Named party logins
Each party signs in with a password and a one time code and sees only the matters and documents they are permitted to see.
A customer portal website for business valuation firms gives each engagement a secure room for documents, data requests and draft reports, with access limited to the people who need it. We design it so counsel, owners and finance teams work from one version of the file, and so the valuator can show exactly who viewed each document and when.
A valuation engagement often involves more people than the client who hired the firm. A shareholder's lawyer, the company's controller, a lender's representative and sometimes a court-appointed expert may all need parts of the file. Each of them should see only what they are allowed to see, and the firm needs a record of who received what.
Email cannot do that reliably. Attachments are copied, forwarded and saved in places the firm does not control, and nobody can tell which draft a party is holding. A portal gives the engagement one home, with a version history and access that can be switched off when the matter ends.
Requests usually begin with a long list: five years of statements, the shareholder agreement, the capitalization table and a set of comparable transactions. Replies arrive in pieces, each as a differently named file, and draft comments come back by email with no clear record of which ones were accepted. When the final report goes out, nobody can easily show which assumptions were agreed.
The first release should cover the core of every engagement: a secure login for each named party, a folder per matter with clear naming, a request list with due dates and a place to release each draft and final report with its version number. Access should expire when the engagement closes, and every download should be logged.
Later phases can add watermarking of drafts, an approval step for assumptions and integration with the firm's document management system. Those depend on how the practice runs its engagements, so we would add them once the team has used the core portal through several matters.
Picture the attorney for a minority shareholder in a dispute over a buyout price. The valuator has posted a request for three years of general ledger detail, with a due date and a note explaining its purpose. The attorney uploads the files from her office, the request moves to received, and a follow up question appears inside that same request. When the draft is ready, it is released with a version number, and comments return in the portal rather than by email.
Valuation firms usually keep models in Excel, store engagement files in a document management system or a shared drive such as Box or SharePoint, and sometimes use a formal data room product such as Intralinks for large transactions. Market data often sits in S&P Capital IQ or PitchBook. The portal should complement those tools rather than replace the models or the market data.
Where a firm already runs a data room for a transaction, we would leave that in place and use the portal for valuation work only. Any connection between the portal and the firm's document system is checked for feasibility and quoted separately, so the firm knows the cost before it is built.
Each party signs in with a password and a one time code and sees only the matters and documents they are permitted to see.
Every engagement has its own space with predictable folder names, so the current version of any file is easy to find.
Each data request shows a due date, a status and the reason it matters for the valuation.
Drafts and final reports are released with version numbers, and each release records who opened it and when.
Before any build, the firm needs to list the parties that typically join an engagement, the document types each one provides, the naming convention it uses and the rules for who can release a report. It should also name the valuator responsible for each matter. Those decisions drive every permission the portal enforces.
Access should be granted deliberately. Counsel may need full access while a shareholder sees only the reports addressed to them, and a lender may need a single final report. We set those permissions per matter and record them in the audit trail so the firm can show later who had access to what.
The first mistake is building the portal around folders instead of the engagement. Clients then upload everything into a single pile and the valuator still hunts for the right file. Build the portal around the matter, its requests and its release points, and the folders follow.
The second is granting broad access early. A party who can edit a model or a draft creates a risk, and a party who can see every matter creates a confidentiality problem. A third is skipping the audit trail, which leaves the firm unable to answer who received a report and when.
The website band runs from $300 to $2,200, and scope sets the position within it. For a valuation portal the main cost drivers are the number of party roles, how many request templates the firm needs, whether drafts need watermarks and how much history must be loaded on day one. A firm with three roles and a standard request list costs far less to launch than one with bespoke permissions for every matter.
We keep the build focused by starting with secure access, the request list and draft release, then adding approval steps and system connections after the first matters have closed. Anything beyond that is priced separately and confirmed on paper, so the firm chooses each addition knowing its cost.
For most valuation engagements it can handle the document exchange well. For large transactions that already use a data room, we would keep that tool in place and use the portal for valuation work. We confirm the right split during the scoping call.
Every download, view and release is logged with the user and the time. The valuator can see that history for each matter and export it when counsel asks for it.
The portal can watermark drafts with the recipient's name and limit downloads by role. It cannot stop a determined person from photographing a screen, so the firm should pair these controls with its own engagement terms.
The engagement terms decide. Access can end on a set date, files can be archived or returned in a standard format, and deletion follows the retention rule the firm agrees. Those rules can be adjusted later if the firm's policy changes.
Post-launch support is available for new matter templates, extra party roles or changes to the release steps. We suggest reviewing the first few closed matters with the operations manager so the portal reflects how engagements really run.
Tell us how your matters run today and we will outline the build in writing.