📈 Data-Driven Legal Wins: Shift perceptions & secure more resources. Download our free guide today.
Contact us
Picture this: It's 9 AM on Monday. Your inbox has 47 unread messages. Three business units are waiting on contract approvals. Your IT department just sent another "friendly reminder" about logging time in Jira. And somewhere in your sprawling Kanban board, a critical regulatory issue is buried under seventeen "medium priority" tickets labeled "Quick Question RE: Contract."
Sounds familiar?
If you're a General Counsel managing 15+ lawyers and fielding 200+ legal requests monthly, you've probably had such a morning. You've probably tried to make Jira work, configuring custom workflows, training your team on sprint boards, explaining to frustrated stakeholders why their urgent contract review requires creating a "ticket" and selecting from dropdown menus that include options like "story points" and "epic."
Here's the uncomfortable truth: You're not bad at using Jira; it is just not well-suited for legal work.
The truth is that using project management tools for legal work isn't just inconvenient; it's like using a hammer to perform surgery. Technically possible? Sure. Good for the patient? Absolutely not.
This guide examines why legal teams may use Jira, where it falls short, and what purpose-built alternatives actually solve the problems in-house counsel face daily.
The path to Jira for legal teams rarely starts with legal operations evaluating workflow software. Instead, it typically unfolds like this:
Your company already uses Jira for engineering teams. So, IT suggests (or mandates) that legal use it too because it's "already licensed and integrated." Finance loves the idea, as it eliminates the need for new software spending. Your CFO points out that you can avoid adding another tool to the tech stack.
The logic seems sound on paper. In any case, Jira has workflows, approval processes, and task tracking. Legal work involves workflows, approvals, and tasks. Why wouldn't it work?
Because legal operations are unique.
Jira can technically handle legal intake through its business projects feature. Atlassian even provides templates for legal teams, suggesting workflows for contract requests, legal advice, and regulatory compliance.
The platform offers these capabilities that initially appeal to legal teams:
This functionality explains why IT departments may recommend Jira for legal operations. On the surface, it checks the necessary boxes. The problems arise when legal teams actually use it on a daily basis.
With Jira, the friction points become apparent within weeks. Here's what happens in practice:
Business stakeholders struggle with Jira's terminology. When a sales representative needs a quick contract review, being told to "create a ticket" and "add it to the backlog" can feel bureaucratic and technical. They don't think in sprints or story points; they need legal support to close a deal by the end of the week.
This language gap leads to frustrated stakeholders who may decide to bypass the intake system entirely. They send direct emails or Slack messages to lawyers they know, recreating the exact chaos the workflow software was supposed to eliminate.
Every workflow adjustment needs IT involvement. When legal teams realize their NDA review process requires an additional approval step or want to add a new request type, they can't make the change themselves.
They submit a ticket (ironically) to IT, wait for prioritization, and explain the legal-specific requirements to engineers who don't understand legal operations, hoping the implementation meets their needs.
The back-and-forth over field validation rules and workflow logic can consume hours that should have been spent on higher-value work.
Jira organizes work into projects, epics, and sprints because it was designed for software development. Legal work doesn't follow this structure. A contract negotiation isn't an epic with sub-tasks; it's a back-and-forth process with external parties that doesn't fit neatly into two-week sprints.
Legal teams that are forced to adopt an Agile methodology for legal intake often end up creating awkward workarounds. They establish permanent "projects" for each practice area and manipulate sprint boards to display more like a simple task list. This wastes time and confuses team members who just want to track contract reviews efficiently.
To see how AI-powered workflow tools help legal teams improve efficiency and performance tracking, check out our guide on the best AI tools for legal performance metrics.
Jira workflows handle basic approval chains, but they don't account for legal nuances. Real legal intake requires:
Jira isn't designed with these requirements in mind. Teams often end up building complex workarounds using custom fields, scripted automations, and third-party plugins, thereby turning a supposedly simple solution into a maintenance burden.
For more context on what effective legal intake looks like, refer to our guide to legal intake forms and our breakdown of front-door legal strategies.
Beyond the obvious friction points, Jira carries hidden costs that only become apparent after months of use:
New lawyers joining the team need training on Jira's interface and your custom configuration. Business stakeholders require onboarding on how to submit requests properly. Each variation in your workflow requires documentation explaining when to use which request type.
This ongoing training steals time from substantive legal work, time that could have been spent on actual legal matters.
