Case management holds the file. Not the shape of the facts.
A practice management system knows the matter exists, who is assigned, what is billed, and what is due. What happened, in what order, and what supports it usually lives in documents and notes inside it.
Where the factual work sits
Illustrative
A matter record is not a factual record.
Case management is the system of record for the business of the matter. It is where deadlines, time entries, invoices, contacts, and files belong, and replacing it is rarely a good idea.
What it does not generally hold is the internal structure of the facts: a dated chronology, each event tied to the people involved, each document tied to the specific fact it supports, and an explicit list of what is still missing.
- The matter is open and assigned: case management
- The chronology of what happened: usually a document
- Which fact each exhibit supports: usually somebody’s memory
Designed to sit alongside
MatterGraph has no billing, no trust accounting, no docketing, and no e-signature, and none of those are planned. It is not a candidate to replace a practice management system, and a firm without one still needs one.
What each system is the record for.
Nothing here is a gap in case management. These are simply two different records, and most firms need both.
The matter exists
Opened, assigned, conflict checked. Case management is the system of record.
The matter is billable
Time, invoices, and trust accounting. Case management, without exception.
The matter has deadlines
Docketing and calendaring. Case management.
What happened, in order
A dated chronology as structured records rather than a document in the file.
How certain each date is
Exact, approximate, a range, or unknown, carried on the event itself.
What supports each fact
A named link from a document to the specific event it evidences.
Which layer holds what.
| Capability | Case managementThe business of the matter | Fact developmentThe content of the matter |
|---|---|---|
| Open and assign a matter | Case managementYes | Fact developmentNot covered |
| Time entry, billing, and trust accounting | Case managementYes | Fact developmentNot covered |
| Deadlines and docketing | Case managementYes | Fact developmentNot covered |
| Store case documents | Case managementYes | Fact developmentPartly |
| Contacts and conflict checking | Case managementYes | Fact developmentNot covered |
| A dated chronology of events in the matterAs structured records rather than a document inside the file | Case managementPartly | Fact developmentYes |
| Confidence level attached to each event | Case managementNot covered | Fact developmentYes |
| Evidence linked to the fact it supports | Case managementNot covered | Fact developmentYes |
| Outstanding records tracked as work | Case managementPartly | Fact developmentYes |
Several case management systems include task lists and custom fields that can approximate parts of this. The difference is whether the chronology is data the system understands or a document it stores.
Common questions.
- Do we have to move off our case management system?
- No, and we would not recommend it. MatterGraph does not do billing, docketing, or trust accounting and has no plans to.
- Is there an integration?
- Not today. Pilots run alongside whatever a firm already uses, and exports are the current handoff. Integration work would follow evidence that the workflow is worth keeping.
- Could we just use custom fields in our existing system?
- For a simple matter, sometimes. It becomes harder when you want a date to carry a confidence level, a document to point at a specific event, and the gap between them to generate work on its own.
Test the workflow on a representative matter.
Start with a synthetic or fully redacted matter. An initial evaluation does not require live client data.