You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
No, this feature request is not related to solving a problem. It is an enhancement to improve tracking and automation capabilities within DFIR-IRIS.
Describe the solution you'd like:
I would like the ability to track counsel (e.g., law firms or specific legal representatives) assigned to individual cases in DFIR-IRIS. This functionality should be similar to the existing "Customers" list, allowing users to manage and associate counsel with cases efficiently. Additionally, this value should be accessible programmatically (e.g., via case.counsel or a similar variable) to integrate seamlessly with the platform's automated reporting capabilities.
The solution would enable the following:
A dedicated list or module to manage and track counsel similar to the "Customers" list.
The ability to assign counsel to cases from this list.
Accessibility of the assigned counsel value in case templates, automated reports, and other relevant contexts.
Describe alternatives you've considered:
Manually tracking counsel information in custom fields or external documents. However, this approach is inefficient and cannot leverage the platform’s automation features.
Using a custom attribute on cases, but this lacks the centralized management and reusable nature of a dedicated list. Additional context
We often conduct incident response engagements on behalf of counsel. Having the ability to track which firms or representatives are attached to specific cases directly in DFIR-IRIS would streamline case management and reporting. This enhancement would help us maintain better records, ensure accurate reporting, and reduce the manual effort of correlating this information.
This request has been checked against the roadmap and does not appear to be listed.
Thank you for considering this enhancement!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
WellKnitTech
changed the title
[EN] Feature Request: Ability to Track Counsel for Cases
[FR] Feature Request: Ability to Track Counsel for Cases
Jan 8, 2025
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
No, this feature request is not related to solving a problem. It is an enhancement to improve tracking and automation capabilities within DFIR-IRIS.
Describe the solution you'd like:
I would like the ability to track counsel (e.g., law firms or specific legal representatives) assigned to individual cases in DFIR-IRIS. This functionality should be similar to the existing "Customers" list, allowing users to manage and associate counsel with cases efficiently. Additionally, this value should be accessible programmatically (e.g., via case.counsel or a similar variable) to integrate seamlessly with the platform's automated reporting capabilities.
The solution would enable the following:
A dedicated list or module to manage and track counsel similar to the "Customers" list.
The ability to assign counsel to cases from this list.
Accessibility of the assigned counsel value in case templates, automated reports, and other relevant contexts.
Describe alternatives you've considered:
Manually tracking counsel information in custom fields or external documents. However, this approach is inefficient and cannot leverage the platform’s automation features.
Using a custom attribute on cases, but this lacks the centralized management and reusable nature of a dedicated list.
Additional context
We often conduct incident response engagements on behalf of counsel. Having the ability to track which firms or representatives are attached to specific cases directly in DFIR-IRIS would streamline case management and reporting. This enhancement would help us maintain better records, ensure accurate reporting, and reduce the manual effort of correlating this information.
This request has been checked against the roadmap and does not appear to be listed.
Thank you for considering this enhancement!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: