Looking for examples of how legal reviews are handled through using Workfront

[J_Hobbs]

Does anyone have any examples of how legal reviews are handled through using Workfront? I'm looking for a solution that has any legal comments about a document restricted from view by anyone other than the legal team and a specific point of contact within the issue/task/project.

We have some ideas but if anyone can share about how their process works beyond a traditional approval process that would be appreciated. 😎

Thanks!

[kynabaker16]

Hey Jonathan!

This seems like a common question today as @Kelly Bultman‚ just posted almost the exact same question a few hours ago, I wonder if the two of you would benefit from chatting with each other. This conversation from @Christina Jarosz‚ has a similar theme, and I've seen @Skye Hansen‚ also comment on other somewhat similar convos (like this one). And as I continue to get even farther off the topic... for a good discussion about inherited permissions too, you might want to check out this thread and @Richard Leek‚'s insight.

I'm intrigued to hear what anyone else has to share about this in today's world as well.

Kyna

[Richard_Le_]

Hi Jonathan,

Do you use Workfront Proof, and if so, are you familiar with creating private stages in an automated approval workflow? Using this functionality you could create a 'Legal Review' stage that is private, which would mean that all comments made on the proof during this stage are hidden from other users. The only people who would be able to view these comments are the people in that proofing stage, system admins, or people that have edit rights to the proof.

There's some more information on private stages here on Workfront One

Best Regards,

Rich.

[skyehansen]

I can give a few pointers from a working solution.

1) our legal request queue is completely separated from anything else. Legal does not allow any legal review to happen in the confines of anyone else's project.

2) certain permissions are automatically set on the request level (through Fusion). This is specifically for attorney/client privilege.

3) Legal does not use Proof, since for audits we have to be able to see the comments in context and having to un-archive a proof is apparently a dealbreaker. Ideally for audit situations we'd be able to quickly locate and download documents and the comments. This isn't going to be possible with Proof in the volume of legal review we deal with. I was hoping for a solution where once the legal review is complete we automatically convert it to a PDF with markups (again, through Fusion if possible) but we haven't gotten that far in the negotiations. (Legal currently uses the request queue but no proof comments)

There are other considerations I haven't mentioned but these are the ones that come top of mind and should help give you more insight to how Legal thinks about things.

[Christina_Jarosz]

Thanks @Kyna Baker - inactive‚ ! We have a few different paths in our instance for this. We have a separate confidential process which involves its only separate queue/project/portfolio/company. We then have a specific separate WF experience for our legal/compliance area. They operate completely independently from our primary experience.

Feel free to send me a message and we can connect on this over zoom or what not if that's more helpful.