Last updated: October 2026 · Reading time: about 14 minutes
What this guide covers
- The question behind the question
- Pricing compared — and why the sticker price misleads
- Clio: best for mixed practices and small PI teams
- Filevine: best for high-volume plaintiff litigation
- Litify: best for Salesforce-native enterprise firms
- AI compared: Manage AI vs LOIS vs ACE
- Implementation and migration reality
- The hidden costs nobody quotes
- Which firm should pick which
- What to do before you sign
- FAQ
The question behind the question
Most "Clio vs Filevine vs Litify" articles are written as if the three are interchangeable and the reader just needs a scorecard. They are not interchangeable, and the scorecard approach produces bad decisions.
The three platforms were built for different firms:
- Clio was built as a general practice management platform and expanded into personal injury in 2023 with a dedicated add-on. It is broad, well-integrated and fast to deploy.
- Filevine was built by a personal injury attorney for plaintiff litigation. Cases are structured as projects with phases, and demand generation and medical chronology are native to the case record.
- Litify was built on Salesforce for enterprise legal operations. It is the most configurable of the three and the most expensive to implement.
That means the comparison only becomes useful once you know two things about your own firm: how many seats need a licence, and how much of your work is plaintiff PI versus everything else. A 6-attorney firm that does 60% PI and 40% estate planning is not choosing between three equivalent products — it is choosing between a generalist platform with a PI module and two platforms it will never fully use.
Pricing compared — and why the sticker price misleads
| Dimension | Clio | Filevine | Litify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Published per-user tiers; one tier public, three quote-gated | Quote only — every package custom-built | Published starting price; final cost by firm size and configuration |
| Entry price | $49/user/mo (EasyStart) | Not published; trackers report $49–$87/user/mo | $150/user/mo starting |
| Typical mid-tier | ~$89–$119/user/mo (reported) | Custom | $165–$330/user/mo (reported) |
| Top tier | ~$149/user/mo (Complete, reported) | Custom | Reported up to $300+ |
| Seat minimum | None | None stated, but pricing assumes firm-level deployment | 10–20 seats reported |
| Implementation | Self-serve to light; free migration | $1,750–$32,500 via partners; some estimates higher | $10,000–$250,000+ |
| AI in base plan | Included on paid tiers | Metered at 3 chats/user/month | Included; AI-native platform |
| Free trial | Yes | LOIS Explore tier (not case management) | No |
The sticker prices tell you almost nothing, because the three vendors are not selling the same thing:
- Clio's $49 is not a PI-capable price. The Personal Injury Add-On — medical records tracking, damages, liens, settlement calculations — is priced per user on top of the base tier. A realistic PI configuration sits at a higher tier plus the add-on. The $49 figure is real, but it buys a general practice management system, not a PI workflow.
- Filevine's quote is the price. There is no list price to anchor against, which means the negotiation is the product decision. The reported $49–$87 range is wide enough that the difference between a good and bad quote is material over a three-year term.
- Litify's $150 is the floor, not the estimate. With a 10–20 seat minimum and implementation commonly quoted in five or six figures, a 20-user firm is looking at roughly $36,000–$79,000 per year in licensing alone before implementation. That math only works if the firm is large enough to amortise it.
Clio — best for mixed practices and small PI teams
Pick Clio if…
You are under roughly 10 attorneys, you handle PI alongside other practice areas, you want the system running within weeks, and you value the largest integration marketplace in legal tech over PI-specific depth.
Clio's strength is that it is the platform most firms can adopt without a project plan. Setup is fast, the interface is familiar, and the integration catalogue — 200+ apps through the Clio App Directory plus an open API — is the largest in the category. If your firm runs a stack rather than a single system, that matters more than any individual feature.
On the PI side, Clio launched dedicated personal injury features in 2023, and they are more substantial than the "add-on" label suggests. The PI module tracks medical providers, records requests, treatment dates, bills, liens and outstanding balances; it handles damages categorisation (economic, special, loss of consortium) and settlement calculations and disbursement. Firms using it report faster settlement payouts and reduced administrative time on intake and case management.
Where Clio genuinely wins:
- Mixed practices. If half your work is PI and half is something else, a PI-native platform forces the non-PI work into a structure that does not fit. Clio handles both without workarounds.
- Speed to value. A small firm can be live in days. Filevine and Litify cannot match that.
- Integration depth. Accounting, e-signature, VoIP, document automation, lien resolution services — the ecosystem is broader than either competitor.
- No seat minimum and free migration. Small firms are not penalised for being small.
Where it falls short for PI firms: Clio does not model a PI case the way a plaintiff shop thinks about one. Treatment phases, lien resolution status, records completeness and demand packages are tracked, but they are not first-class objects the way they are in Filevine. Firms that do nothing but PI often feel that gap by the second year — the software is recording the work rather than structuring it.
Clio's AI layer — Clio Duo, now being folded into Manage AI — runs on Azure OpenAI and covers matter summaries, a document analyzer, AI-drafted client communications and billing narratives, and deadline extraction from documents into calendar events. It is genuinely useful for billing and client communication. It is not a PI-specific AI: it does not build medical chronologies or draft demand packages.
