SharePoint/OneDrive vs. Traditional DMS: What’s Right for Your Firm

Document control is the backbone of every legal practice. Whether you’re a boutique firm or a global legal department, choosing between Microsoft SharePoint/OneDrive and a traditional document management system (DMS) can shape your compliance posture, productivity, and client experience for years. This week’s comparison breaks down how these platforms differ across features, security, collaboration, pricing, and real-world fit—so you can make a confident, strategic decision.

Table of Contents

• Overview of the Tools / Platforms
• Features & Capabilities Comparison
• Compliance, Security & Risk Management
• Collaboration & Knowledge Sharing
• User Experience & Learning Curve
• Integration with Microsoft 365 and Other Legal Tools
• Pricing & Licensing Models
• Side-by-Side Comparison Table
• Pros & Cons of Each Solution
• Best Fit Scenarios
• Decision Framework: How to Choose
• Verdict
• Conclusion

Overview of the Tools / Platforms

SharePoint/OneDrive (Microsoft 365) are Microsoft’s cloud content services. OneDrive is primarily for personal work files; SharePoint is for team and matter-centric storage, with granular permissions, versioning, metadata, and integration into Teams, Outlook, and Microsoft Purview. Many firms configure SharePoint as a modern DMS by adding legal taxonomies, templates, provisioning workflows, and retention policies.

Traditional DMS platforms—such as iManage or NetDocuments—are purpose-built for legal matter management. They provide advanced metadata, email filing, matter-centric workspaces, ethical walls, records management, and legal-specific workflows out-of-the-box, along with robust desktop integrations for Word and Outlook that align with how attorneys work every day.

Features & Capabilities Comparison

Document Architecture and Matter-Centricity

Traditional DMS organizes work in “matters” (or “workspaces”) with predefined foldering, metadata, security, and retention rules inherited from client and matter attributes. SharePoint can be configured similarly using site templates, libraries, content types, and metadata columns, but it typically requires more planning and governance to achieve the same legal specificity.

Email Management

Legal DMS platforms excel at email filing (including predictive filing, thread management, and deduplication). SharePoint can handle email via Outlook add-ins and rules, but achieving consistent, firmwide email capture and threading may require third-party tools or custom configurations.

Versioning and Audit Trails

Both approaches offer robust version control and activity logs. Traditional DMS often provides more granular audit reporting and legal-friendly exports. SharePoint versioning is powerful, widely adopted, and integrates naturally with co-authoring in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

Search and Knowledge Discovery

Modern DMS platforms leverage profile metadata, taxonomies, and filters for precision searches across matters. SharePoint uses Microsoft Search and can be extended with metadata and Microsoft Graph to surface relevant content. Both can deliver strong results; DMS often wins on matter precision; SharePoint often wins on enterprise-wide discovery and intelligence.

Workflow and Automation

Traditional DMS includes legal-centric workflows (document check-in/out, approvals, filing rules). SharePoint can match and exceed this via Power Automate, content types, and retention labels—but it requires design and governance to avoid sprawl.

1. M365-native workflow: Matter request intake in Microsoft Forms → Automated SharePoint site/library provisioning → Pre-built folders/metadata → Drafting and co-authoring in Word via Teams → External sharing via guest access when needed → Retention labels and disposition through Microsoft Purview.
2. Traditional DMS workflow: New matter in practice system → Auto-creation of DMS workspace with ethical walls → Email filing from Outlook add-in → Document drafting with DMS ribbon (check-in/out) → PDF profiling and closing set → Formal records declaration and disposition.

Compliance, Security & Risk Management

Both options can be hardened for legal confidentiality, but the controls differ.

• Ethical Walls and Need-to-Know: Traditional DMS typically offers native matter-centric ethical walls, ethical wall reporting, and granular exceptions. SharePoint supports least-privilege via groups, sensitivity labels, site permissions, and Conditional Access; complex walls can be built but require careful design and potentially third-party tools.
• Information Protection: SharePoint leverages Microsoft Purview for sensitivity labels, DLP, and retention. Traditional DMS provides records management features tailored to legal, often with simpler, matter-aware retention configurations out-of-the-box.
• eDiscovery: In Microsoft 365, eDiscovery Standard/Premium supports legal holds, collections, review sets, and export. DMS platforms integrate with eDiscovery vendors or provide native hold and export capabilities; matter scoping is straightforward and audit-friendly.
• Data Residency and Encryption: Both offer encryption at rest/in transit and regional hosting options. Verify certifications (e.g., ISO 27001, SOC 2) and contractual data processing terms with your vendor or tenant settings.

