New 9.1 version update available 19.3.21

A new update package for CSI Lawyer 9.1 will be released this afternoon. NOTE! The most crucial change concerns the e-invoicing material format; from 1.4.21 on, operators no longer accept e-invoicing material which is not EU-compatible.

Customers getting their software versions from the web can download it in the Settings (> System Updates).

The version contains the following bug fixes:

• Updating exchange rates, in some occasions, returned an error even when the update had succeeded. 
• The data connectivity checker gave wrong results.
• Converting an assignment request to an assignment returned an error to a standard user when there was a team member linked to the assignment request.
• There was no validator in the critical task calendar so it was possible to mark as done e.g. critical tasks without a subject.
• When an advance invoice was opened from the Adjustment Proposals list of advance payments, it opened in the window of a normal invoice.
• When an advance invoice with a total 0 € was saved for a customer requiring identification, the system displayed a notification: “Payer identification has not been performed. Do you want to continue?” instead of preventing saving the advance invoice. 
• For invoices of an export sale customer, a share row was printed even when the customer’s share was 100 %.
• The transfer order template for preliminary, normal and summary invoices was printed based on the home country of the invoicer and the payer and not based on the country of the address to the printed to the invoice.
• It was possible to start creating an invoice to the selected date even when the assignment had no billable registrations. 
• The Finvoice 3.0, Peppol 3.0 and TeAppsXML 3.0 invoice material did not match with the EU standard nor pass the Maventa validation.
• When registering an advance payment, the Payment Adjustment button did not display the customer’s advance invoices.
• If the software did not find the reference or invoice number of a reference payment, it also did not offer advance invoices with a corresponding total when using adjustment proposals. 
• The bookkeeping integrations did not transfer a free text that was added to an invoice but was lacking from the preliminary invoice.
• The transfer of an assignment to Netvisor failed if the subject contained more than 200 characters.