Filevine — best for high-volume plaintiff litigation
Pick Filevine if…
You run high-volume plaintiff PI, mass tort or complex litigation, demand generation and medical chronology are core to your workflow, and you can budget for a partner-led rollout.
Filevine is the platform built closest to how a plaintiff firm actually works. Cases are structured as configurable projects with section-level task lists, custom fields and automated phase transitions — so a single template can move a matter from intake through treatment, demand, negotiation, settlement and disbursement, with different tasks firing at each stage.
The PI-specific tooling is native rather than bolted on. DemandsAI drafts demand letters from medical records and damages figures. MedChron builds medical chronologies from unstructured records, with an automated Missing Records Check and a Medical Bills Tab that consolidates billing data for CSV export. Timely generates court deadlines automatically for any jurisdiction. Trust accounting sits inside the Payments module, IOLTA-compliant, with fees deducted from the operating account automatically.
The platform is organised into four packages — Matters, Intake, Depositions and Signatures — plus extensions including Periscope (analytics), Timely, Client Portal and DataBridge. That modular structure is why pricing is quote-only: the vendor is pricing a configuration, not a seat.
Where Filevine genuinely wins:
- PI workflow depth. Case phases, demand automation, medical chronology and lien tracking are native. This is the deepest plaintiff-side tooling of the three.
- Intake built in. Lead Docket, referral fee tracking and Leads AI summarisation are part of the Intake package — no separate CRM product to buy.
- Scale credentials. The platform claims roughly 60,000 users across more than 2,000 firms, and its AI is trained on the structure of 40 million-plus legal matters.
- Depositions. Automated scheduling, live transcription assistance, video sync and transcript summaries are a package, not an integration.
Where it falls short: the two issues that matter most are pricing opacity and AI metering.
Filevine publishes no price list. That is not unusual in enterprise software, but it means your effective price depends on how well you negotiate and how clearly you scope the configuration before signing. Implementation is typically delivered through certified partners on a separate contract, with published launch plans ranging from roughly $1,750 to $32,500 — and some third-party estimates run considerably higher.
The second issue is more concrete: AI in the base plan is metered at three chats per user per month according to Filevine's own product terms. Firms that assume AI is included unlimited will be surprised in month two. MedChron chronologies sit only in the LOIS Expert tier, not the base plan. Legal research, automations and reporting are billed separately. If AI capability is central to your reason for buying, the configuration you actually need is materially more expensive than the base licence.
Litify — best for Salesforce-native enterprise firms
Pick Litify if…
You already run on Salesforce, you have 20+ users, you have IT resources to manage configuration, and you can justify a five- or six-figure implementation for enterprise analytics and CRM depth.
Litify is built on Salesforce, which is simultaneously its defining strength and its defining constraint. Firms already invested in the Salesforce ecosystem get a familiar admin model, unusually strong reporting, and deep CRM integration that the other two cannot replicate. Firms that are not on Salesforce are buying a platform they will use a fraction of, plus an implementation project they did not anticipate.
The AI story is the most aggressive of the three. Litify ACE (Agentic Case Expert) is positioned as the AI nerve centre of the platform, and by late 2026 it had expanded from executing tasks on individual matters to cross-matter reasoning, proactive recommendations and multi-step AI agents. LitifyAI Instant Demands, launched in June 2026 and powered by a partnership with Supio, generates submission-ready demand packets from case data. AI Time Capture converts attorney activity into billing entries. AI-powered Call Intelligence, launched in October 2026, gives intake specialists real-time caller identification, speaker-separated transcription and configurable lead scoring.
Litify estimates its connected AI capabilities can automate 20% to 50% of the pre-litigation process and reclaim more than 40 manual hours across a case lifecycle. Those are vendor figures, not independent benchmarks — but they describe a real product direction rather than a marketing slide.
Where Litify genuinely wins:
- Enterprise analytics. Salesforce reporting is in a different class from what Clio or Filevine offer natively.
- CRM depth. Referral source tracking, marketing attribution and client lifecycle management are native to the platform's DNA.
- Agentic AI breadth. ACE, Instant Demands, Time Capture and Call Intelligence form the most complete agentic workflow set of the three as of late 2026.
Where it falls short: the barrier to entry is steep and the numbers are not close. Published starting price is $150/user/month, with reported all-in costs of $165–$330/user/month. Reported seat minimums of 10–20 users mean small firms cannot buy it economically even if they want to. Implementation is commonly quoted between $10,000 and $250,000+ depending on configuration and data migration. There is no free trial.
For a 20-user firm, Clio's annual licensing lands around the mid-$30,000s at the Complete tier; Litify at an average of $250/user/month is roughly $60,000 in licensing alone before a potential six-figure implementation fee. That gap is only justified if Salesforce integration and enterprise analytics are genuinely strategic to the firm — not merely nice to have.
