Time is already allocated
Each fee-earner's timer has been running against matters through the month, from a phone in a corridor as often as from a desk. Nothing is reconstructed on the 30th, so nothing is guessed downward.
The partner asks what happened in a matter and gets three different answers: the clerk's diary, the junior's notes, and a WhatsApp group nobody scrolls back through. Somewhere in there is the date on which a reply was due. The work is not the problem in a chamber. Knowing where the work has reached is.
A litigation chamber needs the same matter visible to the partner, the junior and the clerk, with actions that only go out after approval. Lawgger gives a chamber shared matters, roles, approval-gated workflows, team chat, a billing timer with GST invoices, and the research and court listings the team was buying separately.
This is the first question every firm buyer asks, so it goes first. A chamber sets roles to suit itself; this is the shape most litigation practices land on.
| Role | What they see | What they can do | What needs approval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partner / arguing counsel | Every matter, every deadline, the money, the whole audit trail | Open and close matters, set fee arrangements, argue from the brief, release filings | Nothing. This is the person the gate exists for |
| Junior | The matters they are on, with research, drafts, orders and deadlines | Research, draft, prepare filings, record time, move tasks, raise questions on the matter | Anything leaving the chamber under a senior's name — filings, replies, notices |
| Clerk | Listings, dates, filing status, documents. Not fee arrangements | Track listings, record next dates, manage filings and court paperwork, upload documents | Anything with a fee or a client communication attached |
| Accounts | Time recorded, invoices, receipts and outstandings — not the privileged file | Raise GST invoices, send payment links, record receipts, run the monthly review | Writing off or discounting a bill |
The principle underneath is that a clerk should be able to do a clerk's whole job — which in an Indian litigation practice is a great deal of it — without ever seeing what a client is being charged. Most chambers currently achieve that by keeping the fee side out of the system entirely, on a partner's laptop. That is not security; it is just absence.
In a chamber, a filing goes out under a senior advocate's name. The junior who prepared it may be excellent and the clerk may have filed a thousand of them, but the professional responsibility does not move. Approval gates exist because that responsibility is real, and because "I thought you had seen it" is a sentence no chamber wants to hear on the morning of a hearing.
What a chamber typically gates: a filing before it goes to court, a legal notice or reply before it leaves for the other side, a communication to a client that commits the chamber to a position, an invoice above a threshold, and a change to a fee arrangement. What it typically does not gate: internal research, working drafts, time entries and moving a task across the kanban — because a gate on ordinary work is not control, it is friction, and a team routes around friction until the gate means nothing.
Every submission and every release is written to the audit trail with a name and a timestamp, so the record of who approved what survives the argument about it. The mechanics of matters, tasks and workflows are on practice management.
The most wasteful thing in a mid-sized chamber is two juniors researching the same proposition in different weeks, neither knowing the other did it, and a third re-doing it for the appeal. Research that lives in a personal folder is research the firm has paid for once and can use once.
Here the research sits on the matter. The proposition, the authority, the paragraph relied on and the good-law verdict are all attached where the next person will look, over 2.07 crore judgments from the Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts, with 1.28 crore-plus links from cases to the sections they turn on across 1,607 central and state acts. When the appeal comes, the note is already there, and the verdicts can be re-checked rather than the work redone. See research and good-law checking.
The other firm-scale use is defensive. Paste the opponent's brief into Authority Check before the hearing and you get their Table of Authorities back with a verdict against each entry. Finding that one of their authorities has been overruled is a better use of a junior's Sunday than reading the whole compilation, and it is the kind of preparation a chamber can now do as a matter of routine rather than when there is time.
A chamber of any size is rarely in one forum. There is a High Court practice, a district court practice that a junior runs, something at the NCLT, and a matter at a bench in another city that only comes alive twice a year. Each of those has its own listings, its own publication timing and its own shape, which is why chambers end up with three people checking three sources at eight in the morning.
Lawgger matches the chamber's matters against all of it and produces one consolidated list for the whole team, so the partner sees the firm's day and each fee-earner sees theirs. From roughly 10.30 am to 4.30 pm the display boards run live, which is how a junior in one court knows the senior's matter three floors up is about to be reached. See cause list by advocate, live display boards and case tracking by CNR. All of that runs inside the app during court hours — this website does not and cannot show live court data.
Each fee-earner's timer has been running against matters through the month, from a phone in a corridor as often as from a desk. Nothing is reconstructed on the 30th, so nothing is guessed downward.