To understand how modern solutions simplify onboarding through automation and AI-driven workflows, check out our guide on the best AI tools for legal intake.
When software feels too complex or bureaucratic, it’s normal to find alternatives. Stakeholders who don't want to "figure out Jira" may send direct emails or schedule meetings to submit requests verbally. This undermines your entire intake process and eliminates visibility into actual demand.
You end up with a system that tracks some requests while others flow through invisible channels. Your data becomes unreliable, making it difficult to accurately report on team workload or make data-driven resource decisions.
Be that as it may, AI-powered email intake eliminates this problem by capturing requests directly from email while preserving structure and visibility.
As legal teams add more custom fields, automation rules, and workflow branches to make Jira work for legal operations, the configuration becomes more complex. This technical debt makes future changes risky; modifying one workflow might break automations elsewhere in ways that aren't immediately apparent.
Consequently, teams become trapped. They can't easily migrate to better software because they've invested so much time customizing Jira. But continuing with it means accepting inefficiency as the cost of avoiding migration pain.
In fairness, some situations make Jira a reasonable choice for legal teams, at least for the time being.
For instance, small legal departments (fewer than five lawyers and handling low request volumes) might find Jira adequate, especially if they're already familiar with it from previous roles. The configuration complexity matters less when the use case is simple.
Organizations with strong IT partnerships where legal has dedicated technical support can overcome some of Jira's limitations. If your IT team understands legal operations and can quickly implement workflow changes, the platform becomes more viable.
Companies with mandatory enterprise tools sometimes leave legal teams no choice. If your company requires all departments to use Jira for regulatory or security reasons, optimizing within those constraints makes sense rather than fighting battles you won't win.
The question isn't whether Jira is capable of handling legal intake; rather, it is whether Jira is suitable for this purpose. Is it really the best tool for the job, given what's available today?
Modern legal intake and matter management platforms approach the problem from a legal operations perspective rather than adapting project management software. Here's what that looks like in practice:
Purpose-built platforms use language that is easily understood by both legal teams and business stakeholders. Stakeholders "submit a request" rather than "create a ticket." Legal teams "review and triage" rather than "working on sprints." This linguistic alignment eliminates the learning curve that makes Jira feel foreign.
The workflows reflect how legal teams actually work. Request types map to common legal matters, contracts, vendor reviews, employment questions, regulatory advice, and litigation holds. The progression stages make sense for legal processes: submitted, triage, in review, pending stakeholder input, and completed.
Legal operations professionals can create new request types, modify workflows, and adjust automation rules without writing code or submitting IT tickets. Changes take minutes rather than weeks. This agility enables legal teams to iterate based on feedback and quickly adapt to new business needs.
Modern legal intake platforms offer capabilities specifically designed for legal teams.
AI-powered email intake reads unstructured legal requests sent via email and automatically converts them into structured intake forms. This eliminates the friction of forcing stakeholders to fill out forms while still capturing necessary information.
Knowledge base integration suggests self-service resources based on request content, reducing intake volume by empowering stakeholders to find answers independently for routine questions.
Advanced reporting tracks metrics that matter to legal leaders, not just request volume and cycle time, but also the time spent waiting on stakeholders versus the time spent on legal review, identifying bottlenecks outside of legal's control.
Contract lifecycle management integration enables seamless handoffs when triage determines a contract negotiation is needed, avoiding duplicate data entry and maintaining a single source of truth.
For teams seeking to gain a deeper understanding of these concepts, our guide to matter management provides helpful context.
At Streamline AI, we built our platform based on hands-on experience with the problems in-house legal teams face. Our founder, Kathy Zhu, served as Associate General Counsel at DoorDash during its period of explosive growth.
She experienced firsthand how generic tools, such as spreadsheets, email, and project management software, failed to scale with increasing legal demands.
Streamline AI's interface and workflows reflect how legal teams naturally work. Business stakeholders submit requests through familiar channels, email, Slack, and Microsoft Teams, without needing to learn a new system. Our AI-powered email intake automatically converts unstructured requests into structured forms.
Legal teams gain visibility into every request from intake through completion. Real-time dashboards display the current status of requests, including who owns them and how long they've been in each stage. This transparency eliminates the "black box" perception that often plagues legal departments.
Streamline AI's intuitive design enables legal operations professionals to create and modify workflows without requiring technical expertise.
