From sequential handovers to structured collaboration
Lisa Walsh, chief operating officer at Bundledocs, discusses why law firms are adopting collaborative document review processes, as opposed to the traditionally linear method, along with the returns gained from this shift
For decades, document review in legal practice has followed a familiar structure: a draft is prepared, circulated for feedback and revised until the document is finalised.
In straightforward matters this process can work well. But as legal work grows more complex, the traditional model is increasingly under strain.
Documents now move between larger internal teams, external counsel, subject-matter experts and clients. Each review round introduces additional content — comments, tracked changes and new versions — making the process progressively harder to manage.
Research from the Thomson Reuters Institute (2024 Report on the State of the Legal Market) consistently highlights how workflow inefficiencies — particularly around document management and coordination — consume a significant portion of time in legal matters. As the scale and pace of work increases, many legal teams are reconsidering how document review happens in their practice.
Increasingly, firms are moving away from sequential handovers towards structured collaboration, where contributors work within the same secure environment, rather than passing documents from one reviewer to the next.
The friction created by sequential review
Traditional review processes are inherently linear. A document moves from one reviewer to another, with each stage dependent on the previous one being completed.
This structure creates several challenges, with version confusion being the most common. When documents are circulated through email or shared folders, multiple copies can exist at the same time. Reviewers may comment on outdated versions, creating additional work to reconcile edits and confirm which document reflects the latest changes.
The consolidation of feedback also causes significant administrative burden. In many teams, one person gathers comments from multiple reviewers and merges them into a master document. When documents go through several rounds of revision, this task can become time-consuming — creating administrative hours that impact productivity and profitability.
Sequential workflows can also introduce avoidable delays. Surveys by organisations such as the International Legal Technology Association’s (ILTA) consistently highlight manual coordination as a persistent operational inefficiency. When reviews work in sequence rather than in parallel, even minor pauses between stages accumulate and extend the overall timeline of a matter.
A shift toward concurrent collaboration
In response, many firms are adopting more collaborative review processes. Rather than moving documents through a chain of handovers, contributors can review the same material simultaneously within a shared workspace.
This enables parallel review, allowing stakeholders to comment, annotate and assess documents at the same time. Feedback can be gathered more quickly, and reviewers can see each other’s input in context.
The shift reflects broader changes in how legal work is delivered. Hybrid working is now common, and many matters involve teams spread across offices or jurisdictions. Complex cases also increasingly require input from specialists such as experts, consultants or external counsel.
Research from the Harvard Law School highlights how legal services are now frequently delivered through collaborative networks rather than strictly hierarchical teams. As more contributors become involved in matters, the need for structured collaboration around documents becomes clearer.
What structured collaboration requires
Effective collaboration needs clear structures so multiple contributors can work together without confusion.
Documents should sit in a dedicated workspace linked to the matter, ensuring everyone works from the same version instead of circulating attachments.
Granular access controls are also essential, allowing firms to set permissions by user, role or document so external stakeholders can contribute without accessing unnecessary content.
Simultaneous commentary and review let contributors annotate documents in parallel, while audit trails and version histories provide visibility over who reviewed what, what changed and when decisions were made.
The International Bar Association (The Future is Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession) has also emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability as firms adopt new collaborative technologies.
Connecting review to the wider document workflow
Efficiency in document review also depends on how well it connects to the broader document lifecycle.
In many firms, documents still move between separate systems for drafting, production and delivery. Each transition introduces additional steps such as exporting files, uploading new versions or circulating updated access among stakeholders.
These handovers create friction and increase the potential for errors. They also make it harder to maintain a clear view of how documents evolve over time.
Research by McKinsey & Company has shown that fragmented workflows and system handovers are a common source of inefficiency in knowledge-based work. Legal teams are no exception.
A more integrated approach allows review to take place within the same environment used to prepare and manage documents, reducing administrative steps and improving continuity across the process.
Collaboration without losing control
Collaboration has always been central to legal work, but the way it happens is changing.
As matters grow more complex and involve more contributors, sequential document handovers are becoming less practical. Structured collaboration enables legal teams to gather feedback more efficiently through parallel review, clearer access controls and better visibility over document activity, reducing administrative friction while maintaining oversight and accountability.
In a more time-pressured and distributed working environment, controlled collaboration has become essential for effective legal operations.