Where did the chamber's hours actually go, against which client, and what was the fee arrangement on that matter. This is the conversation partners rarely have because the numbers are not to hand in time.
Invoices go out with your GSTIN and the client's, place of supply, the SAC code for legal services, and tax broken out — with a Razorpay link attached so a corporate client's accounts team can pay without a follow-up call.
Receipts record against the matter, so billed and collected sit side by side. The chase becomes a short list rather than an uncomfortable memory.
Firm-tier legal software in India is usually quoted, not published, which makes comparison hard and is presumably the point. Two figures you can check with any vendor: research subscriptions from the established Indian publishers — SCC Online, Manupatra, LexisNexis — are commonly quoted to chambers in the range of Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh a year, frequently priced by seat and for research alone; and enterprise litigation-management products are quoted per user per month on an annual commitment. Both figures were current as we understood them in July 2026, and both should be verified with the vendor before you rely on them.
Now do the arithmetic the conservative way. Lawgger's published price is Rs 19,999 a year. Take a chamber of five and multiply by heads, which is the worst case rather than the likely one: roughly Rs 1 lakh a year for the whole chamber, covering research, court listings, deadlines, drafting, matters and billing together. The same chamber buying research alone at the bottom of the publishers' band, per seat, is at several times that before it has bought a diary, a drafting tool or a billing system.
We are not going to pretend that makes the older products bad. They carry decades of editorial work, their own reporters' pagination and headnotes a court expects, and none of that is free to produce. What we will say is that the price was built for institutions with library budgets, and a fifteen-person litigation chamber in a state capital is not one. For a chamber sizing several logins, write to anubhav@lawgger.com and we will quote you rather than let you guess. Full workings on what legal research costs in India, and plans on pricing.
Your matters, documents and clients sit in their own sealed container. Nothing is pooled across firms, and no other chamber's work touches yours.
Traffic is encrypted on the way and storage is encrypted where it sits, so the file is not readable in transit or in storage.
Every action is logged and the log is hash-chained, so an entry cannot be quietly altered later. Useful when a client asks who did what and when.
Your briefs, drafts and matters are not training material. That is a standing commitment, not a setting somebody in the chamber has to remember to switch off.
Our practices are built to that standard. We are aligned to it, not certified against it, and we will not say otherwise on a page a firm is using to do diligence.
Built for India's data protection regime. The full posture, including what we do not do, is set out on security and trust.
For an Indian litigation chamber, judge it on three things: whether the same matter is visible to partner, junior and clerk with different permissions, whether anything can go out under a senior's name without approval, and whether court listings and research are inside it or bought separately. Lawgger was built to answer all three.
The published price is Rs 1,999 a month or Rs 19,999 a year. For a chamber adding several logins, write to anubhav@lawgger.com and we will tell you exactly what your team costs rather than leaving you to infer it from a pricing page. There is no separate research module to buy on top.
Yes. Roles let a chamber give a clerk a login that covers listings, dates, filings and documents without exposing fee arrangements, invoices or client financials. The clerk does the work they already do, in the same record as everyone else, and the commercially sensitive part of the matter stays with the partners.
Yes. Approval-gated workflows mean a junior prepares and submits, and the item waits until the partner whose name it goes out under releases it. The gate is the point: in a litigation chamber, responsibility for a filing sits with a named senior, and software that lets anyone send is not neutral, it is a risk.
Every action is written to a hash-chained, tamper-evident audit trail, so a record cannot be quietly altered after the fact. For a chamber that is useful in two directions: it answers a client asking who did what and when, and it protects a junior who did the right thing on the date they say they did it.
No. Your matters, drafts and documents are never used as AI training data. Each chamber sits in its own private data container with no pooling between firms, traffic is encrypted with TLS 1.2 or better, and storage is encrypted with AES-256. Our practices are aligned to ISO/IEC 27001 and ready for the DPDP Act 2023.
Yes. A chamber can be billed as one entity against the firm's GSTIN rather than as separate personal subscriptions, which is what your accounts person wants at the end of the year. Separately, the invoices you raise to clients are GST invoices with Razorpay payment links, recorded matter by matter.
Fourteen days, no card. Run it the way a chamber should: put ten live matters in, give the clerk and one junior their own logins, and let a real filing go through the approval gate. A firm trial that only the partner uses tests nothing about how the chamber works.
Fourteen days, no card. Bring the clerk and a junior in on day one — that is the only way to test it properly.