Every firm manages documents. The question is how deliberately. Some small firms run on a shared drive with a folder structure that made sense in 2015. Others have invested in a dedicated document management system like NetDocuments or iManage. Many sit in the middle with SharePoint or OneDrive and a loosely enforced naming convention.
None of these is automatically wrong. The right choice depends on size, practice area, how many people touch each file and how much risk the firm is willing to carry.
Option 1: Shared Folders on a Server or Cloud Drive
Strengths: Familiar, inexpensive and easy to start.
Weaknesses: Structure depends entirely on discipline. Versions multiply, such as "Final," "Final2" and "Final_JSmith." Permissions are usually inherited from top-level folders and are hard to audit. Search is limited, and email attachments live separately from the matter.
Best for: Solo practitioners and very small firms with simple matters, provided they have encryption, MFA and tested backups.
Option 2: Microsoft 365 With SharePoint and Teams
Strengths: Often already licensed, supports version history, co-authoring and granular permissions, and integrates with Outlook and Word.
Weaknesses: It is a toolkit, not a finished legal product. Without someone configuring matter-centric sites, naming standards and retention labels, it can become a messier version of shared folders. Teams creates its own file sprawl if left unmanaged.
Best for: Firms that already live in Microsoft 365 and have access to someone who can design and maintain a sensible structure.
Option 3: A Purpose-Built Legal DMS
Strengths: Matter-centric organization, strong versioning, email filing, detailed audit trails, ethical walls and legal-specific search. Many integrate with practice-management platforms.
Weaknesses: Licensing and onboarding costs, and a learning curve. Attorneys who do not file documents consistently will undermine the investment.
Best for: Firms with multiple attorneys per matter, regulated clients, litigation-heavy work or a need for formal screening and audit trails.
Questions to Ask Before You Decide
How do we control access?
Can you restrict a matter to a defined team? Can you prove who opened what? Ethical screens and sensitive matters depend on this.
How do we handle email?
A large share of the record lives in email. Does the system file messages to the matter, and does everyone actually use it?
Where is data stored and who holds the keys?
Ask about encryption at rest and in transit, data location, and what happens to your data if you leave the vendor. Under ABA Model Rule 1.6(c), reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure include choosing vendors thoughtfully.
What does recovery look like?
Cloud does not mean backed up forever. Ask about retention of deleted files, ransomware recovery and whether you can export everything in a usable format.
What will our people really do?
The best system is the one staff use correctly on a busy Thursday. Involve a few attorneys and assistants in a pilot before committing.
Migration Is Where Projects Fail
Moving years of files to a new structure is often the hardest part.
- Decide what to migrate and what to archive.
- Clean duplicates and obvious junk first.
- Test with one practice group.
- Keep the old system read-only for a defined period.
- Train people before cutover, and again two weeks after.
Retention and Disposal
Whichever approach you choose, define how long files are kept, who authorizes destruction and how it is documented. Check your state bar's guidance and your engagement letters before deleting anything.
A Reasonable Rule of Thumb
Solo and two-attorney firms often do well with a disciplined cloud drive. Firms of ten or more attorneys, or those with demanding clients, tend to benefit from a purpose-built system. The middle is where a well-configured Microsoft 365 environment can work, if someone owns it.
Counsel Cyber supports firms on Microsoft 365, NetDocuments, iManage and related platforms. If you are weighing options, we can talk through your workflow and give you a straightforward view of what would fit.