Role-based access that matches the way a firm works
User permissions sit between the user and the document library. A principal can see the whole set of templates, while an assistant may only work inside a defined folder or assigned matter type. That separation matters when several people touch letters, contracts, wills, leases or conveyancing packs during the same week.
In practice, permissions are set by role, department or matter group. The system can limit who creates a draft, who edits clause text, who sends a document into review and who signs off on the final version. It also helps keep client matter data in the right place, so the wrong file does not land in the wrong hands.
- View only access for low-risk users
- Edit access for approved drafting staff
- Review access for supervising attorneys
- Publish or lock access for final sign-off roles
What permission settings usually cover
Permission rules are normally mapped across several parts of the document workflow. Template libraries can be opened to some users and hidden from others. Clause banks can be read only, edited only by a small group, or restricted to named reviewers. Matter folders can also be separated by department or office, which helps larger practices keep control over active work.
Common controls include document creation, file editing, version history viewing, export access and deletion rights. Some firms also ask for separate settings on merge fields, questionnaire layouts and approval steps, especially where different staff members handle drafting, checking and final release. Those controls keep the working file clean and the approved version easy to identify.
- Template access by role or team
- Clause bank edit controls
- Version history and audit visibility
- Export, print and final-release rights
- Matter-level restrictions where needed
Where user permissions fit well in a South African practice
This setup suits firms that want more than one person inside the drafting process but do not want everyone making the same changes. It is useful for Johannesburg practices with a busy conveyancing counter, Pretoria firms running contract work, Cape Town teams handling leases, Durban offices dealing with letters of demand and Bloemfontein practices that need orderly file control across a smaller staff base.
It also works well where trainees, paralegals, secretaries and attorneys all touch the same matter. A questionnaire can be completed by one user, checked by another and signed off by a senior person before the file is released. That pattern keeps work moving while still keeping the approved wording and matter data under control.
- Small firms with one office or several branches
- Teams that need separation between drafting and approval
- Practices managing sensitive client information
- Firms with mixed user levels and limited admin time
Setup, onboarding and the fitting process
Permission setup usually starts with a map of roles and document tasks. The team lists who needs access to each template set, which clause banks can be amended, and where review or sign-off should sit. From there, roles are created around day-to-day work, with names staff already use in the office.
For onboarding, the firm normally provides its current document groups, user list and approval chain. Those details are then linked to template mapping, matter data design and questionnaire design so the access rules match the workflow. If a practice already stores files in a secure cloud space, permission settings can be aligned with that structure and kept tidy from the start.
- User list with job roles and practice groups
- Document types to be restricted or shared
- Approval path for each matter type
- Any office-based or branch-based separation
Care, review cycles and keeping access tidy
User permissions need regular review. When staff move roles, join the team or leave the practice, access needs to be checked and adjusted. The same applies when a new template set is added or an older clause bank is retired. A clear review cycle helps prevent stale access from lingering in the background.
Version control matters here too. If one user updates a clause while another is preparing a document, the approved version should still be easy to identify. POPIA-aware handling in general means access should be limited to the people who need the file for the task at hand, with logins, audit trails and shared folders kept under close watch.
- Review access after staff changes
- Retire old permissions when workflows change
- See which users may edit and which may approve
- Keep audit logs and version records in order
What we confirm before setting the permission model
Before permissions are configured, it helps to confirm the structure of the practice and the level of control needed. Some firms want broad access for senior staff and tight limits for everyone else. Others need different rules by office, by matter type or by document stage. A clearer brief leads to a cleaner setup.
Useful details include the number of users, the document groups in use, the approval chain and whether the team works with matter-specific data. It also helps to note if training is needed for administrators, reviewers or end users, because the permission model should match how people actually work in the office.
- Number of users and role groups
- Template sets, clause banks and folders in scope
- Review and sign-off steps for each document type
- Need for admin training or workflow tuning
- Any branch-based access separation
Key facts
| Access model | Role-based permissions for templates, clause banks and document actions |
|---|---|
| Control levels | View, edit, review, approve, publish and delete |
| Workflow coverage | Questionnaires, merge fields, matter data and version history |
| Storage handling | Secure cloud storage with POPIA-aware access control |
| Document types | Contracts, wills, leases, letters of demand and conveyancing paperwork |
| Common user groups | Principals, attorneys, paralegals, secretaries and admins |
