Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 10:04:44

@deleted-U04HFGHL4RW, our new BI dash shows 126 deals yesterday, our old system has 194. We see Hair Relaxer for Crump / Dicello with 67 in new dash, 1 in old dash. URGENT we know if those are actual 67 e-signs and what happened to 66 of them?

@Zekarias Haile and I need to know this ASAP so he can finish the numbers.

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 10:34:40

Good morning- currently at the dentist so responses may be delayed but I'll check into this as soon as I get in.

No changes were made to the system the past few days that should affect what shows up, but it is possible if this is a brand new campaign it needs to be flagged a certain way.

Please send over a csv with your leads and I will run a difference algorithm once available to find what exact campaigns are not populating.

Cameron Rentch (cameron@internetthings.com)
2025-08-05 11:54:36

@Ryan I am certain the crump dicello are old cases that were re-triggered . that campaign is not active at all

deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 11:56:44

I just found out that these are leads retriggered yesterday.

image.png
deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 12:04:51

*Thread Reply:* ^ one example that was retriggered yesterday

Cameron Rentch (cameron@internetthings.com)
2025-08-05 11:59:07

@deleted-U07UDKM724B @James Turner ^

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 12:13:58

Interesting- thank you @Cameron Rentch

Since these leads are retriggered, they should not show up for yesterday, and instead appear as billable on the date that they initially became billable like was requested.

It sounds like the new system is working as designed, but I'll cross compare the two sets just to be sure

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 12:22:33

@Zekarias Haile, good catch. thanks for confirming @Cameron Rentch. And @James Turner, correct, your Page 0 - Billable Leads for SL dataset is accurate for "real time".

🙏 James Turner, deleted-U07UDKM724B
Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 12:26:52

@Cameron Rentch, wait. If these lead IDs are old and already in our TIP log file, we would not have had 66 new ones. The table tipfinanciallog cannot have a duplicate LR Lead ID. @James Turner, please look at these and confirm original sign date and have @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ check the table for client name and other identifiers to double make sure no dupes. Making sure these are NOT new or transfers from BLX or something.

If they are "new" for whatever reason, then these would be counted in SL financials. These could be OLD leads possibly.

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 12:27:46

@deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ has joined the conversation

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 12:28:27

@deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ, read the whole DM, once James confirms their history log and validates original status, we either delete these or keep these and log them in SL fin.

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 12:28:39

Reviewing

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 12:31:47

I know we have been retriggering clients to DL so they can be added to Litify which is why I think that is happening so shouldn't be new leads. Second, once I am provided that list I can check against TIP database to see if we need to change anything from it

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 12:32:10

@deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ, thank you. I know James is at dentist.

🙌:skin_tone_2: deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 12:32:45

Sounds good & no worries on that

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:24:35

@Ryan @Cameron Rentch All looks good on new dataset. I scraped all discrepancy leads and they are all accounted for in the billable leads data set that page 0 pulls from, with billable dates ranging October 2022 to December 2022.

They might just be so old, they aren't in the existing old system. (Campaign id 303- currently we are at 2,140)

hair relaxer discrepancy leads with info.csv
James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:24:54

@Ryan @Cameron Rentch All looks good on new dataset. I Scraped all discrepancy leads and they are all accounted for in the billable leads data set that page 0 pulls from, with billable dates ranging October 2022 to December 2022.

They might just be so old, they aren't in the existing old system. (Campaign id 303- currently we are at 2,140)

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:26:03

@Ryan @Cameron Rentch All looks good on new dataset. I scraped all discrepancy leads and they are all accounted for in the billable leads data set that page 0 pulls from, with billable dates ranging October 2022 to December 2022.

They might just be so old, they aren't in the existing old system. (Campaign id 303- currently we are at 2,140)

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 13:30:05

From that list above, I looked into TIP Database and I can see they are all in "Signed e-Sign RE-TRIGGERED" status currently and that S1s are filled out. They are all case type Hair Relaxer Cancer - Crump/Dicello - Shield Legal and was inserted in 2025-08-05 & has signed date of 08/04/2025. Let me know if this is helpful since I can make changes to this if mentioned what needs to be changed

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 13:38:38

@Zekarias Haile please add those to financials, those are new and valid after @James Turner checks earliest sign date to validate.

@deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ ; those should have been listed as Signed e-Sign TRIGGERED. Not re-triggered, please let Nick Ward and Tony know that if they’re new and going through to an integration, that that’s the correct status. Then we wouldn’t have all been confused.

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:43:38

The earliest e-signs for these range from October to December of 2022.

image.png
James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:43:57

The CSV I just shared shows the earliest e-sign date.

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 13:44:00

@Ryan Currently they are in Signed e-Sign RE-TRIGGERED and from what Law Ruler shows we do not have a status for Signed e-Sign TRIGGERED. So I believe we should be fine on that part if that is the case

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:44:50

If we charge for the date of the earliest billable status, or when the retainer gets signed, then we should have billed for these back in 2022

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 13:54:15

@Cameron Rentch @Ryan @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ Happy to hop on a quick call to explain if needed

deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 14:04:50

@Ryan I think the question here is as you said earlier if tipfinaciallog table can't have duplicate LR lead id how come those showed up on the table as those leads are re-triggered yesterday

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 14:05:31

From what I see (at least in the TIP's database) those leads are unique and not duplicates

deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 14:18:46

Spoke with Dustin and those leads were "Signed and declined" and he retriggered them yesterday

Cameron Rentch (cameron@internetthings.com)
2025-08-05 14:21:45

everyone, confirming to you all we can NOT have any new e-signs for this campaign. it is 100% closed

👍 James Turner, deleted-U07UDKM724B
👍:skin_tone_2: deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
👍:skin_tone_4: Ryan
Cameron Rentch (cameron@internetthings.com)
2025-08-05 14:22:03

Crump/Dicello^ @here

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 15:03:32

@here , thanks for confirming it was a push of Signed and Declined. @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ , please mark them as signed and declined in old fin-log

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 15:05:21

@James Turner Is is possible if you can confirm based on the database that those 66 you sent me were all signed & decline previously ?

👍 James Turner
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 15:05:30

If so I can update them to be signed & decline in TIP's database

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 15:25:11

Yes- They were all previously Signed & Decline

deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 15:28:22

@deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ @deleted-U07UDN65C3U those are 67 btw. FYI

James Turner (jturner@shield-legal.com)
2025-08-05 15:30:53

*Thread Reply:* The first row is a header 😁

deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 15:33:09

*Thread Reply:* I wasn't looked at that.... I see on the old dash and TIP DB

image.png
deleted-U07UDKM724B
2025-08-05 15:34:10

I wasn't looked at that.... I see on the old dash and TIP DB

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 15:47:48

Okay if they were all previously signed & declined and moved to retriggered I will get with Luis C and ask him to move them into signed & declined retriggered status so that law ruler is showing the correct status and then from there I will update TIP database to show signed & declined since currently they are Signed e-Sign RE-TRIGGERED in law ruler and in TIP database to prevent any discrepancies

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-08-05 15:47:50

@James Turner

Ryan (ryan@themedialab.agency)
2025-08-05 16:00:20

Thank you

✅ deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