Automated Customer Number Listing for eOffice Action processing
- 
					
					
					
					
Right now, you have to enter each customer number for which you wish to have eOffice Action processing performed in a special field in AppColl settings/matters (for some reason, this field is only a small text box that shows only the first four numbers, although it seems to store many more).
When doing client intake, it's an easy thing to forget adding the new client's customer number to this setting, which means that even though AppColl might be receiving eOffice Actions for the new client's matters via eofficeaction@appcoll.com, they won't get processed by AppColl. In fact, I don't think AppColl even warns you when this happens (unlike when it has issues processing an eOffice Action for a customer number that it is set up to monitor--in which case it sends an "AppColl e-Office Action Processing Failed" email). If it's not noticed, it could be a disaster if correspondence is missed and rights are lost.
My suggestion is to make AppColl automatically process eOffice Actions for any customer number that is listed in a record in the Contacts module having a "Client" role. This could be fine-tuned to only use customer numbers listed in the Contacts module for Clients that have at least one non-transferred/non-closed matter.
This could either be made the default way that AppColl performs eOffice Action processing or could be a setting that an Admin could enable, e.g., "Perform eOffice Action processing for eOffice Actions received from any customer number for any client in the Contacts module."
Customer numbers are almost always added to client records so that they will populate into USPTO forms, like the ADS, so this would be an almost foolproof way of avoiding the issue noted above.....
ADDENDUM: At the very least, if the above is not possible, there should be the ability to email designated users (admins or specific people) any time a contact record is created that has a customer number listed that is not in the eOffice Action customer number admin setting and to have the ability to have that email re-sent on a periodic basis, e.g., first of the month. This would at least give warning to administrators that a customer number might need to be added.
 - 
					
					
					
					
@gregg_appcoll I would suggest the following:
a) Account admin(s) (this should be the minimum!)
b) The partner(s) listed for matters that have the client with the customer number.
c) The paralegal(s) listed for matters that have the client with the customer number.However, (b) and (c) would be contingent on how this is implemented. For example, the client contact record (with CN) would usually be created before any matters are created for that client, so there might not be any partners/paralegals for (b) and (c) when the CN comes into existence, and thus nobody to send to for (b) and (c).
But if the warning emails are sent out on initial contact creation/CN addition to a contact and then re-sent on a recurring periodic basis, e.g., once a month, then (b) and (c) would probably work.
It might also be good to have a way to enter a customer number into an AppColl contact record in a way that does not trigger the warning email. I haven't quite figured out the scenario where this would be needed*, but it seems potentially worth it to include as a feature. For example, if a customer number is preceded by an underscore, e.g., _12345, in the Contact record, assume that's definitely not a customer number that needs to potentially have the warning email sent out.
*Potential Scenarios
Client leaves firm and takes us off customer number; we could a) still leave the customer number in our eOffice Action settings to avoid triggering the warning email or b) delete the customer number from the eOffice Action settings and the client contact record. Option (a) might cause an issue if our continued listing of the customer number in the settings prevents another firm from being able to add the customer number without AppColl support involvement. Option (b) would mean we'd have to delete the customer number from our Contact record, but we might want to retain it. - 
					
					
					
					
@ChristianS9906 We have upped the priority. Ver. 1 won't have the UI to specify a subject line. Do you have a default in mind?
 - 
					
					
					
					
@gregg_appcoll That would be a great start--please don't wait too long to add the ability to list specific recipients, however. It would also be useful to allow the admins to specify the subject line for such emails to increase the chances that it will be noticed/acted on.
Thanks!
Christian - 
					
					
					
					
We will get this done. Ver 1 may be to send the notifications to the account admins. Would this be OK? We can elaborate on it a bit later.
 - 
					
					
					
					
@gregg_appcoll Understood about the privacy issues--if the addendum feature could be added, that would be great and honestly seems like it would address most of the issues.
Ideally it would be implemented in a way that allowed for admins to specify one or more individuals that should receive the email warning, and to specify when it was sent (it would be great it if it could be a) when a contact record with an unlisted customer number is saved and b) on a regular scheduled basis, e.g., on the 1st of each month).
Although, it seems like the automated approach could be implemented, but with a check to make it so that if there are two accounts listing the same customer number, then permission is sought from the first before authorizing the second. I mean, if I enter another customer's customer number into the settings page and save it, it's still there, right? You just don't enable it until permission is granted?
 - 
					
					
					
					
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your suggestions. Currently, we prevent multiple accounts from using the same customer number. This is for privacy reasons. A second account can use a cust number once we have approval from the first. Allowing any customer number in the contacts page would circumvent that requirement without additional validation.
Your addendum request is feasible and will be passed on to engineering. I hope this helps.