Great feedback, Krista, thanks! We'll add these to the engineering list.

Hi,
Is anyone using the Signatures Module to obtain signatures on an assignment document for new filings? There might be 1, 2, 3, X inventors. I see the example documents have a case for 1 inventor and a case for 3 inventors. Any suggestions how to make a Word document that can expand to include signatures from multiple inventors, where the number of inventors differs on a matter by matter basis?

The other option we are trying is to create multiple copies of the same Assignment - but a 1-inventor version, 2-inventors version, 3-inventors version, and so on. The issue we have here is that our signature rule doesn't seem to distinguish which document to use depending on the quantity of inventors.

I'd love to hear if anyone is successfully using the signatures module for assignments. If so, how did you set it up?

@Timothy Several people requested that syntax be added to enable conditional selection of field contents, such as when a first field is null. See the thread at https://forum.appcoll.com/topic/201/syntax-for-alternate-field-when-a-first-field-is-blank. I, for one, still would like to see such syntax added. For one thing, it would alleviate the need for one-off special fields, such as {Matter.ClientContact.NicknameOrFirst}, in that we users could program our own such fields.

Also see this thread (https://forum.appcoll.com/topic/204/add-calculations-if-then-logic-and-database-queries-to-template-fields?_=1704255780781) on a related topic.

Hi Pamela,

The way to do this current is to filter the activity log from the reports module. Search for changed and respondby in the description field.

3512ab06-b2dd-4795-a054-46093dab9d16-image.png

If you elect to use a client code in a client contact record, the client name is replaced with the code when using the table view for Matters, Billing Items, and Invoices. If you wish to see the full client name, please remove the client code.

I'm curious how other law firms handle IDSs in AppColl. We see that when the paralegal generates an IDS, AppColl automatically populates the "cited by" information in the list of references. So when an attorney reviews the list of references, it appears as though all documents have been cited (regardless of whether the IDS has been signed or filed). This is potentially disastrous.

We are trying to develop a workflow where the attorney does a review before the IDS is generated. That way the attorney can mark the cumulative references "do not cite" and do a review of unmarked refs. Then after that step, the paralegal generates the IDS and sends to the attorney to sign. After the paralegal files the IDS, they put the citation date. But the problem we are running into is that the paralegal staff might generate the IDS early and new refs come in. So, then we don't know whether we need attorney review (again) or new IDS task.

Happy to hear the workflow that other law firms have adopted. I spoke to another AppColl customer and was told they manage IDSs using a third-party. We might go that route but I'd love to use AppColl if we can figure out how they intended IDS workflow using AppColl in a multi-attorney/staff law firm.

@AnnM8256 Glad we could help.

It would be nice if the reports feature allowed for more flexible display options for contact-related data. For example, it would be useful to be able to list contacts for a matter in a number of ways, e.g., by full name (as is, I believe, currently the only way you can do so), by initials, by first name last initial, by first name only, by last name only, by first initial last name, by nickname, etc.

It is often the case that contact names take up a significant amount of column space in reports since contacts are typically listed by first/middle/last name. If you have a report that includes attorney, paralegal, contributor, and partner columns, you're likely looking at about a page-width of report space that is occupied by detailed name data. Most of the time, however, providing abbreviated name information would be sufficient--for example, displaying the same information using initials would convey the same information using only 12 characters, thereby consuming much less report real estate.

There could be several ways of implementing this--one would be to simply include the alternate forms of contact name display as separate columns that could be added to a report, e.g., AttorneyFullName, AttorneyInitials, AttorneyNickname, AttorneyFirstInitLastName, etc.

Another option would be to provide a format option for contact columns that are to be included in a report. Each contact column, e.g., Attorney, ClientContact, etc., would, when selected in the column chooser, cause a listbox to be shown that would allow the user to choose between a variety of formats for how that data will be shown. This could also be extended to non-Contact data, e.g., date formats, text data (e.g., All Caps, Sentence Caps, As-entered, etc.).

A third option would be to allow the user to specify a global format setting for the report in question (which could also affect how data is displayed in the Matters/Tasks/etc. modules). For example, the user could specify that Contacts are to be shown using their middle initials as opposed to their full names. This would be applied to all such data in the module in question, so you wouldn't be able to mix-and-match, e.g., have one column with Contacts listed by initials and another column with Contacts listed by full name.

A somewhat related enhancement would be to allow the user to change how the Inventors are listed for a matter. Right now, I think the Inventors field lists inventors by their non-alias ("true") names, even if an alias was used in filing an application. It would be nice to allow users to choose to list inventors for an application using their "true" names and their "as-filed" names. It would also be nice to be able to list such data in a way that indicates when there is a discrepancy between the true inventor name and the as-filed inventor name. For example, in the Matter Details interface, when a listed inventor was listed using an alias when an application was filed, the Inventors list shows both the true name for the inventor and, in parentheses, the alias for that inventor that was used in the filing. It would be great if that could also be an option in the Reports module.