I like the reports, very easy to use and set up to be very intuitive to run. I do love the matter dashboard showing contacts, financials, matter details and it has its own feed tracking all actions such as calendar entries, notes uploaded, time entered and everything else on one page. If I did not absolutely love and adore the rest of the program I would have moved on months ago. This has been going on for six months and counting so my absolute love and adoration of Clio has been highly tarnished. Support just responds someone is looking at the issue but we have no ETA on a resolution. However, with the change to Clio Apollo the syncing with Microsoft One-Drive was severed and has been repaired and broken dozens of times. Generating template documents in Clio is awesome, really quick and easy and a huge time saver. Usually being escalated to the higher ups is a good thing but with Clio escalation seems to mean they are going to ignore the issue and just send periodic email updates saying “we’re working on it but no fix yet.” Support is great when they can fix something immediately. Document management integration and non-responsive support are my issues. I love 80% of Clio and Clio handles most of the needs of my firm. I’ve also found Clio support to be very responsive. I would prefer to be client-based than matter-based. It would also be nice if Clio gave transactional attorneys more choices in structure. That was great for entering time at the end of the day from notes, etc. For example, I previously used a platform that allowed you to do batch time entries to multiple client accounts. It would also be nice if Clio allowed for more batch-entry items. The workaround - a manual email that provides the invoice as a PDF and gives a LawPay link instead. But when they click to pay through Clio, they can only pay the amount of the current invoice - meaning that they have to go back and search for the original, past-due invoice to pay the older balance. They can EASILY receive an invoice that tells them the full amount due (from current and prior invoices). For example, there’s an issue with Clio when it comes to past-due clients. There are a few features lacking and a few bugs here and there. For the most part, Clio makes that pretty easy. I handle my own time entry and billing, along with my own bookkeeping. Multiple people told us that document generation could do what we needed it to, but no one was ever able to show us how. If you only write to “clients” or “opposing attorneys” or “adjusters” or some other entity to which it is easy to give a unique matter designation, then maybe Clio would be adequate, but that is not the case for us.Ĭlio does not even seem to understand the nature of the problem. Or you have to generate a template and cut and paste all the relevant contact information into it, which defeats the purpose of merge templates. This is more cumbersome than writing each letter from scratch. The result is that you essentially have to create a unique matter field and unique template for each contact in order to generate letters to the contact. It does not allow templates to be created based on “contact” fields. The root of the problem is that the software only allows you to generate templates based on “matter” fields. Clio, in its current iteration, makes it impossible to generate these requests efficiently. In particular, we make a ton of medical records requests and have clients who may have a dozen different medical providers. We are a high-volume practice, which means that we rely heavily on document templates to get things done. We recently attempted to transition to Clio and discovered that the way that this software is structured makes it impossible to adapt it to our needs. If your practice relies to any extent on merging documents from case-management templates, make sure you understand Clio’s limitations before committing to this software.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |