From Chaos to Clarity: The Human Side of Centralizing Docketing

While centralized docketing is relatively easy to define, every decentralized docketing department I’ve come across is decentralized in its own way.

The differences in decentralized docketing aren’t just about where people sit; they’re about fragmented philosophies. Each local group has evolved its own rules, workflows, and risk tolerances, shaped by the personalities, case types, and crises that built them.

In most large firms, these structures grow organically:
One office hires a legal assistant who takes on calendaring.
Another has a veteran paralegal maintaining her own system.
A third operates with a dedicated docketing team, perhaps the only one following standardized rules.

Everyone is doing what works for them, but from a firm-wide view of risk, data, and efficiency, it’s often chaos disguised as autonomy.

The Complexities of Centralization

When leadership announces, “We’re centralizing docketing,” what many people hear is:
“We’re taking away your control, your expertise, and your responsibility for keeping things safe.”

That’s where resistance begins.

Even when you include people in the process, when you listen, collaborate, and give them a real seat at the table, some will still push back. For many, it’s not about the plan; it’s about the loss of control. Their systems are an extension of their competence, and when those systems are replaced, it can feel personal.

When I centralized my first team, a few members who had previously operated independently chose to leave. Whether they left because I was young, new, or unwilling to bend the team’s standards around them, I’ll never know. What I do know is that they were my weakest performers, regularly falling behind on work, resisting documentation standards, and creating silos that put the firm at risk, and their departure, while uncomfortable, ultimately strengthened the department.

That’s the part of leadership people rarely discuss: sometimes the kindest, most responsible thing you can do for a team’s future is to stop making exceptions for those who refuse to evolve.

Leading Through Clarity, Not Comfort

People are the most complex piece of any centralization effort. Processes can be mapped. Systems can be replaced. People must be understood, but understanding doesn’t mean accommodation. Empathy still matters, but it can’t replace accountability.

Successful centralization doesn’t come from control or endless compromise. It comes from translating pride in local systems into shared trust in a collective one, while holding firm boundaries around consistency and accountability.

In the end, leadership isn’t about keeping everyone happy. It’s about building a structure strong enough to serve the whole. Centralization done well doesn't erase local expertise; it amplifies it within a structure that protects both the firm and its people, while providing the clarity, cross-coverage, and professional growth that decentralized systems rarely deliver.

In my next post, I'll share the practical principles that have guided me through multiple centralization efforts and the frameworks that turn theory into action.