Legal Hold Workflow

Why should our legal team automate legal hold management instead of using email and spreadsheets?

Manual tracking via email and spreadsheets makes it difficult to confirm who has acknowledged a hold and who hasn't, increasing the risk of spoliation claims. This workflow centralises matter details, custodian lists, notice issuance, and acknowledgement status in one place, so the legal owner always has a current view of hold compliance. It also creates a timestamped record of each step, which is helpful if preservation efforts are ever challenged.

What is the ROI of using this workflow compared to manual tracking?

The workflow reduces the administrative time legal teams spend chasing custodians for acknowledgements and manually escalating non-responders. Because escalation is built into the routing logic, follow-up happens automatically rather than relying on someone remembering to check status. Over multiple concurrent matters, this can meaningfully cut down coordination overhead and reduce the chance of a missed custodian response.

How long does it take to get this workflow up and running?

The template is ready to use and can be published in minutes rather than requiring a lengthy implementation project. Once published, the legal team can immediately begin creating hold records, issuing notices, and tracking acknowledgements for live matters. Any adjustments to steps or roles can be made directly in assess.one without additional development work.

Can we customise the escalation rules or notification content?

Yes. Notification templates, escalation triggers, and the routing logic that determines when a custodian is escalated to the legal owner can all be adjusted directly within assess.one. Teams can tailor wording for hold notices and release notifications to match their organisation's legal language and internal policy requirements. Status labels and workflow steps can also be modified as matter types or preservation practices evolve.

Who should have access to this workflow?

Typically, the legal owner or matter lead needs full access to create hold records, monitor acknowledgement status, and authorise release. Custodians generally only need access to the acknowledgement task itself, not the full workflow record. Access levels can be configured within assess.one so sensitive matter details remain visible only to authorised legal personnel.

What happens if a custodian does not acknowledge the hold notice?

The workflow routes unacknowledged custodians into an escalation path, notifying the legal owner so they can follow up directly. This prevents a non-response from going unnoticed and supports timely intervention before the hold is compromised. The legal owner can track outcomes from that follow-up and re-route the custodian back into the acknowledgement path if needed.

How is the hold release authorised and communicated?

Once a matter concludes, the legal owner is prompted to authorise release within the workflow, which then triggers a final notification to all custodians confirming the hold has ended. This step ensures release is a deliberate, recorded decision rather than an informal or undocumented action. The workflow closes the record only after release authorisation and notification are complete.

Does this workflow support compliance and audit requirements?

The workflow maintains status changes and step history across the hold lifecycle, from initial creation through notice, acknowledgement, escalation, and release. This supports internal audit needs and can help demonstrate that reasonable preservation steps were taken if the matter is later scrutinised. It is designed to support—not replace—organisational legal hold policy and counsel judgment.

Can this workflow handle multiple concurrent legal holds across different matters?

Yes, each legal hold is created as its own record with its own matter details, custodians, and status tracking, so multiple holds can run in parallel without interfering with one another. Legal owners can monitor several active matters at once within assess.one rather than juggling separate spreadsheets or email chains. This makes it easier to maintain oversight as caseload volume increases.