Before adding or re-adding someone to a Clio client portal, check the proposed person, the reason for access and the information already shared there. Give the supervising attorney a clear description of the access being requested. An invitation should follow that decision, not stand in for it.
Why should I review the history before sending an invitation?
Clio’s current setup guide says participants can see portal messages, documents and calendar events shared before they joined. Someone removed and later added again can also see resources shared during their absence. An invitation therefore concerns an existing collection, not just the next message.
The method below is our suggested administrative review, not a Clio checklist or a legal rule. It addresses one decision: whether the proposed participant should receive the access described. It does not resolve questions of privilege, representation or a relative’s rights.
What should I ask the requester to clarify?
Record who is being proposed, why they need access and which matter the request concerns. Use the firm’s approved internal references. Distinguish a request for one document from a request to join the portal. A person helping with appointments may need a different communication arrangement from someone expected to review an entire shared record.
In a family-law matter, an assistant should not infer authority from a description such as spouse, parent or financial helper. Ask the responsible attorney to decide the permitted scope. If the request says only “add them,” return a specific question about the information the person is meant to receive.
What should an access brief show the attorney?
Prepare a short map of the existing shared material using authorized access. Identify the kinds of information, relevant date span and any items needing a specific decision. Keep references to records in the approved system instead of copying confidential content into a general spreadsheet or personal mailbox.
| Brief entry | Decision it supports |
|---|---|
| Proposed participant and purpose | Is this the intended person and use? |
| Existing shared material | What information does the request encompass? |
| Period since any previous removal | What changed while the person was absent? |
| Unresolved item references | Which questions need attorney review? |
| Decision, decision-maker and date | What action was actually authorized? |
This is a decision aid, not a second client file. State what you checked and what you could not confirm. If a long history cannot be reviewed within the assigned scope, report that limitation instead of treating the unchecked material as cleared.
What if the intended access is narrower than the portal history?
Hold the invitation and describe the mismatch. For example, a fictional request may concern one upcoming appointment while the portal contains earlier financial correspondence. The assistant’s useful contribution is to identify that difference, not decide whether the wider disclosure is acceptable.
The attorney can choose the communication approach after reviewing the facts and applicable duties. Do not promise a way to hide selected historical items unless the firm has verified the actual product behavior. Do not delete or move shared records simply to make an invitation appear suitable.
Keep approval tied to the reviewed request. If the person, purpose or shared contents change before the action, return that change to the decision-maker. A prior approval should not silently expand to cover a different request.
How should I record the approved action or an exception?
After an authorized person carries out the decision, record what was done and compare the observed participant list with the approval. Note any error or uncertain result. Avoid inviting a real person as an informal test of what they might see.
If someone was added unexpectedly, preserve the relevant observations and notify the supervising attorney and designated administrator. Do not assume that a later change resolves information already disclosed. Counsel decides the response; technical questions can go through the firm’s approved support channel using only the necessary information.
Keep this brief separate from the firm’s routine client-update process. For changes to a staff member’s system role, use the separate Clio permission-review guide.
What education and skills should I look for in an assistant?
Look for careful reading, confidentiality training and clear written explanations. The ABA’s paralegal definition connects education, training or experience with delegated substantive work for which a lawyer remains responsible. It does not verify a particular candidate or their Clio skills.
Assess the individual with a fictional access request and sample history. Ask them to separate observations from decisions and write the question they would send to counsel. Confirm relevant education and practical experience rather than relying on a degree label alone.
The comment to ABA Model Rule 5.3 discusses appropriate direction and supervision of nonlawyer assistance. Jurisdictional rules vary; this brief is not a compliance determination. remotelegalteam.com can discuss attorney-directed client administration support. Review education and role fit while keeping disclosure decisions with your attorney. This article is operational information, not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Will a new portal participant see only future messages?
No. Clio documents access to previously shared messages, documents and calendar events. Review that scope before the firm authorizes an invitation.
What changes when I re-add someone who was removed?
Clio says access includes shared resources from the period of absence. Review the current history rather than treating the earlier participation decision as sufficient.
Can my assistant approve someone’s access?
The assistant can prepare the brief and flag unclear instructions. This suggested process leaves the disclosure decision with the supervising attorney and the action with an authorized operator.
Sources
- Clio: Clio for Clients, Law Firm Setup. Updated September 11, 2026. Product scope checked October 5, 2026, Eastern time.
- ABA: Comment on Model Rule 5.3. Current official text checked October 5, 2026. Model-rule context; jurisdictional rules vary.
- ABA: Current Definition of Paralegal. Current official definition checked October 5, 2026. Not individual credential verification.
