A Bryanston brief built around sharper access control
The firm worked from Bryanston in Sandton and wanted clearer control over who could see, edit or approve specific parts of the platform. Their team handled document assembly, matter tracking and review work in the same environment, so the original access rules had grown messy over time.
The brief was straightforward but detailed: reduce accidental access, keep senior and junior roles separate, and make sure evidence folders stayed visible only to the right people. There was also a practical concern around POPIA-minded handling of personal information, especially where matter notes, identity documents and client records sat in shared workflows.
- Client type: South African law firm
- Town: Bryanston, Johannesburg
- Core need: stronger role separation
- Focus areas: matters, templates and evidence
The access points that needed tidying
The main challenge was not a single bad setting. It was the way permissions had drifted across several modules as the firm added users, changed roles and took on more document-heavy work. Some staff needed broad visibility across active matters, while others only needed limited edit rights for specific tasks.
We reviewed the full permission map and looked at how attorneys, paralegals, operations staff and template users moved through the system. That included matter pipelines, document assembly areas, searchable review queues and evidence imports. The goal was to keep work moving without opening more access than the role required.
- Mixed roles across fee earners and support staff
- Shared workflows touching several matter stages
- Evidence and document areas needing tighter separation
- Permission settings that had become inconsistent over time
What we supplied for the refresh
We rebuilt the permissions structure around practical legal office use. That meant grouping access by function, cleaning up role boundaries and setting clearer limits for viewing, editing and approving records. In a few places we also split access where one role had become too broad for the work it actually performed.
The work touched both daily operation and admin control. We also checked that the client’s internal habits matched the new structure, so the settings would hold up once people returned to busy matter work. The firm wanted a calmer system, not a maze of special exceptions.
- Role mapping for attorneys, paralegals and operations staff
- Permissions setup for matter records and templates
- Review of evidence queue access
- Admin controls for user management
- Security checks around sensitive document handling
How the work ran across three weeks
The project ran over three weeks. The first week focused on discovery and access mapping, with each user group reviewed against real work patterns. The second week covered the configuration changes, testing and a few adjustments where the firm wanted stricter separation between review and approval steps.
In the final week we handled handover support and checked how the new permission structure behaved under normal use. That included looking at new matter creation, document filing, evidence review and admin tasks. The firm had a clear view of who could do what, and the system now reflected that structure more faithfully.
- Week 1: role and access review
- Week 2: configuration and testing
- Week 3: handover support and verification
- Result: clearer control over sensitive areas
Results that made daily work less noisy
The biggest change was not cosmetic. Staff could work inside the platform with fewer dead ends and less uncertainty about access. Junior users were no longer seeing areas they did not need, and senior users had a cleaner path for approvals and oversight. That matters in a firm where a missed setting can slow a filing, confuse a handover or expose the wrong file to the wrong person.
It also helped the operations side. Fewer permission exceptions meant less time spent untangling access requests, and the document team could keep template work separate from case handling. The firm had steadier control over sensitive material, which is especially useful when multiple matters are active at once.
- Cleaner separation between user groups
- Less accidental exposure of sensitive records
- Better control over document and evidence areas
- More predictable admin handling for new staff
A similar brief would get the same first checks
For a similar firm, we would start with the live workflow rather than the org chart. Real matter handling shows where access should be narrow, where approvals should sit and where a role has quietly taken on too much. That approach keeps the permissions model close to the work people actually do.
We would also keep a close eye on template access, evidence review and admin control from the outset. Those are the places where small setting changes can have a large effect later, especially when the firm is handling private client data and time sensitive matters across several offices.
- Start from live work patterns
- Separate review from approval where needed
- Keep template access under control
- Review sensitive folders before go live
Key facts
| Project | Bryanston Permissions Refresh |
|---|---|
| Client type | South African law firm |
| Town | Bryanston, Johannesburg |
| Timeline | 3 weeks |
| Core scope | Role mapping, permissions setup, evidence access control and admin review |
| Security note | POPIA-minded handling of client and matter data |
