The tools exist. They just don’t talk to each other.
You already have a proposal tool, an AML tool, an e-signature tool and an invoicing tool. Each one does its own job well. The problem is the gap between them — where a fact re-typed becomes a fact that no longer matches, and where nothing knows what any other system has done. FigsFlow is the single record that replaces the gaps.
Know which gaps you want to close, start with what changes below. Not sure what’s causing the friction, skip to the problem fold.
Five tools doing their jobs well. Four gaps where the same fact has to be typed again — and can come out differently.
- Price Set once, flows to every step
- Proposal Same figure · accepted online
- AML Gates letter · linked, not separate
- Letter Released on clearance · signed
- Billing Same fee · no re-entry
one record · typed once · consistent end to end
One record. Same fact, every step.
This is what the disconnected stack gets replaced with. Click through the stages to see where the same information flows rather than being re-entered — and what each step knows about the one before it.
Illustrative interface and sample data. The client and figures are fictional.
What changes when a fact is typed once
Disconnected tools do not cause errors because they are bad at their jobs. They cause errors because the gap between them is where the same fact gets re-entered — and re-entry is where facts drift. Three things shift when the gaps close.
No second entry, no drift
The fee typed into the price list is the fee on the proposal, the letter and the invoice. There is no moment where someone re-keys it into the next tool — which is the moment it can come out as a slightly different number.
The check does not live next door
The AML result is on the same record as the letter. There is no cross-referencing two systems before pressing send — the letter gate reflects the check status automatically, because they are not in separate tools.
Anyone can see where a client is
Because the record holds everything, any person in the firm can open a client and see where they are in the workflow — without asking the person who managed the onboarding which tool has the current status.
The same fact, at each step, without re-entry
Price set once
Flows to every step.
Proposal carries it
No re-keying on acceptance.
Letter names it
Matched to proposal exactly.
Invoice raises it
Same figure, no re-entry.
Each tool is fine. The gaps between them are where things go wrong.
A new client has come on board. The proposal went out of the proposal tool. The letter went out of the e-signature tool. The AML check was done in the AML tool. The recurring fee is in the invoicing software. The client is now in four separate systems — and the only place that holds all four is the person who did the onboarding.
The fee in the proposal was £2,950. The fee in the letter is £2,950 too — or it is £2,750, because the letter was based on the last client’s template and nobody updated the number. The AML check cleared three days ago, but the person who sent the letter did not have access to the AML tool and assumed it had. The recurring billing was set up in the invoicing software for £2,950 a year, which is correct, except it was configured before the scope changed and should now be £3,400.
Nobody made a mistake. Each tool was used exactly as intended. The errors exist in the gaps between them, where a fact travels by copy-and-paste and arrives slightly changed.
One record. The same fact at every step.
Each of the tools you already have does its own part well. The question is what happens between them — and whether the same fact arrives at each step as the same fact, or as a slightly different copy. The gap is not between the tools. It is where you are working to keep them consistent.
The fee travels. Price list to proposal to letter to invoice — typed once, consistent at every step, because every step is the same record.
The fee is re-entered. Each gap between tools is a point where the same figure is typed again — and typed again is where it can come out differently.
One fact. Five steps. Typed once.
The fee is entered at the price list. Every step after that reads it from the record rather than asking someone to re-enter it — so it cannot drift.
The fee is set. Once.
Carries the figure. Client accepts.
On the same record. Gates the letter.
Names the agreed fee. Released on AML clearance.
Schedules the same fee. No re-entry.
- Re-keying errors — the fee that arrives as £2,750 instead of £2,950
- AML misses — letters sent before checks cleared, because nobody linked the two
- Stale billing — invoices running on a figure that changed after the scope did
- Nobody knows — which system has the current state of a client
- One source of truth — the fee is the same at every step because every step is the same record
- No cross-referencing — AML status and letter gate are on the same record
- Consistent billing — invoice runs from the accepted proposal, not a re-keyed number
- Visible to anyone — open the client and see where they are
Short list, honestly labelled
FigsFlow closes the gaps between the tools you already have. It does not replace your bookkeeping, tax or payroll software — those keep running alongside it. What it replaces is the copy-paste and re-entry between them.
Price set in FigsFlow flows to the proposal. No re-entry. No version drift between tabs.
The check and the letter are on the same record. No cross-referencing a second login before sending.
The agreed figure carries through to the letter and to recurring billing without being re-typed at either step.
One search populates entity name, number, officers and PSC data. No manual entry from a separate lookup.
No two-way sync with the ledger your clients use. The client record is here; the bookkeeping runs in your existing software.
Not in this releaseThe engagement and job are scheduled here; preparation and filing happen in the software you already use for them.
Not in this releaseTime can be logged on the matter record; it does not sync to a standalone time-tracking or billing platform.
Not in this releaseQuestions firms with a disconnected stack ask first
Four that come up on almost every call.
Do I have to give up the tools I already have?
Your bookkeeping, tax and payroll software keep running exactly as they do now. FigsFlow replaces the tools that sit between the first conversation and the first invoice — the pricing spreadsheet, the proposal tool, the AML tool, the letter template and the billing reminder. If you want to carry on using one of those independently, that is a conversation worth having on a demo rather than a yes or no here.
What if the fee changes after the proposal is accepted?
A fee change after acceptance is a scope change — and that means a revised proposal and, if the services covered have changed, a revised or supplemental letter. FigsFlow handles that by issuing the revised documents from the same client record, so the compliance file shows what was agreed at each stage rather than just the final state.
How does this work when more than one person is onboarding clients?
Because the record holds everything, anyone on the team can see exactly where a client is without asking whoever started the onboarding. The AML status, the proposal figure, the letter state and the billing schedule are all on the same record — so a colleague picking up a client does not need to cross-reference four systems to get the current picture.
Can I see where every client is in the workflow at once?
Yes. The client list shows status across the workflow — proposal sent, AML open, letter pending, billing live — so a manager or partner can see the onboarding pipeline without opening individual records or chasing a team member for an update.
See the gaps close on a real client
A walkthrough using your own price list and tools, showing exactly where the re-entry stops and where the fact starts to travel.