Acrobat Pro is one of the most underused tools in a litigator's stack. Firms that invest even a few hours in workflow design routinely reclaim entire days of billable time — and the exercises that produce those returns are not sophisticated. They are simply the details that never got attention.
Bates numbering that just works
Consistent, template-based Bates workflows eliminate one of the most common sources of production errors. Firms that standardize their Bates templates across practice groups stop producing the same avoidable mistakes on every case.
Combine, split, compare
Fluent use of Acrobat's document assembly and comparison features is a genuine time saver in discovery, closing binders and appellate work. The gap between casual and fluent usage is measured in hours per week per attorney.
OCR is a search advantage
Reliable OCR across every produced document is what makes them actually findable months later. Firms with consistent OCR policies get significantly more value out of their document corpus over time — including from AI systems that depend on searchable text.
Actions and scripts scale the mundane
Recurring production steps can be automated with Actions — turning a 45-minute task into a 45-second one, repeatable across every case, executed identically every time. This is the single most under-used Acrobat capability in most firms.
Redaction integration
Acrobat's redaction workflow, when combined with production discipline, is a defensible workflow for many practices. Firms that treat redaction as an integrated part of the Acrobat workflow rather than a separate exercise reduce error rates and audit surface simultaneously.
Enablement is the missing link
A one-hour Acrobat workflow session per practice group, offered quarterly, produces returns that dwarf its cost. Firms that skip this training rely on individual attorney initiative, which produces wildly inconsistent outcomes.
We roll out Acrobat workflows tailored to litigation practice groups. Talk to us, or subscribe below for our next practical piece.
Daniel Cho
Legal Tech Editor
