With data volume exceeding 100 million documents and a DMS first implemented in 2008, the client, a globally recognised law firm, faced a pivotal decision. Their on-premise system was no longer fit for purpose. Beyond technology, the real challenge lay in addressing embedded behaviours, compliance exposure, and a growing disconnect between business needs and system capability. The firm needed to act decisively. But the solution had to be right.

An international law firm with over 100 million documents stored on a legacy DMS needed to modernise its approach to information management. Their goal was not simply to replace technology, but to correct years of inconsistent user behaviour, ineffective retention, and mounting operational risk. Harmeston was tasked with leading a strategic evaluation and selection process, ensuring the firm avoided migrating legacy problems to a modern platform.

The RFP was not in the original plan. It was introduced under pressure, with firm-wide dependencies at stake. The DMS estate was fragmented, retention practices lacked control, and internal knowledge of the market was limited. Any misstep risked prolonged disruption. Harmeston imposed the structure, pace and confidence needed to deliver a decision the firm could stand behind.

Harmeston began with a targeted market appraisal, engaging two dominant vendors to establish a high-level view of commercial options and functional fit. This created the foundation for a structured, three-month RFP process. Working closely with stakeholders across regions and disciplines, Harmeston defined evaluation criteria, designed the assessment process, and ensured the programme moved at pace without sacrificing scrutiny.

The RFP surfaced valuable insights on vendor capability, AI readiness, and implementation risks. Importantly, it created a clear, defendable platform for decision-making. Legal, risk, and IT leaders contributed meaningfully throughout. Harmeston ensured that responses were benchmarked, analysed, and scored against agreed strategic outcomes.

40% saved on DMS licenses, 68% saved on record management licenses, 25% reduction in overall licenses needed, reducing implementation risk