The migration deadline conflicts with the proof attorneys need before relying on active matter timelines.
Retiring the legacy system protects delivery continuity, while attorney verification protects the integrity of demand preparation.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I opened a matter for demand and the treatment order didn’t match the chart I had in front of me.”
Farida Kimani · Personal-Injury Attorney
Reviews active matters and relies on medical timelines, bills, and source records before approving demand preparation.
What is at stake
Treatment events appear out of order in migrated active matters, putting 6,000 files near a committed retirement date. You must weigh demand continuity against the proof attorneys need before relying on migrated timelines.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- retirement commitment vs attorney verification
- demand continuity vs dual-system burden
- mapping consistency vs source-file nuance
- fast stabilization vs defensible exceptions
Why EvenUp
Piai must preserve source-linked case intelligence when active personal-injury matters move into a new workflow.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 15 more at EvenUp, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.