Do you need to add a new approval step? Adjust routing rules based on contract value? Create a custom request type for a new business initiative? These changes can be made in minutes through our visual workflow builder.
Indeed, setting up an entire intake system, including five different request types, conditional routing rules, and automated reminders, can be achieved in under two weeks without requiring IT involvement. The same implementation in Jira can take three months with ongoing IT support.
Our platform includes features that matter specifically to in-house legal teams:
Legal teams currently using Jira often hesitate to switch because migration can be a daunting process. However, the transition can be straightforward when approached systematically.
Start by documenting what's working and what isn't in your current Jira implementation. Identify the workflows you've built, the data you're tracking, and the integrations you depend on. This assessment clarifies what needs to carry over to the new software and what can be simplified.
For teams that have built complex workflows in Jira that they no longer need, the migration presents an opportunity to streamline processes rather than replicating every customization.
Rather than switching your entire legal team overnight, pilot new software with a single practice area or request type. Choose something high-volume but relatively simple, like NDA reviews or vendor questionnaires.
This approach allows you to test whether the new platform actually delivers on its promises before committing fully.
Most modern legal intake platforms can import historical data from Jira, preserving your request history and metrics. However, not all historical data deserves migration. Focus on active matters and recent requests rather than exhaustively migrating years of closed tickets.
One consideration is whether you need historical data for ongoing matters that are immediately accessible in the new system, or whether archiving historical records for reference is sufficient. This decision significantly impacts migration complexity and timeline.
The strongest argument for purpose-built legal software is that it requires less training than Jira. Stakeholders who struggled with Jira's complexity often adapt to legal-specific platforms within minutes because the terminology and workflows feel natural.
Focus your change management on communicating the benefits, such as faster response times, improved visibility, and simplified processes. When stakeholders understand how the change makes their lives easier, resistance tends to decrease.
Jira works well for what it was designed to do: manage software development projects. Legal teams have different needs that generic project management software can't efficiently address without extensive customization and IT support.
So for most legal teams, the question is whether they should spend limited time and resources making a square peg fit a round hole when purpose-built alternatives exist.
Modern legal intake and matter management platforms eliminate the friction that makes Jira frustrating for legal teams. They speak legal's language, configure without much IT involvement, and include features designed specifically for in-house counsel work.
Most importantly, they enable legal teams to focus on delivering excellent legal support rather than struggling with software that constantly hinders them.
Legal departments face mounting pressure to do more with less while demonstrating value beyond being a cost center. Indeed, in a 2024 ACC survey, 59% of Chief Legal Officers reported increased workloads while facing pressure to reduce costs.
Generic project management tools, like Jira, aren't designed to address these challenges; they often add complexity rather than clarity.
Streamline AI eliminates the bottlenecks that make legal teams appear slow, as data shows that delays often originate from stakeholders. Our platform provides you with the visibility and automation to demonstrate the value of Legal, secure the necessary resources, and operate your department as a strategic business partner.
Join legal teams at companies like Grammarly, 8x8, and Demandbase who transformed their operations with software designed specifically for in-house legal work.
Schedule a demo today to see how Streamline AI can reduce your legal team's time-to-close by up to 50% while giving you the data you need to demonstrate the department's impact.
Jira can track contract requests through approval workflows, but it lacks features purpose-built for contract lifecycle management. Legal teams that utilize Jira for contract management often require dedicated contract repositories, version control systems, and signature workflows to manage contracts effectively.
Purpose-built contract lifecycle management software integrates these capabilities. Jira requires extensive customization or integration with CLM platforms like Ironclad or Streamline AI to create a complete contract management solution.
Legal teams working within Jira often invest in third-party plugins for automation, create detailed documentation to guide stakeholders through the intake process, and establish regular training sessions to ensure effective use.
However, these improvements require ongoing maintenance and IT support. Teams that achieve results typically work with dedicated IT resources familiar with legal operations. For most legal teams, migrating to specialized legal software yields better returns than continually optimizing Jira configurations.
Legal teams should prioritize legal-native terminology and workflows that stakeholders intuitively understand, no-code configuration that lets legal operations professionals make changes independently without IT support, AI-powered intake that converts unstructured requests into structured forms automatically, advanced analytics showing where delays actually occur (often outside legal's control), and seamless integration with contract lifecycle management systems and document repositories. These features eliminate the friction that makes generic project management software challenging for legal operations.
Scale your legal team's efficiency and effectiveness with modern workflow automation tools designed for in-house legal.
