Matter-centric working: why SharePoint at defaults isn't a DMS

Every document, every email, every note, every version, every audit entry is associated with a matter. Not with a folder, not with a person, not with a project. With a matter. The matter is the unit of organisation, access control, retention and audit.

When a fee-earner opens 'Smith v Jones', they see everything related to that matter regardless of where it physically sits. When the matter closes, retention triggers automatically. When an ethical wall is required, access is restricted at the matter level, not by trying to remember which folders to lock down.

A real DMS treats the matter as a first-class object. SharePoint treats documents and sites as first-class objects, and the matter has to be modelled deliberately on top.

Smaller firms with disciplined fee-earners and a competent information manager can get a long way with a properly structured SharePoint estate. A site per practice area, a library per matter, metadata-driven views, sensitivity labels, retention policies and conditional access. It takes a project to set up. Once set up, it holds.

The trade-offs are real. Some workflows that are out of the box in iManage need to be built in SharePoint with Power Automate. The Outlook integration is less polished than the dedicated DMSs offer. Some specialist features (email-as-document filing with rich metadata, comparison tools, document numbering) need third-party add-ins or custom development.

For firms below about thirty fee-earners with relatively contained matter complexity, the trade-offs are usually acceptable. The licence cost difference funds an information manager, which is the missing ingredient anyway.

Higher matter volumes, complex conflicts, and strict ethical-wall requirements push you to a dedicated DMS. Litigation firms with high volumes of disclosure, conveyancing firms processing hundreds of matters at any time, and full-service firms with strict screening requirements tend to outgrow SharePoint.

The mistake is bolting on a DMS without first deciding how matter-centric working will actually behave. The new tool inherits the old habits otherwise. A firm that filed documents loosely in SharePoint will file documents loosely in iManage. The platform changes; the discipline doesn't, unless you change it.

Ethical walls in SharePoint are doable, but they're not casual. They require deliberate use of sensitivity labels, conditional access policies, and sometimes separate sites with strict membership control. The audit trail needs to survive scrutiny.

Dedicated DMSs make ethical walls a one-click action: 'screen this matter from these users'. The product handles the rest. In SharePoint, the equivalent is a checklist of actions across labels, permissions and conditional access. It works; it's just less forgiving of operator error.

If your conflicts position is genuinely high-stakes, the simpler workflow of a dedicated DMS is worth paying for.

Some firms try to have both: SharePoint for general documents and iManage for matter documents. Most of these implementations are unhappy. Fee-earners can't remember which goes where. Email gets filed twice or not at all. The audit trail diverges.

If you choose a dedicated DMS, commit to it. If you choose SharePoint, commit to it. The mixed model is the worst of both.

A real DMS handles retention by matter. When the matter closes, the seven-year clock starts. After seven years, documents are flagged for disposal according to the matter type. Conveyancing matters might have a different retention from commercial matters; the system handles it without anyone thinking about it.

SharePoint can do this with retention labels applied per matter library, but it requires the labels to be applied consistently. That's an information manager's job, not a fee-earner's.

Whichever platform you end up on, the marker of a good DMS practice is the same. Every matter has a single, clear location. Every document is filed there. Email is filed against the matter, not just sent. Access is controlled at the matter level. Retention is automatic. Ethical walls are enforceable and auditable.

That's the standard. The tool is a question of scale, complexity and budget. The discipline isn't, and it's the discipline that defines whether the system passes an SRA file review.

Whether you choose SharePoint or a dedicated DMS, the role of the information manager is the same: own the structure, train the users, audit the discipline, and escalate when something is drifting. Firms that have this role tend to have a working DMS. Firms that don't tend to have a tool that nobody trusts.

The role doesn't have to be a senior hire. It can be a capable practice manager, a senior PA, or a junior librarian-type. What matters is that someone has it as their job, not as an extra thing they do when they have time.