Carter Law ‘appy’ with inCase bespoke mobile solution

Print This Post

20 January 2015


inCase200Carter Law in 2014 embarked on a full re-brand of its multiple legal services as well as an aggressive growth strategy.

Managing director Abdul Hussain sees a bright future for Carter Law as it has invested heavily in IT systems and effective people management. Identifying mobile as a key area, Abdul said “we’ve known for a while that mobile app technology was an important part of our growth. We saw the inCase app over 6 months ago and considered developing our own. When the costs of development and maintaining our own app became clear, it made sense to revisit the “inCase product as it is much more cost effective.”

Carter Law are focussed on building their brand and reputation and it was important that inCase allowed flexibility to adapt with their needs. Chris Marsh, head of operations added “our brand is really important to us and with a full re-brand in 2014 we wanted to ensure that any app consistently promoted the brand. inCase has a great set of tools and being able to fully brand the product and have it as our own on the App Store and GooglePlay is such a huge advantage. We get our own app at the fraction of the cost. Not only will it enhance the client experience, it will help further streamline our processes as well as reduce other overheads such as print and postage using the inCase signature feature.”

Managing director of inCase, Sucheet Amin said “Carter Law have been prudent to see what inCase has to offer and also what alternatives are out there, including developing their own app. It is great to know that inCase™ meets the needs of an ambitious and growing firm such as Carter Law and we look forward to developing Carter Law’s app with some unique features tailored to their needs.”



Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates.
Find out about becoming an Associate



Legal Futures Blog

The importance of being expert

Steve Rowley 3

I recently sat on a panel debate in Manchester, with the debate entitled – ATE insurers and sub-£250k claims. Whilst the title of the debate was probably written ahead of the government’s consultation paper to introducing fixed recoverable costs in lower-value clinical negligence claims, where £25,000 rather than £250,000 is being recommended, it nevertheless raised an interesting point on how after-the-event insurers can make premiums proportionate to damages, especially for cases worth less than £25,000.

April 26th, 2017