Every moving part of an active case, in one place.
Discovery requests with real status, a motion log that remembers outcomes, depositions tied to the transcript rather than to a calendar entry, and the dates that govern all of it tracked where the case lives instead of across three people’s inboxes.
- Quick answer
- What is the best litigation case management software?
- Sapphire Legal is Private Legal Intelligence for litigation practice: a per-tenant platform where a case is a structured record rather than a folder with a docket number. Matters carry the court, the parties and the key dates; discovery requests are tracked with status and owner through to response; motions are logged with their deadlines and their outcomes, so the history of what was argued and how it landed stays with the case; and depositions are recorded against the matter with transcript notes attached rather than left as calendar entries. Court deadline computation is available for supported courts. Everything runs in an isolated database and a private model environment per firm.
A case is a pipeline. A task list cannot model one.
Litigation moves through stages that each produce obligations with their own clocks: a discovery request served starts one, a motion filed starts another, a deposition noticed starts a third. The parts interact — an unanswered request shapes a motion, a motion outcome reshapes the schedule — and a to-do list with legal labels cannot represent that. So the real state of the case lives in the head of whoever is carrying it, and transfers badly.
Discovery status is a guess between status meetings
What was served, what is outstanding, what is overdue, and what came back deficient are four different answers that most practices reconstruct by asking someone rather than by reading a record.
Motion history is lost once the motion is decided
What was argued, what was granted, what was reserved, and what the court said about it is the most reusable knowledge a litigation practice generates — and it usually survives only in the memory of the lawyer who argued it.
Deposition value is spent once and discarded
A transcript is read closely in the week after the deposition and rarely again, so testimony that bears on a later motion or on trial prep has to be rediscovered by rereading it.
Stages that know what they produce.
Discovery, motion practice and depositions each have their own record, and the matter carries the dates that bind them.
A matter opens with the court, the parties and the key dates as structured data rather than as a caption in a title field, and the case enters a litigation pipeline with its own stages — not a generic "open". Discovery requests are tracked individually from service through response, so outstanding and deficient are distinguishable states rather than the same blank cell. The motion log keeps each filing with its deadlines and, once decided, its outcome, which is what turns motion practice into reusable firm knowledge instead of personal memory. Depositions are scheduled against the matter and carry their transcript notes, so testimony stays addressable after the week it was taken. Drafting runs from the firm’s own templates and is prepared ahead rather than on request, and where a filing cannot be completed the gap is named rather than papered over.
- 1
Matter record with court, parties and dates
The structured facts of the case — forum, parties, counsel, key dates — are fields rather than prose, because everything downstream is derived from them.
- 2
Discovery request tracking
Each request carries status and owner from service through response, so outstanding, overdue and deficient are distinct and visible rather than inferred.
- 3
Motion log with outcomes
Filings are logged with their deadlines and, once decided, their results — so what the court did with an argument is firm knowledge rather than one lawyer’s recollection.
- 4
Depositions tied to the record
Scheduling and transcript notes attach to the matter, keeping testimony addressable for the motion or the trial prep that needs it months later.
- 5
Deadlines tracked against the case
Dates live with the matter rather than in a personal calendar. Court rule computation is available for supported courts; elsewhere dates are tracked without rule derivation.
- 6
Drafting prepared ahead
Filings and correspondence are drafted from the firm’s own templates and waiting, exportable to Word. Anything built from unverified work says so on its first page.
What ships with the Litigation pack
The litigation module is the primary workflow on this deployment, not a matter type with a label on it.
- Matter records with court, parties and key dates
- Discovery request tracking with status management
- Motion log with deadlines and recorded outcomes
- Deposition scheduling with transcript notes
- Court deadline computation for supported courts
- Document drafting from your own templates
- Matter Kanban with litigation-specific stages
- Conflict checking across every party on intake
Work product is privileged, and a shared model is a disclosure risk.
Why private infrastructure matters hereLitigation files hold attorney work product, strategy, candid assessments of a client’s own exposure and material produced under protective order. Putting any of it through a shared model is a risk a litigator should not have to evaluate. Each client firm on Sapphire Legal gets its own database and its own document storage, and the AI runs inside Sapphire Legal’s own AWS account rather than routing to an outside provider. Nothing trains a model, nothing is retained by a vendor, and nothing crosses between firms.
Where to go next
The litigation pack is one part of the platform. These are the pieces around it.
Litigation practice questions.
- Does it compute court deadlines from the rules?
- For supported courts, yes — a rules engine derives dates rather than asking you to type them. Coverage is specific rather than universal, so ask which courts during a demo. Note also that the statutory-basis display, where a deadline is shown with the rule that created it, covers corporate, family and fiduciary matters rather than litigation.
- How is discovery tracked?
- Each request is a tracked item with status and owner from service through response, so outstanding, overdue and deficient are distinguishable states. The point is that the current state of discovery is readable from the record rather than reconstructed by asking whoever is carrying the case.
- Does the motion log keep outcomes?
- Yes, and that is the part that compounds. Each filing keeps its deadlines and, once decided, its result, so what a court did with a given argument becomes firm knowledge rather than one lawyer’s recollection of it.
- Can it draft filings?
- It drafts from your own templates and has the document waiting rather than requiring a prompt, exportable to Word. Nothing is filed without an attorney approving it, a missing input is named rather than invented, and a document built from unverified work says so on its first page.
- Is privileged work product safe on this platform?
- Each client firm runs on its own database and its own document storage, and the AI executes inside Sapphire Legal’s own AWS account rather than calling OpenAI, Anthropic or any outside provider. Work product is never used to train a model, never retained by an AI vendor, and never pooled with another firm’s data.
- Does this work for a litigation boutique?
- It is one of the two firm types the Firm tier was built around, alongside franchise and multi-location operations, and the Firm tier is priced per location. A one-lawyer litigation practice runs on the Solo plan instead.
See it on an active case.
Bring a matter in discovery and we will walk what the platform would be tracking — outstanding requests, upcoming dates, the motion history it would already hold.
14-day free trial. No card required.