Loading
Because it is entered retrospectively. Friday afternoon, from a calendar and a memory, and the honest estimate is that a meaningful percentage never gets recorded at all.
The firm bills what was remembered rather than what was done, and nobody can say by how much.
A matter is a project with phases and deadlines. Time is logged against its tasks as work happens, from the record rather than from a separate timesheet screen, and meetings synced from the calendar are already there to log against.
Deadlines are dependencies, so a slipped filing shows its downstream effect immediately.
It is not a practice management or case management system, and it holds no legal document repository or conflict-check function.
And it will not tell you a matter is going badly in legal terms. It tells you it is running over what was scoped, which is a different and narrower claim.
Billable time reaches Books against the matter, priced from the rate card, without being re-keyed. Write-offs are recorded as write-offs rather than absorbed silently into a lower total.
Margin per matter is available during the matter, which is when a fixed-fee piece going wrong can still be discussed.
Products, not integrations. Each one reads the same record, so a join is a permission rather than a sync job with a mapping screen behind it.
Yes, per matter, and both within one client.
Yes, recorded rather than absorbed, so realisation is reportable.
No. It sits beside it and holds the work, the time and the money.
Half an hour on your own numbers is usually enough to say whether Loop is the right place to start.