Rather than your approach of “add another person” to the same contact, try this:

1. Add the first attorney to the opposing party;
2. Right click the first attorney you added in step 1 and select “add attorney” or “add existing attorney”;
3. Repeat as necessary.

This should allow you to add each attorney separately under the party. They will be designated Attorney 1 Attorney Name]; Attorney 2 Attorney Name].

Hello Liana,

While I love that @JKibler chimed in, his method would cause you to enter attorney’s as people not attached to their firm.  Your method is correct by choosing to add another staff member.  To have access to their emails, use the edit pencil next to the staff listed and choose the staff at the firm that you working on this matter.

@Sara Sultan I think we are reading @llopez prompt differently. Liana said, “cases where the opposing counsel will have multiple attorneys assigned.” I understand this to mean that there is a need to assign multiple attorneys to the opposing party in a matter so that they are all available for emailing. My method is in contrast to yours - assigning one attorney and using the pencil to add more “staff” to the same contact. I do not believe that my method will “cause you to enter attorney’s as people not attached to their firm” so long as the attorney is associated to the firm and that is the contact selected for the additional attorney. I tested this before posting. But both your method and my method will make the contacts available for emailing. So, Liana’s prompt is a bit confusing to me.

With regards to forms automation field case details/service list(?) for me, assigning multiple contacts to the same attorney causes there to be no emails listed in the service item. Adding separate attorneys contacts (associated with their firm) however separately lists each attorney in the service list and includes their emails.

Hello Jonathan,

If the opposing counsel work at different firms and/or for different opposing parties, then your method is the correct one.  If they are all staff at one firm representing one opposing party, then my method is correct.  We both win!  I just reread the post and it is unclear which situation Liana has at her firm.  Thanks for having me reread the post!