Inefficient Workflows: The Hidden Cost of "This Is How We’ve Always Done It"

There is a particular phrase that quietly protects inefficiency in law firms: “It’s just how we’ve always done it.” It sounds practical, reasonable, and sensible – until you start measuring what that familiarity actually costs.

In many firms, workflows evolve in a need-based manner, rather than being designed holistically to remove process obstacles and address challenges. Steps are added and prompts inserted. Checks are layered on top of earlier checks. While no single, siloed decision is problematic, over time, the overall process becomes heavier, slower, and more frustrating than anyone intended.

Structural transformation over cosmetic adjustments

The unnecessary steps and clicks due to the inherent inefficiencies create a workflow drag, which, when removed through optimised processes, can be transformative. In a conveyancing firm, a structured workflow and automation reduced touch time on a matter from what was traditionally 20 – 30 hours to a mere four or five.

Often, when firms talk about profitability, they talk about pricing, client acquisition and revenue growth. They seldom talk about the silent erosion of the margin caused by inefficient processes. If a matter takes twice as long as it should because the workflow is poorly designed, the firm pays for that time whether it realises it or not.

Typically, this is what happens. A firm believes its system is working adequately. Nothing appears broken, but over time, changes have been layered on top of each other. Scripts evolved and workarounds became permanent, resulting in very gradual performance degradation. No one noticed the moment efficiency declined and intuitively simply adjusted their expectations downward, potentially paying for the reduced performance in margin erosion.

The human cost

When lawyers spend disproportionate time navigating processes rather than applying expertise, frustration builds. Repetitive manual administration affects morale tangibly.

Consider a simple client onboarding scenario. In a manual environment, an individual drafts the client care letter, attaches terms of business, prepares identification checklists and sends them out individually. When documentation returns, someone reviews it, updates a spreadsheet and marks the matter as open.

If generating a simple client care letter requires manual drafting, repeated data entry and checking multiple sources, this work does not feel like professional fulfilment.

By contrast, in a structured workflow, the matter is opened once. Precedent documents generate automatically, automated emails dispatch, and identification tools integrate. Status updates trigger tasks without manual intervention. The professional is no longer spending time typing what they have typed a hundred times before. They are freed to focus on judgment, advice and client communication.

This series of small wins add up quickly, removing unnecessary handling. The lawyer may not even have to touch the file until the client sends back their signed terms of business.

Furthermore, removing one manual step from a process executed thousands of times per year results in significant time savings. Remove five or six, and the difference becomes transformational.

The risk dimension

There is another dimension to inefficient workflows that often goes unexamined. Risk.

When processes rely heavily on human memory and manual sequencing, the likelihood of missed steps, skipped compliance checks (under pressure), documents overlooked, and slipped deadlines increases.

A well-designed workflow accelerates delivery, supported by embedded guardrails. Rather than waiting for a performance issue to surface, firms can conduct structured health checks to identify where scripts and workflows have drifted from best practice. This approach reframes workflow design from a one-off implementation exercise into an ongoing optimisation discipline.

Right tools and an agile mindset

This approach matters more as a firm scales. It’s tempting to respond to increased workload by hiring more staff. But if the underlying workflow remains inefficient, additional people simply multiply the inefficiency. More salaries, same structural drag.

The smarter response is to examine the root cause – i.e., the workflow itself. Which processes genuinely add value, which exist because they always have, which can be automated safely, which can be removed entirely, and so on.

This analysis requires truthfulness alongside an ‘open to change’ mindset. It also requires tools capable of adapting as the firm evolves. Lexis Visualfiles and Lexis Everyfile are designed with configurability at their core. They allow firms to map processes, identify redundancies and embed automation, where appropriate. Crucially, they allow organic refinement of processes over time. Workflows are not set in stone, they can be reviewed, improved, and streamlined in response to changing business requirements.

This is when inefficient workflows shift from being an operational irritation to a strategic opportunity – and where the firm treats workflow optimisation as a competitive lever rather than an IT housekeeping exercise.

Ultimately, every unnecessary click adds up, eating away at valuable time and resources. Over the course of a year, these seemingly minor inefficiencies can become remarkably costly. The real issue isn't the presence of workflows in a firm, but whether they are actively advancing goals or quietly hindering progress.