Compare open matters by lawyer, spot overdue commitments and see what is due in the next seven days. Keep active work separate from matters waiting on the business or outside counsel.
Free for up to five users. No credit card required.
Adapt fields, workflows, and dashboards without code. Explore 1,000+ app templates and use cases
Explore a fictional example. Sign in to preview or use the app.
Two lawyers with the same number of matters may have very different workloads. Use the register as a starting point for a conversation about urgency, effort, dependencies and the next decision.
A matter owner is not necessarily the person responsible for the next step. Show the lawyer accountable for the matter alongside the action owner and due date. This makes a business-team information wait visible without suggesting that the assigned lawyer is actively drafting.
Read next-action dates with priority and context. An overdue request for missing information, a time-sensitive negotiation and a routine policy update need different interventions. Keep the reason for urgency and the action required close to the date.
Group matters awaiting requesters and outside counsel separately from active internal work. A blocked matter still needs a follow-up owner. Reassignment alone will not help if the same missing document or external deliverable remains unresolved.
Review incoming demand before assigning more work. Confirm the request is complete, the urgency is justified and someone is accountable for the first response. Use the intake queue when a request still needs clarification.
Look at each lawyer’s matter list and connected action register. Ask what must happen next, what can move and where a colleague can help. The example provides structured lists and deadlines, not an automatic lawyer-effort forecast or optimization engine.
Reassign a matter or action, revise an agreed business date, request missing context or narrow an external instruction. Record the updated owner and next step. A meeting note without an updated commitment is unlikely to improve next week’s view.
Use status updates to distinguish a completed outcome from a changed plan. If a date moves repeatedly, discuss the reason rather than treating a fresh date as progress. Keep the report appropriate to its audience and avoid exposing sensitive matter detail unnecessarily.
When the same people also support non-legal work, compare the wider resource management approach →
| Signal | Question to ask | Useful next action |
|---|---|---|
| Several matters assigned to one lawyer | Are the next commitments concentrated in the same week? | Discuss priorities and move a specific assignment where appropriate. |
| Matter awaiting requester | What exact information is missing, and who will provide it? | Confirm the follow-up owner and requested response date. |
| Outside counsel delivery due | Is the agreed scope still correct and the delivery on track? | Ask for a progress update or review a scope change. |
| Action overdue | Is the action still required, blocked or already completed? | Correct the record and agree on the next commitment. |
| Matter ready for review | Has the response been delivered and blocking work resolved? | Submit the built-in closure review rather than manually declaring it closed. |
Add department, business unit, work type or a practical effort band when those help your team discuss demand. In Jodoo, fields and dashboard groupings can change without replacing the underlying matter records. Avoid introducing a scoring system that nobody can explain or keep current.
The example connects matter ownership to action commitments, updates and review. It does not read email automatically, estimate legal complexity or infer a lawyer’s availability. If time recording, calendar capacity or specialist legal-spend data is essential, define the integration or choose a product that supplies it.
Use the board with the team rather than as a substitute for professional judgment. A small number of complex matters can be more demanding than a long list of routine requests. Keep the detailed record available so a count leads to a useful question instead of an unsupported performance conclusion.
The example supports visible assignments, queues and workload discussions. It does not automatically assess expertise, legal complexity, calendar availability or conflicts and then allocate work. Your team can configure routing rules for agreed categories, while authorized people retain the assignment decision.
No. Consider the work type, upcoming commitments, dependencies and actual effort where it is recorded. Matter counts can show demand and ownership but are not a reliable standalone measure of lawyer capacity or performance.
Yes. The example distinguishes waiting on the requester and waiting on outside counsel from active matters and closure review. Retain a next action and follow-up date so a waiting status does not become an indefinite holding area.
Choose a cadence that matches demand and deadlines. A regular short review can handle routine priorities, with a separate escalation path for genuinely urgent work. Agree on who maintains dates and assignments so the board remains useful between meetings.
Open the example, explore the records and make your own copy to adapt it to your team.
Explore the legal workload board