“The right choice is less about brand and more about control. If your firm’s ethical walls and retention triggers are non-negotiable, pick the system that enforces them by design—not by policy alone.”

Collaboration & Knowledge Sharing

Internal collaboration: SharePoint/OneDrive shine for real-time co-authoring, chat, meetings, and file sharing within Teams. DMS platforms integrate with Office for simultaneous editing, but collaboration tends to revolve around check-in/out and email-based exchanges unless paired with complementary tools.

External collaboration: SharePoint supports guest access and secure sharing links, with detailed controls and expiration. Firms may prefer a DMS for client portals or rely on add-ons. Some DMS vendors now offer secure link-sharing; validate auditability and client expectations.

Knowledge management: DMS excels at curated, matter-profiled knowledge repositories. SharePoint enables enterprise KM with hubs, topic pages, and Viva Topics (where licensed) for discovery across practices—excellent for cross-matter intelligence when properly governed.

User Experience & Learning Curve

Attorney workflow: DMS interfaces are designed around matter-centric filing, Outlook integration, and profiling—familiar to many lawyers. SharePoint is familiar because it’s embedded in Teams, Outlook, and Word, but it requires defined conventions (naming, metadata, site structures) to feel as intuitive as a traditional DMS.

Change management: SharePoint may require training on Teams/SharePoint concepts (sites, channels, libraries). DMS requires training on profiling, check-in/out, and workspace navigation. Firms with strong Microsoft adoption often onboard more quickly to SharePoint; firms with established DMS habits see faster adoption of a legal DMS.

Integration with Microsoft 365 and Other Legal Tools

• Microsoft 365: SharePoint/OneDrive are native, meaning seamless integration with Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, Power Automate, and Purview. Traditional DMS tools provide robust Office add-ins and increasingly integrate with Teams; the depth of integration varies by vendor and add-on modules.
• Practice Management and Time/Billing: DMS platforms often offer tested connectors to leading practice systems to auto-create matters and synchronize metadata. SharePoint can achieve the same via APIs, Power Automate, or ISV tools, but may require more configuration.
• Litigation Support / eDiscovery: Both approaches integrate with review platforms. M365 eDiscovery Premium may reduce the need for third-party collection tools in M365-centric environments.
• Automation Extensibility: SharePoint benefits from Power Platform (Power Automate, Power Apps). DMS vendors offer workflow engines and APIs; third-party legal tech ecosystems around each platform can fill gaps.

Pricing & Licensing Models

SharePoint/OneDrive: Included with Microsoft 365 business/enterprise subscriptions. Costs are influenced by your chosen plan (e.g., E3/E5), storage consumption, and optional add-ons (Microsoft Purview features, advanced security, or third-party tools for email filing and provisioning). Implementation and governance design are key cost drivers.

Traditional DMS: Typically subscription-based per user, with additional storage and module costs (records, threat detection, Teams integration, etc.). Expect implementation fees for migration, matter templates, security model design, and integrations with practice systems. Ongoing admin and support may be through the vendor or a certified partner.

Total cost of ownership (TCO): SharePoint can be cost-effective if you already standardize on Microsoft 365 and leverage existing security/compliance investments. Traditional DMS may carry higher licensing and implementation costs but delivers legal-specific functionality with less custom build-out.

Side-by-Side Comparison Table

Criteria	SharePoint/OneDrive (Microsoft 365)	Traditional DMS (e.g., iManage, NetDocuments)
Deployment Model	Cloud (Microsoft 365); tenant-managed governance	Cloud (vendor-managed) and/or hybrid; vendor-managed governance
Matter-Centric Workspaces	Configurable via sites/libraries, content types, templates	Native matter workspaces with legal metadata and inheritance
Email Management	Good with add-ins/automation; may need third-party enhancement	Excellent: predictive filing, threading, deduplication
Versioning & Co-Authoring	Strong versioning; seamless real-time co-authoring in Office	Strong versioning; co-authoring varies by vendor/configuration
Security & Ethical Walls	Granular permissions, sensitivity labels; complex walls require design	Native ethical walls and reporting built for legal
Records & Retention	Microsoft Purview labels, DLP, auto-classification	Out-of-the-box legal records management and disposition
Search & Discovery	Enterprise search across M365; metadata customization	Matter-focused search and filters optimized for legal
External Collaboration	Native guest access and secure links with detailed controls	Client portals or secure sharing; features vary by vendor
Workflow & Automation	Power Automate and Power Apps; highly extensible	Legal-focused workflows; vendor APIs and add-ons
Integrations	Deep with M365; connectors for practice systems via APIs/ISVs	Strong with legal tools and practice systems; Office add-ins mature
Pricing & Licensing	Included in M365; add-on security/compliance may apply	Per-user subscription; modules/storage and implementation fees
Administration	Firm-managed tenant governance; flexible but requires discipline	Vendor/partner-managed frameworks; opinionated best practices

