deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
2025-07-25 11:34:17

Thanks for the detail here @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ. Agreed on the topic being reviewed in the 10AM call. Am I correct in saying that we could look at the activity logs in Litify on our own and figure out what they are doing, but that would break our word that we wouldn't be going into Litify without instruction/approval? Wanting to confirm so that we are explicit in our offer to do a review for them if they cannot find the time quickly...

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 11:56:17

@deleted-U06VDQGHZLL You're welcome. From what I was told by integrations DL doesn't want us in Litify so not sure if that is a good idea. Also, I am looking at today's report and we are now at 851 blank law ruler IDs. Which means we grew from 727 to 851 in one day (124 difference).

deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
2025-07-25 11:59:03

Right, what I mean is that when we share this news with them, they may say they don't have the time/bandwidth to look into it right away....if they say something to that effect, we should be prepared to offer someone on our side to go into into Litify and look. They would just have to approve it before we do so.

deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
2025-07-25 12:00:03

I say that realizing that you are not in this meeting that is about to start. @Nicholas McFadden can be the voice for SL.

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 12:02:53

That makes sense. I just talked to Daniel and he told me they recently was advised to map the law ruler ID to a different field. So my guess is JP's medical record report is pulling from old field and not also with the new field which I am pretty confident that is why it is coming out blank.

✅ deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 14:03:16

@deleted-U06VDQGHZLL I created a jira ticket on this (well I have a ticket already for flatirons reconciliation and tagged abe and jp) requesting for them to either include a new column (The new law ruler ID field) or to build coding logic to include it. Hoping Abe will say yes and to have it as a high priority

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 14:31:47

@here Hey team — just sharing Abe’s response here. While he did agree to the request, his tone was a bit defensive, as if I implied DL was at fault. To clarify, my ask was simply whether they could add a new column or build logic around a new field they introduced — not assigning blame. Also, as a reminder, Shield Legal doesn’t control the medical record report that JP sends. So if DL asks us to map our Law Ruler ID to a field that JP’s report doesn’t capture, we aren’t able to make that update ourselves since it’s coming from their side. Separate question: Abe mentioned that DL is supposedly sending us their case number once cases are opened. Is that actually happening? (I’ve highlighted that part in the screenshot as well.)

image.png
slackbot
2025-07-25 14:32:10

@deleted-U07CRGCBVJA has been added to the conversation by Edward Weber.

deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
2025-07-25 15:11:08

Thanks for sticking with this @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ. It seems we'll get what we need and the efficiency and accuracy Abe and others see afterwards should help win them over.

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 15:12:05

@deleted-U06VDQGHZLL No problemo. I replied back to his response mentioning we are not pointing fingers but rather just bringing this issue to everyone's attention and providing a solution to this. So I am hoping he will understand that part and move forward

💯 deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 18:34:41

Alright, Abe replied and he’s still pretty defensive. I went ahead and followed your advice @deleted-U095QBJFFME and simplified my message into smaller, clearer points — hoping it lands better this time. All I’m really asking is for them to include one additional column in the report: the new Law Ruler ID field. I’m fairly confident the reason we’re seeing 870 blanks is because they had us start sending the Law Ruler ID to a different field, and JP likely hasn’t updated the report logic to include that yet.

👍 deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-25 18:37:54

I can’t 100% confirm this since I don’t have access to Litify, but based on what I’m seeing, it would make sense. Since we’re not allowed to check Litify ourselves, and Abe mentioned in the Jira comment that someone from the SL medical records team can look into it (in Litify), it might be worth having someone on that team confirm whether the Law Ruler ID is now showing under the External ID field.

deleted-U06VDQGHZLL
2025-07-25 18:43:01

Thanks for the update @deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ . Let’s chat with Jasmine Monday morning and have her or a team member show us. I do not believe she/they are available right now to look.

✅ deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-26 01:29:53

Hi team, I was recently asked to put together a write-up outlining the Flatirons reconciliation process (specifically my workflow), which I’ll be sharing with Sahil during an upcoming meeting. Before doing so, Nick M kindly requested that I share it with you guys first for visibility and feedback. The document is titled "Flatirons Reconciliation Process Guide.docx" and provides a clear summary of how I approach the reconciliation — mainly by ensuring DL’s tracker includes the same number of signed retainer clients as Law Ruler, and that all Law Ruler IDs are correctly populated and aligned. Please take a moment to review it when you have time. Any feedback is appreciated before I move forward with sharing it externally. Thanks so much!

Flatirons Reconciliation Process Guide.docx
deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-29 11:49:00

*Thread Reply:* @deleted-U07CRGCBVJA @deleted-U095QBJFFME

deleted-U095QBJFFME
2025-07-29 18:00:34

*Thread Reply:* Did you update this document?

deleted-U06C7A8PVLJ
2025-07-29 20:12:03

*Thread Reply:* @deleted-U095QBJFFME I finished today's reconciliation and now working on finishing some dashboard requests for Cameron to have ready for tomorrow. I shall work on that document tomorrow due to timing purposes