Insider_Blog_Header-2.png
Thursday, December 05, 2013

Savvy Support: (Old) Ghosts in the Machine

Many of our current firms previously used other case management systems like A1Law or Tritek before they switched to MerusCase. Their reasons for switching to Merus can vary (lower costs/overhead, better reliability, web access), but one common element across these legacy systems is migration: we can import case and contact data from most major systems to ours.

The way data are entered and stored in MerusCase is more structured compared to that of many of our competitors because fields in MerusCase need to be used in multiple places. Date of Injury in a case, for example, needs to be explicitly defined so it can also be referenced by auto-filled forms and templates. In contrast, other systems might allow adding/changing fields or leaving fields empty because they don't have or don't need this kind of cross-module information sharing.

When a firm with one of these legacy systems decides to switch to MerusCase, we make a lot of effort to faithfully import fields from their old system to ours. Depending on how rigidly or how loosely these legacy systems' data are structured, this can take a lot of difficult data translation: we might have to, for example, split up a Full Name field from a legacy system in to separate First and Last Name fields in Merus to support automatic merging of "Dear Mr/Mrs LastName" in our templates.

About a year ago, one of our firms made a smooth transition from a legacy system to MerusCase. We were able to capture just about all the information from this legacy system, confirmed by the client when we reviewed our data migration results with them just before their launch date. All was well for several months, until we got a call from them about some closed cases which appeared with the name "(Unnamed Case)".

After some deeper investigation, MerusCase Support was able to gather enough affected cases in this firm to observe some trends. All of the affected cases were about 10 years old, dating back to their first use of the legacy system. A check of these cases' activities confirmed this: the very first activity in these cases read "Data retrieved from X system" and a text summary of the information imported from the legacy system.

While we found references to files imported and case created, we weren't able to find any references to imported parties. A quick check of the Parties tab in several of these cases confirmed that there weren't any parties in them. Based on this information, we were able to conclude these cases were created in the legacy system with no party information.

                                                  A case with no parties can return this error

Party information wasn't as important in this legacy system as it is in MerusCase. In the legacy system, the case name was simply based on a Caption field which the user filled out on opening the case. MerusCase, on the other hand, creates the case name from any Plaintiffs and Defendants on the case, allowing the case name to automatically update if new parties are added or removed. No parties in these old cases meant MerusCase had no way to generate a case name, and this case therefore showed up as "(Unnamed Case)".
The client was ultimately not worried about these particular cases, as they were all closed and were all very old.  They thanked us for taking the time to investigate, and mentioned that they learned something new about how MerusCase works.
                                    Written by Paul Bertucci, Migration Coordinator and Technical Support Engineer at MerusCase

Posted by MerusCase on Thursday December 05, 2013 0 Comments

Labels: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Meet MerusCase

We're the only cloud-based legal practice management system trusted by thousands of lawyers to manage cases, documents, billing, and beyond. Learn more about MerusCase & schedule a demo today!

Become an Insider:

Recent Posts