Pros & Cons of Each Solution

SharePoint/OneDrive

• Pros: Native to Microsoft 365; excellent co-authoring and Teams integration; powerful automation; broad eDiscovery; potentially lower incremental cost if you already have M365; strong enterprise search; flexible governance.
• Cons: Requires thoughtful design for legal-grade matter models, email filing, and ethical walls; potential for “site sprawl” without governance; may need third-party tools for legal-grade enhancements; change management around metadata discipline.

Traditional DMS

• Pros: Purpose-built for legal; predictable matter-centric workflows; top-tier email management; strong ethical walls and records management; seasoned Outlook/Word integrations; fast adoption for DMS-experienced attorneys.
• Cons: Additional licensing alongside M365; integration with Teams and M365 varies by vendor; customization may require professional services; TCO can be higher; collaboration features may lag without add-ons.

Best Fit Scenarios

• Small firms and boutiques: SharePoint can be cost-effective and highly capable if you standardize on M365. Add a lightweight email-filing add-in and template-driven site provisioning for matters.
• Midsize firms: If attorneys expect traditional profiling and email management, a DMS offers quicker ROI with lower governance overhead. If your culture is Microsoft-first with strong IT support, SharePoint can work well with good governance.
• Enterprise firms: Traditional DMS typically wins due to robust ethical walls, records modules, and mature legal integrations. Many combine DMS for work product and SharePoint/Teams for collaboration and KM.
• Corporate legal departments: SharePoint is compelling if IT already runs M365 with Purview, and external counsel sharing is needed. For highly regulated environments or outside counsel guidelines demanding DMS workflows, consider a DMS.
• Litigation-heavy practices: DMS email and matter filing reduce friction. SharePoint with disciplined policies can work but may require add-ons for filing, production sets, and records classification.

Decision Framework: How to Choose

1. Risk tolerance: Do you need built-in ethical walls and matter-centric records management, or can policy/governance meet requirements?
2. Email volume and filing behavior: If email dominates your matter record, prioritize best-in-class email filing and threading.
3. Collaboration style: Real-time co-authoring and Teams-centric work favor SharePoint; traditional check-in/out and profiling favor DMS.
4. Integration landscape: Consider practice management, time/billing, and eDiscovery tools you rely on and the maturity of each platform’s connectors.
5. Administrative maturity: Do you have the governance and automation expertise to design SharePoint for legal, or do you prefer an opinionated DMS?
6. Client expectations: Will clients require portals, link sharing, or specific security attestations provided by one platform?
7. Compliance posture: Map retention and legal holds. Which platform operationalizes these controls with less customization?
8. Migration complexity: Assess volumes, legacy metadata, PSTs, and folder structures. Which platform simplifies migration and minimizes downtime?
9. Total cost of ownership: Include licensing, add-ons, implementation, training, and ongoing admin—not just sticker price.
10. Future roadmap: Which platform aligns with your 3–5 year strategy for AI, analytics, and digital collaboration?

Verdict

SharePoint/OneDrive is best for firms and legal departments committed to Microsoft 365, seeking modern collaboration, automation, and enterprise-wide intelligence. With solid governance and targeted add-ons (e.g., email filing, provisioning), it can deliver a legal-grade experience at a compelling TCO.

Traditional DMS is best for organizations that need turnkey legal workflows—especially ethical walls, matter profiling, and email management—without heavy design work. It offers faster adoption in DMS-savvy environments and clearer compliance guardrails.

Quick recommendations:

• Best for small firms: SharePoint/OneDrive with a disciplined governance model and lightweight legal add-ons.
• Best for midsize/enterprise firms with complex confidentiality: Traditional DMS, potentially paired with Teams/SharePoint for collaboration and KM.
• Best for corporate legal: SharePoint/OneDrive leveraging Purview, unless client or regulatory needs dictate a DMS.

Conclusion

Both SharePoint/OneDrive and traditional DMS platforms can deliver secure, efficient matter management—through different philosophies. If your firm is Microsoft-first and can invest in governance, SharePoint may yield strong collaboration and lower TCO. If you need legal-grade controls out-of-the-box, a DMS is tough to beat. Either path benefits from expert configuration, rigorous change management, and a roadmap that aligns technology with your risk profile and client service goals.

Want expert guidance on improving your legal practice operations with modern tools and strategies? Reach out to A.I. Solutions today for tailored support and training.