Amicus Attorney by CARET vs. CARET Legal

Amicus Attorney can probably be deployed very well in a law office that has a manager specifically dedicated to making it run smoothly, and who can keep track of the contacts, etc. In our firm, no one can spend the time to do this, so the information stored by Amicus gets a little disorganized, which has the effect of slowing us down

Incentivized

Well-suited to a small to midsized law firm setting. Would also recommend for management seek easy ways to keep track of a large volume of business and to track which staff are doing what. The software isn't the best suited for running a lot of complex reports--we can obtain simple information in the reports, but sometimes we find ourselves pulling certain data from Zola and working with it in other software environments instead.

Incentivized

• Very efficient calendaring with sync to Outlook calendar (option of Exchange or Outlook level synchronization).
• Case management including contacts, emails, documents, etc. to keep everything in one consolidated place.
• Document automation including Word merging or HotDocs (third party). Take case data including custom pages and fields and instantly create documents based on templates with ease.

Incentivized

• Provide me with instant list of assignments.
• Easily record billable hours.
• Monitor the work of colleagues whom I supervise.

Incentivized

• Partner channel doesn't really exist anymore
• Support of the product is extremely poor
• License agreement states you can only run it in their data center (not Azure or AWS, really Amicus?)

Incentivized

• The email integration feature has never consistently worked.
• I can't toggle easily between viewing all time and just my time, have to use the filters.
• Pulling reports to capture certain notes/details not perfected yet.

Incentivized

In the time that I have been with my firm, we have not used any other comparable software. As a result I can't compare it to anything else that is out there

Incentivized

I didn't have the ultimate decision-making power to choose Zola. Clio was more expensive and may have offered a more robust platform, but with some options we didn't need. Westlaw was good for case management, but we would have likely still needed separate software to patch together something like Zola. Zola support isn't that great, but we rarely need it.

Incentivized

• Large software investment, if not properly configured and utilized this can be a time and money vacuum.
• If law firm does not have a consistent personality among employees, buy-in may be difficult as it's a significant workflow change for users.
• Can greatly benefit law firm if used properly and across board for all employees. Uniform data organization for cases and custom pages add to personalizing software for firm.

Incentivized

• Collections have been better overall.
• Verifying staff work has been made much easier, potentially leading to more efficiencies.
• The software itself is costly.

Incentivized