Five minutes before a client call, a partner asks for the final version of an agreement. One copy is in the document management system, another is attached to an email and a third was edited in Teams, while the person who made the last changes is out of the office. The document is easy to find in several places, but no one is completely certain which version should be used.
That kind of confusion is increasingly common as law firms rely on more cloud-based tools to manage daily work. Approximately 75% of attorneys now use cloud computing for work-related tasks, and many firms operate across Microsoft 365, Teams, practice management platforms and legal document management systems.
The problem is not that these platforms exist. It is that they often overlap without shared rules about what belongs where, which system holds the authoritative matter record and how documents should be named, shared, secured and retained. When those decisions are left to individual preference, firms can recreate the same clutter they once had on shared drives, only now it is spread across more systems and harder to see.
Decide Where the Official Matter Record Lives
Before debating folder names or file-naming conventions, a firm needs to answer a more fundamental question: Where should someone go to find the official matter record?
For many firms, that will be a legal document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments. Other firms may rely on the document area within a properly configured practice management platform. The answer can vary based on the firm’s size, practice areas and technology stack, but it should not vary based on which attorney happens to be working on the matter.
An authoritative repository should be the place where attorneys and staff expect to find the current matter documents, filed emails and prior versions without having to search several platforms or ask who last touched the file. Other systems may still support collaboration, drafting and sharing, but they should not create uncertainty about where the official record belongs.
Give Each Platform a Defined Role
Most law firms will continue using several platforms because they serve different purposes. Problems arise when those purposes are never defined and every system becomes another possible place to save a matter document. A practical starting point is to document what each platform is intended to do:
| PLATFORM | APPROPRIATE ROLE |
| Legal document management system | Official matter documents, filed emails, version history, matter workspaces and matter-based access |
| SharePoint | Shared internal resources, knowledge libraries, department content and governed team documents |
| Microsoft Teams | Collaboration and discussion around files stored in SharePoint or OneDrive |
| OneDrive | Individual working files and short-term drafts, not the permanent home for matter records |
| Outlook | Communication and transmission, not long-term document storage |
| Practice management platform | Matter operations and, in some firms, the official document repository |
| Network drives and local devices | Legacy or temporary working locations that should not compete with the designated matter repository |
These distinctions are especially important within Microsoft 365. Microsoft generally positions OneDrive for individual work and SharePoint for files that require shared ownership and ongoing team collaboration. Teams can make the underlying location less obvious because files uploaded to a channel are stored in SharePoint, while files shared through a chat are stored in OneDrive.
That does not make Teams a poor place to collaborate. It means firms should teach attorneys and staff that “it is in Teams” does not fully explain where the document resides, who owns it or how access is controlled.
Organize Around Clients and Matters, Not People
Once the official repository is identified, the structure should reflect how the firm works. In most law firms, that means organizing documents around clients and matters rather than individual attorneys or personal filing preferences.
A litigation attorney, paralegal and legal assistant should be able to enter the same matter workspace and predict where correspondence, pleadings, discovery and research belong. Other practice areas may need different categories, but those differences should be intentional and repeatable.
Matter workspace templates can provide consistency while allowing for legitimate variations. The goal is not to force every engagement into an identical structure. It is to prevent each new matter from becoming a separate filing experiment.
A useful test is whether a new employee could understand the organization without receiving a detailed oral history from the person who created it. If the structure only makes sense to one attorney or one longtime staff member, the firm has documented an individual habit rather than created an institutional system.
Use Filenames, Metadata and Folders for Different Jobs
File names still matter, but they should not carry every piece of information about a document. A useful name tells the reader what the document is and, where relevant, includes a meaningful date or status. Client, matter, author, owner and version information may be handled more effectively through metadata or document profile fields.
For example, 2026-07-10 Motion to Compel Draft is easier to understand than SmithCase_Motion_v7_Final_FINAL_UseThisOne. The precise format matters less than choosing a standard that is readable and consistently applied.
Metadata can classify documents by client, matter, document type, practice group or responsible attorney. It also allows users to sort, filter and search without forcing every detail into a filename or folder path. Folders still have a role, but they should be shallow and predictable. Moving an overly complicated shared-drive structure into the cloud changes its location, not its usefulness.
Control Versions and Copies
Version confusion often begins when someone downloads a document to make an edit, attaches it to an email or saves another copy before revising it. The problem appears later, when several people make changes in different places and no one is certain which document became final.
Whenever possible, users should edit documents within the governed repository and rely on version history instead of creating a new file for every revision. Microsoft 365 allows users to review and restore previous versions of files stored in SharePoint and OneDrive.
Firms should also establish expectations for sharing. Sending a controlled link may reduce duplicate attachments when the platform, recipient and circumstances make it appropriate. Matter-related emails and attachments should be filed into the official repository when they form part of the record rather than remaining available only in one person’s inbox.
Build Access Controls Into the Structure
File organization also affects who can see, edit and share sensitive client information. Access should reflect the matter, the individual’s role and the sensitivity of the content, with tighter controls for restricted matters, ethical walls and highly confidential documents.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6 states that lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access to or disclosure of information relating to client representation. Permissions should be reviewed when employees change roles, leave the firm or are no longer involved in a matter. When important files are scattered across inboxes, personal folders and individual OneDrive accounts, departures can quickly become records-recovery projects.
Define What Happens When a Matter Closes
Closed matters should not remain indefinitely in the same state as active work, but they also should not be deleted based on a broad instruction to remove anything old or untouched. A defensible matter-closing process should identify the official record, remove unnecessary working copies through an approved procedure and place the matter into the appropriate archived or restricted status.
The process should also address retention requirements, legal holds and who may authorize final disposition. Microsoft 365 includes retention policies and labels that can help preserve or delete content according to defined rules.
Technology can help enforce a retention policy, but it cannot determine what that policy should be. Requirements may depend on jurisdiction, client agreements, practice area, court rules, anticipated litigation and firm policy.
Keep the Structure Working
Even a thoughtfully designed system will deteriorate if no one owns the standards or explains how they apply to daily work. Firms should identify who is responsible for maintaining file-management rules, approving exceptions and addressing new platforms that affect where information is stored.
A short guide explaining where documents go will usually be more useful than a lengthy policy filled with general statements. Training should be included in new-hire onboarding and reinforced when systems or workflows change.
Law firm leaders can begin by asking a few direct questions:
- Can attorneys and staff identify the official repository for matter documents?
- Are important files stored in personal OneDrive folders or email inboxes?
- Are users relying on filenames such as Final2 to manage versions?
- Are older network drives still competing with the cloud environment?
- Is there a documented matter-closing and retention process?
- Does someone clearly own the firm’s file-management standards?
Several “no” or “not always” answers do not necessarily mean the firm needs to replace its systems. They may indicate that the platforms already in place need clearer roles and a more consistent operating model.
Better Organization Starts With Clearer Rules
Cloud platforms have made it easier for attorneys and staff to reach documents from almost anywhere, but access alone does not create order. Firms still need to determine where matter records belong, how each platform should be used and what happens to information throughout the life of a matter.
In many cases, better organization does not start with buying another tool. It begins with establishing a shared structure, reducing competing storage locations and giving attorneys and staff practical rules they can follow. If a firm cannot confidently explain where final matter documents live, how versions are controlled and what happens when a matter closes, it may be time to assess how its current systems and policies work together.
Afinety helps law firms evaluate how their document management, Microsoft 365 and cloud environments work together so files are easier to find, manage and protect. If your firm is struggling with overlapping repositories, inconsistent processes or unclear ownership, our team can help you create a more organized and manageable approach.