The Question Isn’t Just How You Answer a Research Request. It’s How You Manage It.

Requests come in all shapes and sizes. A quick phone call, a pop-in to the library, a Teams message, or an email from an attorney with “URGENT” in the subject line.

For legal information professionals, responding to those questions is only part of the job. Increasingly, our value lies in how effectively we manage information, workflows, institutional knowledge, and the data generated by our work.

That is where a ticketing or inquiry management system can make a significant difference.

A ticketing system is not simply a way to organize incoming requests. It can help transform the law library from a largely invisible support function into a more connected, measurable, and data-informed strategic resource.

Here are four reasons legal information teams should consider moving beyond the traditional shared inbox.

Reduce Reliance on Individual Inboxes

When attorneys send requests directly to a specific librarian, the process can work well until it does not. What happens when that librarian is out sick, in a meeting, on vacation, or answering several other urgent requests?

Direct emails can also create an uneven distribution of work. One librarian may become the “go-to” person for a particular practice group while another team member has significantly more capacity. Create a team email address that goes to all of the team members’ inboxes. A centralized ticketing system tied to this email creates a single intake point. Requests can be prioritized and assigned based on expertise, workload, or availability.

It also gives the entire team visibility into what is coming in and what is already being handled. The goal is not to remove the personal relationship between attorneys and librarians. It is to make sure that relationship is not the only thing holding the workflow together. The person can still include their signature at the bottom to include a personal touch

Build Institutional Memory

Law firms are constantly changing. Attorneys move between practice groups and firms. Librarians retire or take on new responsibilities, research assignments shift, databases come and go. In that environment, institutional knowledge can disappear quickly. A searchable history of research requests gives information professionals a way to preserve and build upon previous work.

One ongoing challenge for law libraries is demonstrating the scope and complexity of their work. Counting the number of questions answered does not tell the whole story, it only begins the conversation. One request might take five minutes. Another might require hours of research across multiple databases, jurisdictions, and sources.

A ticketing system does not magically solve the challenge of measuring the value of information services, but it can provide data that helps tell a more complete story.

For example:

How many requests are we receiving each month?
Which practice groups are using our services most frequently?
What types of research requests are most common?
How quickly are requests being completed?
Are there seasonal patterns?
Which databases and resources are being used most often?
Where are requests being delayed or reassigned?
Which practice areas are generating the greatest demand?
Who worked on it?
Is this a question we see often enough to create a research guide or training session?

That data can change the conversation with firm leadership. Instead of saying, “We are really busy,” you can say, “Our team handled 56 requests last month, with demand increasing as we move toward the last quarter of the year.” That is a much more useful starting point for conversations about staffing, training, technology, vendor resources, and service priorities.

Create More Consistent Workflows

A ticketing system can also help standardize how requests move through the library.

Requests might be categorized as:

Legal research
People background checks
CiteCheck
Book request
Pulling an article
Dockets
Setting up alerts
Requesting database training
Passwords/Login Assistance

The creation of label titles is endless, as these are just a few. These categories are not just labels. They can help teams identify patterns, route requests appropriately, and understand where their time is going. They help establish priorities. A request needed for a filing later that day should probably be handled differently from background research needed next week.

Let Data Inform Resource Decisions

Perhaps the most compelling reason to implement a ticketing system is what the data can tell you about where to invest.

Information teams are constantly making decisions about resources:

Should we renew this database?
Do we need additional coverage during certain hours?
Would attorney training reduce repetitive questions?
Is there enough demand to justify a new service?
Could an automated service address a recurring need?

Ticket data provides another piece of the picture. Imagine discovering that hundreds of requests each year involve the same type of regulatory research. That might point toward an opportunity to create a practice-specific research guide, develop an alerting service, offer live training and record it for future distribution.

Or perhaps a database that seemed essential when it was purchased is now generating very few requests. That does not automatically mean it should be canceled; however, the data gives the library team a more informed starting point for evaluating the resource. To better understand where the team’s time and expertise are being used and use that information to make better decisions.

From Intake Tool to Strategic Asset

As law firms continue to invest in legal technology, analytics, automation, and operational efficiency, legal information professionals have an opportunity to think differently about how they demonstrate value.

A ticketing system can be part of that evolution. Perhaps most importantly, it can provide evidence that helps information professionals participate in broader conversations about the firm’s operations and strategic priorities. A ticketing system simply gives us a better way to capture, understand, and learn from that information.

What does your team use?

How does your legal research or information services team manage incoming requests? Are you using a dedicated ticketing platform, a shared inbox, or something entirely different?

I’d love to hear what’s working for your team and which tools you’ve found most useful.

Victoria Stasiv, MLIS