@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.

We have upped the priority of this. In the meantime, you can add a Fee offset billing item and enter the dollar amount you are discounting. We hope this helps.

Thank you both for the suggestions. We will pass this onto engineering for consideration. We hope this helps.

Hi Darin,

Could you submit a formal request to support@appcoll.com to set up a call to get you comfortable with this type of setup?

Thanks.

@gregg_appcoll adding onto the Power of Attorney yes/no. It would be helpful if a POA form could be linked to the actual contact (assignee or inventor)

@gregg_appcoll Thanks, Greg, however I would still find it very helpful to have a syntax for an alternate field, when a first field is blank. As I previously noted, I have several situations where such a syntax would be helpful:

(a) a client-specific USPTO customer number (if the client has one), or the firm's customer number (if the client doesn't have one) (Some of my clients want me to use their customer number, rather than mine. I have templates for responses to Office Actions, etc. that include a customer number in the document headers)

(b) a client-specific USPTO deposit account number (if the client has one), or the firm's deposit account number (if the client doesn't have one). (My template responses include boilerplate language authorizing charges to a deposit account, in case of a missed extension of time.)

(c) actual filing date or official filing date or priority date, depending on what is available. (For example, when calculating due dates for foreign applications.)

Thanks,
George

Hi George, thanks for reporting. This issue should be resolved soon.

Hi Kevin, thanks for the feedback. This feature is being worked on and should be available in the future.

Hi Sadiq - thanks for the suggestion. We'll certainly look into this.

Hello Kate and Melissa,

This is a good idea and something we have formally submitted to our engineering team as a new feature. It may take some time, but it will be added. Thanks for your continued feedback.

@gregg_appcoll Missed this! Sorry! I just reached out. Thank you.

Hi Michael. Thanks for the feedback. Did you know that AppColl can create one invoice per matter in a bulk operation? This may alleviate the issue you have with multiple users trying to create multiple client-specific invoices. Now, as you know, this will not allow for editing multiple invoices by multiple users simultaneously.

@JohnG8374

This is a significant project that we have formally added to our project list. This may take quite a bit of time.

Thanks.

@WendyZ2824 We reached out and are awaiting a response from him.

@KarenH9267 Thank you for your feedback. This is a great suggestion. We will certainly pass this on to engineering for consideration.

The way to do this is to click the checkbox at the top of the page, which will show you all open tasks. From there, you can update these tasks in bulk. We hope this helps.