Every field in Litify is reportable. That is not the same as being reported well.

Nearly always one of three causes, and none of them are charting problems. The two reports use different date fields — incident date versus intake date versus matter-open date. Or they interpret the same stage differently because the stage was never defined in writing. Or one of them filters on a free-text field where people have typed fourteen variations of the same value. The fix is upstream: agree the definition, name the date basis, replace the free text with a picklist. Then the reports agree because they are actually asking the same question.

Litify runs on Salesforce, so every field is reportable through Salesforce reports and dashboards, with custom report types for the object combinations you need. For the overwhelming majority of law firm reporting — intake conversion, matter aging, realization, workload, carrier scorecards — that is more than sufficient, and it has the advantage of drilling straight through to the record. A separate BI tool earns its place when you need to blend Litify data with sources outside Salesforce, or when you want history the platform does not retain. We will say which situation you are in rather than defaulting to the bigger answer.

A definitions engagement runs two to three weeks and is mostly facilitated sessions. A build on settled definitions is typically three to five weeks depending on how many audiences and how much data quality work is needed first. The variable that moves the timeline most is phase two: if the data cannot support the definitions, fixing the inputs can take longer than everything else combined, and occasionally it is the entire engagement.

With an inventory and usage data — which reports are actually run, by whom, and how often. Most report sprawl is 80 percent dead. We identify the duplicates and contradictions, establish one authoritative version per question, and put naming, folder and ownership conventions in place so it does not happen again. Retirement is staged rather than immediate: nothing gets deleted before we know who runs it and what they use it for.

Yes, and the hard part is attribution rather than charting. Every inbound source should create an intake with its campaign attached, which means the integrations creating intakes need to pass real Case Type record IDs and source data reliably. The definition that causes most trouble is what counts as the source when a case is referred on — first touch, last touch or referring party. Settle that before building and the ROI numbers hold; leave it and your best channels get quietly undercounted.

Yes. Salesforce dynamic dashboards run in the viewing user's context, so a single dashboard shows each person their own matters, deadlines and unbilled time without any cross-visibility. It respects the sharing model, so the reporting inherits whatever ethical walls and matter visibility rules the org already enforces. In practice the fee-earner dashboard is the narrowest one we build and frequently the most used.

Data quality rules and a named owner. Picklists replacing free text where grouping matters, validation at the point of entry, completeness monitoring on the fields the metrics depend on, and exception reports that surface missing data before it reaches a dashboard. Plus an accountable owner per metric and a review cadence for the definitions themselves — because practice changes, and a definition nobody revisits slowly stops describing what the firm actually does.