits unnecessary duplication.
Template libraries: accelerating repeatable work
Some legal workflows are highly repeatable. eDiscovery is a perfect example: teams often handle many requests that follow predictable patterns, but still require careful tracking and consistency.
I demonstrated how a task can be created from a template by pulling in:
- Standard descriptions
- Fields specific to the request type (e.g., production volume, processing details)
- Default watchers and assignees (useful for “next person up” coverage models)
- Attached forms or reference documents
Templates don’t just save time. They also standardize execution, reduce missed steps, and create consistent data for reporting.
Stream-level templating: scaling playbooks across matters and clients
Beyond task templates, Workstorm also supports Stream templates so teams can clone an entire workspace structure for a new matter or a specific client pattern.
That matters because firms often need variations on a standard workflow:
- A client with unique data sources
- A repeat litigant with predictable matter patterns
- A practice group with preferred internal steps and checkpoints
By copying a Stream and then adjusting custom fields and assignments, teams can quickly stand up a matter workspace that reflects both firm standards and client-specific needs without reinventing process each time.
Reporting and oversight: from “status meetings” to real-time dashboards
Visibility is where workflow discipline pays off. When tasks, phases, and assignments are structured, firms can build dashboards that answer operational questions immediately:
- Who is overloaded?
- What is overdue or not started?
- Which phase is creating bottlenecks?
- Are we drifting toward timeline or budget risk?
- Where is work happening that may not be billed (or not captured)?
In the webinar, I showed reporting inside a project and the potential to move toward more dynamic reporting across projects and across the broader ecosystem. The key takeaway is that reporting isn’t a separate activity, it becomes a natural output of well-designed workflows.
A pragmatic approach to AI: plug in what you choose, retain what you learn
Most firms are already experimenting with AI and, in many cases, adopting multiple platforms. My perspective is that firms should have flexibility: rather than being locked into a single system’s embedded AI. You should be able to plug AI into the workflow at the task level, whether that’s for review, drafting support, routing, or workflow generation.
Equally important: firms need to retain knowledge generated during work, not lose it inside siloed tools. When workflow, decisions, and data live together, the firm builds institutional intelligence over time.
Closing thought: scale comes from repeatability, visibility, and reduced friction
Law firm scale is not just about more matters – it’s about executing consistently across more matters, with fewer surprises. Workflow automation is the foundation for that consistency. When you reduce manual coordination, enforce completeness, and unify collaboration with the systems you already rely on, you enable teams to focus on legal work while leadership gains the oversight needed to manage risk and profitability.
Interested in seeing a personalized demo? Contact us.
Watch the full product briefing below:
