Skip to content

Settings and activity

3 results found

  1. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

     ·  5 comments  ·  Practice tools  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    David Lennon supported this idea  · 
  2. 109 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    David Lennon supported this idea  · 
  3. 198 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Hi team, as we continue shaping our product plans, we wanted to come back with an update here. While this is something we may revisit in the future, we want to be transparent that there are no plans to develop additional custom relationship types this year.

    We’ll continue to keep an eye on the level of support for this idea, but we also wanted to be upfront with you now. If anything changes, we’ll be sure to share a further update.

    David Lennon supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David Lennon commented  · 

    Can this be made a priority? Would like to see ex-spouse added to the list too. For a number of clients we still represent both husband and wife, although divorced. We don't want a staff member to make an assumption based on surname, or a prior yr return when they were together. How are firms tackling this in the interim?