@CatherineVH9536-0

Hi Catherine. It looks like the new SB08a form resets the numbering for each category. And not a continuous number all the way through each category. We wouldn't be able to change this since the form forces the cite number. We hope this helps.

@BrandonK6644 We worked in depth with our developers on this today. Unfortunately, there is not a way to make this work within the current reporting capabilities of AppColl.

Apologies for the delay.

@BrandonK6644

So sorry for the delay. We have increased the priority on this one. We will announce when this has been done.

@BruceY9495 UPDATE: Our account has EBD data for about 40 matters, but that's it. I guess it is still updating/being calculated.

Our account had the EBD data in it as of this morning, so I think they have added it.

Thanks, Gregg!

@MelissaT3398 The new form was pushed out yesterday from the PTO. We should have it in AppColl by tomorrow. I hope this helps.

@ChristianS9906 Great. Thanks for the feedback.

@ChristianS9906 agree that is a good alternative

Hi Sadiq, no progress yet, but we will review priorities with engineering. Thanks.

@joe_appcoll Nice, thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. We will certainly pass this on to engineering.

The reason may have been to stop generating a number of tasks when the priority date changes. This allows you to manually edit what you need.

@ChristianS9906 We will be adding a way to access the client's intake address if their account is being synced to.
There is not currently a notification for when a bad intake address receives an email.
We will discuss adding this as well.
Account admins do receive a notification if an email is sent to a valid intake address but the sender is not whitelisted.

@ChristianS9906 Whereas AppColl already implemented the change you requested, I'm reluctant to request they change it back. I don't know to what extent others have strong or weak feelings about e-mail addresses with or without aliases (display names). You and I have stated our preference and reasons. It would be interesting to see if anyone else expresses an opinion.

@gregg_appcoll Yes, the issue I pointed out occurs on the "Payments Summary" page, which is the first page of my invoice and includes the client's mailing address, so it is the first page the client sees when he opens the invoice. Adding some text to clarify that the "Items through..." date covers payments and retainers (but not billing items) would be helpful. Thanks.
In addition, it would be nice to have the invoice (perhaps optionally) show the period covered, i.e. the cut-off date.
George

Hi George,

Interesting idea. Thanks for spending the time to clearly lay this out. We'll take a look at it.

@AccountingA3700

We have added this as a formal new feature request. We will let you know when this has been added.

Hi Leslie,

We're working with engineering to see if this is possible. We will get back to you soon. Thanks.