Find the cause of missing client email at your law firm.
When a client cannot find a message, it can leave fee earners, practice managers and IT chasing different explanations. Neotiqa reviews the sending evidence across staff email and practice applications, with a clear technical handover and an agreed boundary around sensitive information.
- What does a law-firm deliverability assessment cover?
- It examines the agreed email routes, authentication, sending records and supplied message examples to understand why mail is rejected, filtered or reported missing. Neotiqa’s initial assessment is read-only. It produces prioritised findings for your practice and IT provider, with remediation scoped separately.
Separate a missing email from a missing workflow.
An email that was never generated, a rejected message and a message accepted into junk require different responses. Establish the stage first. For a practice-system notification, confirm that the underlying action triggered an email before investigating its delivery.
A secure portal invitation also has two separate journeys. The notification must reach the client, and the client must then be able to open the portal using the intended account. A successful notification does not prove that portal access works, and an access error does not prove email filtering.
This distinction helps your practice manager route the problem to the right owner. The assessment focuses on email evidence and identifies when the next action belongs with your application supplier or IT team.
Describe the symptom without client documents
- Which type of message is affected
- Which system generated and sent it
- Whether the issue affects one recipient or several
- A date range and any available error description
Map the email around your client work.
| Route | Question for the investigation | Who may hold the evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Fee-earner or shared-mailbox correspondence | Was the message accepted, rejected or filtered on its way to the recipient? | Your mail administrator and, where necessary, the recipient’s administrator |
| Practice-management billing or reminders | Does the application use a connected mailbox or its own sending service? | The practice-system owner, supplier and mail administrator |
| Portal or e-signature notification | Was a notification generated, and is the problem delivery or subsequent access? | The application owner and the person who received the notification |
| Client updates and newsletters | Is this a separate mailing platform with a maintained audience? | Your marketing owner and mailing-platform provider |
Check how the practice application actually sends.
A software integration can change which account and domain appear on a message. Clio’s sender-address documentation (opens in a new tab), for example, describes connecting a Google or Microsoft account and configuring authentication for a custom domain. The relevant settings and evidence depend on the connection and message type.
We verify the affected route rather than assuming that every notification follows the same path. If a connection has changed or stopped working, compare that timing with the first reported problem. Where a supplier controls the sending infrastructure, the handover should identify the evidence and question for that supplier.
For mailbox-specific symptoms, our Microsoft 365 guide explains how message trace and received headers contribute to the investigation. The Google Workspace guide covers the corresponding starting points for Google-hosted mail.
Investigate delivery without weakening the firm’s controls.
Making a message arrive by broadly bypassing filtering can hide the issue and create a different risk. Establish the reason for the filtering decision, then let the responsible administrator assess a proportionate change. A deliverability engagement is not a reason to switch off protection across the firm.
For the initial conversation, the type of message, platforms and symptom are enough. Before any assessment, agree how necessary evidence will be supplied, what can be redacted and who may access it. Client files, legal advice and credentials do not belong in the public enquiry form.
Neotiqa focuses on the agreed email-delivery scope. Your firm retains its professional, information-governance and client responsibilities. Legal advice, a security incident investigation and practice-system replacement are outside this assessment.
A defined scope and a useful technical handover
Agree what the investigation will deliver
Review the evidence, findings and responsibilities to include in an email-deliverability assessment.
Read the assessment checklistWork alongside your existing IT provider
Understand the read-only assessment and the separate options for implementation and monitoring.
Explore the serviceQuestions from law firms and practice managers
Why are our solicitors’ emails going to clients’ spam folders?
Possible causes include authentication or sending-route problems, message characteristics and recipient filtering. Compare affected messages with successful ones, using traces and supplied received-message evidence. A DNS check alone cannot establish the cause.
Can an email show as delivered when the client has not seen it?
Yes. Acceptance by a receiving system does not prove inbox placement or that a person read the message. The recipient’s administrator may need to check quarantine, filtering or later handling.
Will you work with our managed IT provider?
Yes. Your provider can supply agreed reports or guided access and retain control of production settings. We document findings, evidence and recommended responsibilities so that any subsequent changes can follow its change-control process.
Do you need unrestricted access to client mailboxes?
No. We agree the minimum evidence for the scope, using supplied samples, relevant reports or guided sessions where suitable. We do not request client files or unrestricted mailbox access through the website.
Does this include fixing the issue or ongoing monitoring?
The initial assessment identifies findings and recommended actions. Implementation, verification after changes and ongoing monitoring are separate optional scopes, agreed in writing. No particular inbox-placement outcome is guaranteed.
A direct conversation with the person doing the work
You work with Peter Black to define the problem, systems and evidence before commissioning an assessment. We support UK firms remotely and agree access, deliverables, timing and fees in writing.
Last reviewed 3 November 2026. Service descriptions are general. Every engagement has a written scope.
Which messages are your clients missing?
Describe the symptom and the mail or practice systems involved. We can discuss a focused investigation with your practice manager and IT provider.