Open the court portal. Find the case. Scroll through the register of actions. Compare the latest entry with the last saved note. Check whether the hearing is still on calendar. Close the tab and move to the next case.
Nothing changed. The check still took time.
For a litigation team, this is legitimate work. The question is how much of the work consists of finding out whether something happened, and how much consists of deciding what to do about it.
That distinction makes the cost measurable.
Start with a week of actual checks
Before estimating savings, record how the current process works. Count the cases checked, the time spent locating and comparing records, unsuccessful access attempts, and the time spent reviewing changes that require action.
Keep those last two categories separate. A portal that failed to load did not produce a completed check. Reading a newly posted order is substantive follow-up, even if software retrieved the document.
Use a sample that includes both quiet cases and active motion practice. If only the easiest portal checks are measured, the result will understate the work. If only unusually difficult cases are measured, it will overstate it.
An illustrative calculation
Suppose a team checks 120 cases on each of 20 working days in a month, averaging three minutes per case. At an assumed loaded labor cost of $45 per hour, the calculation looks like this:
| Input | Illustrative amount |
|---|---|
| Cases checked per working day | 120 |
| Average minutes per check | 3 |
| Checking days per month | 20 |
| Monthly checking time | 120 hours |
| Assumed loaded labor cost | $45 per hour |
| Monthly labor allocation | $5,400 |
The formula is cases × minutes per check × checking days ÷ 60. Multiply the resulting hours by the firm's actual loaded hourly cost if a dollar estimate is useful.
These figures are a hypothetical example, not survey findings or measured AlwaysPresent customer results. The 120 hours are spread across the team; they are not necessarily one person's monthly assignment. If the firm checks only 40 cases a day, the result changes accordingly.
The dollar figure also is not guaranteed cash savings. Time returned to other work has operational value, but it does not necessarily reduce payroll or become collectible billable time.
Include the work between the checks
A case number copied from a spreadsheet is not the end of the process. Someone still needs to decide whether an entry is new, locate an available document, identify the responsible attorney, and determine whether a calendar or task needs attention.
Document retrieval also varies by court. For example, San Diego's access guidance distinguishes the register of actions from document previews and paid downloads. A successful case search does not mean the team has read the underlying order.
A useful baseline therefore separates three activities:
- Finding changes: opening portals and comparing records.
- Understanding changes: reviewing entries, documents, and procedural consequences.
- Acting on changes: updating the calendar, assigning work, and confirming completion.
Monitoring can reduce parts of the first activity and support the others. Legal judgment and ownership still need to be assigned.
Record failed checks as failed checks
Imagine a case marked “checked” after the portal timed out twice. The next person sees a completed task and moves on. The system now contains reassurance without a result.
Use a small set of explicit statuses: checked with no change, change awaiting review, access failed, and follow-up completed. Record the last successful check separately from the last attempt.
Give each case an owner and a backup. Decide what happens when access fails near a hearing or filing deadline. A process that depends on one person remembering to try again becomes fragile during leave, trial preparation, or staff turnover.
Measure a pilot against the same baseline
When evaluating a monitoring service, use a representative set of cases and compare like with like. Track time spent on portal checks before the pilot and time spent reviewing alerts during it. Include onboarding, duplicate alerts, unresolved document retrieval, and manual exceptions.
The meaningful result is the change in total work at an acceptable level of coverage. A lower alert count alone does not establish that the system is better, and a larger alert count does not establish that it is finding more useful changes.
Ask the reviewers whether each alert identified the case, explained the change, and made the next step clear. Confirm whether the person assigned to act actually received it.
A worksheet for your own caseload
| Measure | Your number |
|---|---|
| Average cases actually checked per day | ____ |
| Average minutes spent finding changes per case | ____ |
| Checking days per month | ____ |
| Monthly checking hours: cases × minutes × days ÷ 60 | ____ |
| Monthly time reviewing changes and completing follow-up | ____ |
| Optional loaded hourly cost | ____ |
| Unresolved access failures at the end of the week | ____ |
AlwaysPresent brings court updates into the team's workflow so less of the morning is spent finding out whether a case changed. The useful comparison is what your team can reclaim while continuing to review and act on the changes that matter. Explore AlwaysPresent for your caseload.