Worked scenario
The deadline was in the other office's diary
In a multi-office firm the dangerous date is not the one nobody entered. It is the one entered in a diary the responsible advocate cannot see.
4 min read
A single-office practice can run on a shared diary and personal memory. Add a second office and the assumptions break silently, because the failure mode is not a missing entry — it is an entry nobody with responsibility can see.
Transfers are the exposure
Matters move between offices for capacity, expertise or client convenience. The file moves. The dates, which live in a local diary and in the previous advocate's head, frequently do not.
Ownership has to be a field
Not an understanding. A named person against each date, visible from any office, who is answerable for it. Where ownership is implied by which office holds the file, a transfer creates a gap that nobody notices until the date arrives.
What escalation should mean
A date approaching without preparation recorded ought to surface to someone senior before it passes, not appear in a review afterwards. That is the difference between a calendar and a control.
For a firm carrying limitation risk across offices, it is also the difference between an inconvenience and a claim.
What changes
- One calendar across offices, with a named owner on every date
- Limitation and hearing dates attached to the matter, not to an office
- Transfers that move the dates with the file
- Escalation before a date, not a post-mortem after it
Questions about anything here, or a situation this does not cover? contact@anantatechhub.com

