Mitratech CaseCloud support after the project team leaves

They cover different things and most firms need both. Mitratech provides product support for CaseCloud itself — defects, product questions, the software as shipped. Twopir owns everything around it: your configuration, the matter model, automation, permissions, the surrounding Salesforce org, your integrations, your reports, and the small changes that keep the system matching how the firm works. A product vendor cannot answer why your approval routing sends invoices to the wrong partner, because that is configuration rather than product.

Not necessarily, and both models work. Where a firm has a capable administrator we take escalation, architecture review, release regression and larger change, leaving day-to-day requests with them — which is usually the best value arrangement. Where a firm has no administrator, or one who is over capacity, we are the administration function. What matters is that the split is written down at onboarding rather than assumed, because the gap between the two is where requests get lost.

As routine, not as projects. Both vendors ship on their own cadence — Salesforce with seasonal platform releases, Mitratech with its own CaseCloud updates. We test each one in a sandbox against your actual configuration, customizations and integrations before it reaches production, and report on anything requiring attention. This single routine is the highest-value part of the service, because deferred upgrades are how firms end up stranded on a version they cannot easily leave.

Usually, but not by building another dashboard. Distrusted reporting is almost always a data problem — fields not being populated, matter types used inconsistently, stages that mean different things to different teams, or a measure defined differently in two places. We trace the number back to the process producing it, fix that, and then build reporting on top. Fixing the dashboard without fixing the data just produces a more convincing wrong answer.

That is a common reason firms come to us, and it is recoverable. We measure what is actually being used by role, identify where people have built workarounds, and find the cause — which is usually a screen that does not match the job, a process step that makes no sense to a fee earner, or a field nobody was told why to fill in. Targeted fixes followed by short refresher enablement works; another round of general training on its own does not.

Three tiers, described in the table on this page: an advisory retainer of senior time, managed support with response targets, or a full managed service with a quarterly optimization roadmap. Scope and response targets are agreed after the onboarding audit, because we will not commit to an SLA on an org we have not examined. Larger initiatives are scoped as separate projects rather than absorbed silently into a retainer, which keeps both the service and the roadmap honest.

Yes, and it is most of what this service does. We start with an onboarding audit covering configuration, automation, integrations, customizations, data quality and adoption, and give you a written assessment of the system's health with the risks ranked. Occasionally that audit concludes remediation should come before a support arrangement makes sense — we would rather tell you that than sell a retainer against an org that needs fixing first.