Tutorial ID | T-34 |
Section | Foundation |
Title | Making a Copy of a Case |
Subtitle | Duplicate a case deliberately, without carrying over confidential data, unvalidated content, or unclear labeling. |
Before You Begin
You know why you're making the copy — whether it's a template, a related matter, or a reference snapshot.
You know which parts of the original case should and shouldn't carry over into the copy.
What You Will Accomplish
By the end of this tutorial, every case you duplicate will have a clear label distinguishing it from the original, no confidential data left in a template or test copy, and no unvalidated content relied on without being re-checked first.
Why Does This Tutorial Matter
Copying a case is useful for creating a template, branching a related matter, or keeping a reference snapshot. A copy is a fresh case that happens to start from an old one, and its content deserves the same care you'd give any new report.
A copy also carries forward whatever the original contained — including confidential client data and unvalidated content. Skip the care that requires, and a template ends up holding a real client's records, unverified statements get relied on as if they'd already been checked, edits land in the wrong case because the copy was never clearly labeled, and repeated copying leaves a clutter of similar cases that's easy to get lost in.
What to Do if Something Goes Wrong
The list below covers the most common problems when copying a case. Each entry follows the same pattern: what you'll notice, why it likely happened, a real example, and how to fix it.
Problem: A copy made to serve as a template or test case still contains a real client's records.
Likely cause: The copy wasn't checked for client-identifying information before being reused for a purpose that shouldn't include real case data.
Example: A case is duplicated to build a report template, and the resulting template still shows the original client's name and dates throughout.
Fix:
Decide the purpose of the copy before making it — template, related matter, or reference.
If the copy is meant to be a template or a test, remove or replace client-identifying information.
Confirm that no confidential data remains before reusing the copy.
Problem: A statement from a copied case is relied on as if it had already been verified.
Likely cause: The copy preserved the original's draft and unverified statements, and they were treated as settled instead of being re-checked in the new context.
Example: A conclusion carried over from the original case is cited in the new one, even though it was still an unreviewed AI-generated statement in the source case.
Fix:
Treat content in a copied case as unverified until re-checked.
Re-validate any AI-generated content before relying on it in the new context.
Remove material from the original that isn't relevant to the new case.
Problem: An edit meant for the new case is made in the original, or the other way around.
Likely cause: The copy wasn't clearly labeled or renamed, so it wasn't obvious which case was open at the time.
Example: A reviewer opens what they believe is the duplicate and corrects a date, only to discover afterward the change was made in the original client's case.
Fix:
Rename and label the copy clearly to distinguish it from the original.
Note the relationship between the two — which is the source, and what the copy is for.
Confirm that you're working in the intended case before making changes.
Problem: A name, date, or provider from the original case still appears in a copy meant to be generic.
Likely cause: Case-specific details weren't removed when the copy was turned into a template, so identifying information from the original lingered in it.
Example: A report template built from a real case still displays the original claimant's name in a sample section.
Fix:
When creating a template, remove case-specific names, dates, and entities.
Replace them with neutral placeholders where the structure should be kept.
Check that nothing from the original case identifies a real party.
Problem: Several similar-looking copies of a case exist, and it's not obvious which one is the one currently in use.
Likely cause: Cases were copied without a clear need each time, and no naming convention was kept to tell the copies apart.
Example: Three duplicates of the same case sit in the platform with near-identical names, and a team member has to open each one to find the current version.
Fix:
Copy a case only when there's a clear need to do so.
Keep a consistent naming convention so copies are easy to tell apart.
Remove copies that are no longer needed.
Tip On Case Chronology, copying a case is done through the Duplicate function on the main page. Use it deliberately, not as a shortcut for sharing, since a copy carries forward everything the original contained. |
Summary
Every case you copy now has a clear, labeled purpose, no confidential data left over if it's meant to be a template, no unvalidated content relied on without a re-check, and no clutter of unclear duplicates left behind — so a copy gets the same care as any new case.