Free Newsletter Free Newsletter

Eclipse wins Law Society official endorsement for legal IT

Added on the 30th Jan 2015 at 9:00 am
Share Button

Eclipse Legal Systems just announced its official endorsement by the Law Society. The accreditation follows a rigorous assessment process, carried out during 2014, in which The Law Society examined and assessed systems including Eclipse’s Proclaim Practice Management Software (PMS) solution. The process included in-depth discussions with client bases to ascertain service levels, resilience, and the overall commercial benefits to be had by practices utilising PMS solutions.

Eclipse’s Proclaim system is in use by 22,000 professionals, at 800 organisations – ranging from new startups and niche firms, through to industry heavyweights. Proclaim is Eclipse’s core PMS offering, encompassing case management, matter management and process management capabilities. Eclipse say the endorsement reinforces the company’s position as the UK’s leading legal software provider, with Proclaim being unique as the only Law Society Endorsed solution of its kind.

Eclipse puts all other UK legal IT vendors in the shade?

Nigel Spencer, Law Society Chief of Commercial Affairs commented “The Law Society is delighted to be endorsing Eclipse and its Proclaim software. Our rigorous assessment process identified Eclipse as the supplier best suited to our members’ needs with its fully featured and easily deployable Practice Management solution.”

Russell Thomson, Chief Business Executive at Eclipse Legal Systems added “This Endorsement is testament to the quality of our Proclaim solution, and the continuing support and nurturing of the diverse needs of our clientbase. Endorsement will enable even more law firms, of all sizes, to benefit from software which truly aids business growth.”

COMMENT: The Law Society endorsement scheme mentioned here was the subject of huge controversy within the UK legal IT community in the spring of last year. We’ll leave the Legal Software Suppliers Association (LSSA) to add their own comments but it is worth noting that although Eclipse is an LSSA member, it refused to sign the boycott letter that LSSA sent to The Law Society.


  1. Anonymous says:

    “The accreditation follows a rigorous assessment process, carried out during 2014, in which The Law Society examined and assessed systems including………” Mmmm – including who? We should be told. Eclipse must be very proud to have won a competitive tender of one (or perhaps 2)!

    Everyone in the LSSA knew full well why Eclipse refused to withdraw from the process when it was proposed.

    At the last LSSA meeting the Law Society was a specific point of discussion and the meeting noted that nothing further has been heard from the Law Soc. Eclipse and Darren kept a straight face and said nothing during this discussion. He and they will not be a popular at subsequent LSSA meetings and rightly so.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Is a fee payable to The Law Society by Eclipse and has this been declared?

  3. J says:

    “The Law Society is delighted to”… receive a shed load of cash in exchange for an endorsement based on nothing else but who was willing to pay.

    Last time I heard £50k was the price tag… Eclipse don’t shy at paying rate card so nice big cheque there. Well done to both parties! Complete disregard for the society’s members and what may be best for them when selecting a system, but hey who cares about that?!

  4. Richard Hugo-Hamman says:

    This is an extraordinary decision. It is well known that not all available practice management systems were reviewed. It is also difficult if not impossible to imagine how employees of the Law Society who do not run law firms, can in any way be qualified to assess the numerous and varying functions and benefits provided by the myriad case management and legal accounting systems on the market, in an industry where constant change is the norm. It seems to be a straightforward commercial transaction and should be described as such. It looks like a sponsorship to me.

  5. Anonymouse says:

    Wow! At this rate Eclipse won’t be taking all their staff to Barcelona/Rome/Insert 5 Star Hotel here every year for their annual knees up. What, with Capita and now this it’ll be even more Range Rovers for all!

    Gung ho, indeed!

  6. mooo says:

    So, Eclipse pay 50k to be endorsed by the makers of Veyo … should be interesting to watch this pan out …..

    …. does this mean the Law Soc don’t endorse Veyo ?

  7. Anonymous says:

    If the Law Society wants to be taken seriously with its Accreditation surely they have to be transparent with the systems reviewed and rejected, unless this is little more than a cash generating exercise. If we were about to invest in a new system I would want to know why the Law Society thinks a given system is unsuitable.

    Will Eclipse Legal Systems now be the first to adopt and promote Veyo?

  8. Spectator says:

    8 comments already, I’ve not seen this much excitement since the Vinasty days!

  9. Jim White says:

    This is far more exciting than Transfer Deadline Day!

  10. johabell says:

    The information of this article is really useful for me. I liked it reading.

    • James says:

      Interesting they have 50K to spend on this, yet squeeze their recruitment agencies down to rock bottom prices to find them the best staff. Looks like they have money to burn

  11. Hmmm... says:

    … But what are those orators Anomymous, Anonymouse, Jim and Moo on about? Thought all recent terribalisms (copyright JD) with PMS rollouts implied anything other than 3E or Aderant weren’t going to end happily. Eclipse is a nice name though. Right CC?

  12. Matt says:

    This decision just seems to further emphasise what is inherrently wrong with legal software vendors in general. Far too many of the “household names” have become complacent, lacking any kind of innovation (mostly) and being spurred on by this kind of endorsement and a belief that legal software supply remains a captive market. Fundamentally this announcement (whilst obviously brilliant for the vendor concerned) will drive potential sales away from the innovators & start-ups, thus moving the goal posts considerably for infant suppliers and placing yet another obstacle in the path of the innovators. The Law Society needs to have a long hard look at the required outcome for endorsements like this and the unintended(?) side-effects.
    For the record, I am a purchaser of software, not a supplier thereof.

  13. Richard Hugo-Hamman says:


    We may not be endorsed but we are the best! Despite this decision we will continue to innovate, relentlessly.

Any Comment?