This guide explains when a workflow layer on top of your existing case management system makes more sense than replacing your entire legal stack.
Who is legal workflow software really for?
Many firms have been using a combination of case management, document management and time & billing for years. Tools such as Clio, Legalsense and BaseNet handle a large part of the basics well.
Yet we see the same pain points again and again:
- intake still comes in via email or Word templates;
- deadlines live in personal calendars and Excel lists;
- controls (four eyes, KYC, AML, quality) are not embedded in the daily flow of work;
- reporting on turnaround times, errors and utilisation involves a lot of copy‑paste.
Legal workflow software focuses precisely on that layer: the flow of work between people, systems and cases.
A workflow layer on top of Clio, Legalsense or BaseNet
A common misconception is that you need to replace your entire stack to work better. In practice that is rarely necessary.
With GrowSure + Nexora we add a workflow layer on top of your existing systems:
-
Intake & KYC
Standardised intake flows per practice area with required fields, KYC and AML questions. Data then flows automatically into your case management system. -
Deadlines & tasks
Deadlines from the case system are imported and turned into Nexora tasks with clear owners, reminders and escalation. -
Task routing & role assignment
Work is automatically distributed across assistants, associates and partners based on practice group, case type and availability. -
Reporting & audit trail
Every workflow step is logged, which makes quality control, audits and management reporting much easier.
You keep the system your lawyers already know. Nexora adds the orchestration around it.
When to choose an add‑on versus a full replacement
Broadly we see three scenarios:
1. Add‑on on top of an existing system (most common)
Your current system:
- is functionally "good enough" for cases and documents;
- is widely accepted across the firm;
- exposes APIs or other ways to integrate.
You mainly miss:
- streamlined intake;
- hard‑wired deadlines and checks;
- clear visibility into workload and turnaround.
In this scenario a Nexora layer is ideal: low risk, fast to deploy and focused on preventing errors.
2. Phased move towards Nexora‑Lexity (full solution)
Sometimes the source system really is at the end of its life. For example:
- little to no API capabilities;
- cluttered screens that no longer fit how you work;
- costly licences or customisations that are no longer actively developed.
Then a trajectory towards Nexora‑Lexity makes sense: a full legal solution on our engine, tailored per practice area.
3. Hybrid: start with an add‑on, migrate later
Quite often we start with scenario 1 (add‑on) and firms later grow into scenario 2. The advantage:
- you first design and refine the right workflows on top of your current system;
- staff already get used to the new way of working;
- during a later migration you can reuse proven flows one‑to‑one.
Selection criteria for legal workflow software
When firms compare options, we hear the same questions again and again:
- How flexible are the workflows?
Can we adapt steps, roles and checks without a big IT project? - How strong are the integrations?
With case tools, billing, document management and e‑signature tools. - How does the software help prevent errors?
Validations, required fields, double checks, reminders and escalation. - How easy is reporting?
Can we quickly build dashboards around turnaround times, deadlines and utilisation? - How is security and privacy handled?
Logging, role‑based access and clear processing agreements are essential for legal work.
GrowSure + Nexora is designed as a workflow layer rather than "yet another all‑in‑one" package.
Next step
Curious what a workflow layer on top of Clio, Legalsense or BaseNet would look like for your firm?
In a short session we can:
- map 1–2 of your most important workflows;
- show how Nexora automates and safeguards the steps;
- decide together whether an add‑on, a phased move or a full solution is the right path.
That way you make a decision based on real processes instead of only comparing feature lists.