AI compared: Manage AI vs LOIS vs ACE
All three now ship agentic AI. The difference is what the agent is allowed to touch.
| Dimension | Clio (Manage AI / Duo) | Filevine (LOIS) | Litify (ACE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core capability | Matter summaries, document analyzer, drafting, billing narratives, deadline extraction | Agentic console reading across all matters, writes back to system of record | Agentic case expert with cross-matter reasoning and multi-step agents |
| Can it act, or only read? | Reads and drafts; proposes calendar entries | Acts — sets tasks, moves deadlines, generates documents, runs reports | Acts — executes workflows across the case lifecycle |
| PI-specific AI | No dedicated chronology or demand AI | MedChron chronologies, DemandsAI, Depo Copilot, Depo Summaries | Instant Demands (via Supio), Call Intelligence, AI Time Capture |
| Model foundation | Azure OpenAI | Proprietary legal matter graph, 40M+ matters | Salesforce platform + Supio partnership for demands |
| Cost structure | Included on paid tiers | Metered: 3 chats/user/month in base; MedChron in LOIS Expert | Included in platform |
| Verification | Deadline extraction described by reviewers as a safety net, not a docketing replacement | LOIS cites sources; citator and anti-hallucination tools added October 2026 | Demand packets assembled from case data; human review still required |
Two things are worth flagging honestly here.
First, agentic capability changes the supervision requirement. A tool that sets tasks, moves deadlines and generates documents is acting on the firm's behalf. That falls squarely within the duty to supervise non-lawyer assistants, and it is the subject of our guide to how agentic AI is changing plaintiff law firm workflows. Whichever platform you choose, the hard stops need to be configured deliberately — not left at defaults.
Second, the AI is not the reason to choose the platform. All three will have comparable agentic capability within a year; the underlying platform data model will not change as fast. Choose based on whether the case record structures your work the way your firm thinks about it. The AI sits on top of that structure, and a good agent on a poorly-fitting data model is still a poorly-fitting system.
If AI-generated medical summaries are part of your evaluation, the traceability question matters more than the accuracy claim — see our guide to AI medical record summaries for personal injury cases for the test to run during a demo.
Implementation and migration reality
This is the part of the decision that gets the least attention and causes the most regret.
| Dimension | Clio | Filevine | Litify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical timeline | Days to a few weeks | Weeks to a few months | Months |
| Who does the work | Mostly self-serve; free migration offered | Certified implementation partner, separate contract | Professional services, often with a systems integrator |
| Configuration burden | Low | Medium to high — project templates need designing | High — Salesforce admin capability required |
| Internal staff time | Minimal | Significant — a partner or ops lead must own the rollout | Very significant — ongoing admin, not just launch |
The pattern is consistent: the more configurable the platform, the more of your firm's time it consumes. Filevine's depth comes from templates you have to design. Litify's flexibility comes from a Salesforce configuration you have to maintain. Clio's speed comes from having fewer decisions to make.
That is not a criticism of Filevine or Litify. It is a statement about what you are buying: a system that fits your workflow precisely, in exchange for the work of specifying that workflow. Firms that underestimate this end up with an expensive platform configured badly, which is worse than a cheaper platform configured well.
The hidden costs nobody quotes
Five costs that appear after the contract is signed and are rarely in the initial comparison:
- AI metering and module gating. Filevine's three-chats-per-user-per-month base allocation and the LOIS Expert gate on MedChron are the clearest example. Ask every vendor: what is included, what is metered, and what is in a higher tier.
- Implementation overrun. Published launch plans are the floor. Scope creep in project templates, data migration and integrations is the norm, and it is billed.
- Integration subscriptions. The platform integrates with your accounting, e-signature, VoIP and document tools — but those are separate subscriptions. Clio's larger marketplace means more options, not fewer bills.
- Exit and data return. Filevine's reported 30-day retention and at-your-cost data return is a real planning item. Ask every vendor what happens to your data on termination, in what format, and at whose cost.
- The second-year AI upgrade. Every platform in this category is releasing AI capability faster than annual contracts renew. Budget for a mid-term upsell rather than assuming year-one pricing holds.
Which firm should pick which
| Your firm looks like this | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1–5 attorneys, mixed practice, PI is part of the mix | Clio | No seat minimum, fast deployment, broad integrations, PI add-on covers the essentials |
| 5–10 attorneys, PI-dominant but not exclusively | Clio, then re-evaluate at year two | Cheapest path to a working system; expect to feel the PI depth gap eventually |
| 10–25 attorneys, high-volume plaintiff PI | Filevine | Native demand automation, MedChron, case phases, intake included |
| Mass tort or complex litigation | Filevine | Structured project model and document-scale AI are built for this |
| 20+ attorneys, already on Salesforce | Litify | Leverages existing investment; enterprise analytics are unmatched |
| 20+ attorneys, not on Salesforce | Filevine, unless Salesforce is strategic | Litify's implementation cost only pays back if the Salesforce ecosystem is being used |
| Firm that wants no configuration project | Clio | The only one of the three that is genuinely self-serve |
And the reverse framing, which is more useful for a managing partner:
Which failure mode can your firm absorb?
Choose Clio and the risk is outgrowing it — you will revisit this decision in two or three years, and migration will cost time and money.
Choose Filevine and the risk is implementation — a poorly scoped rollout leaves you with an expensive platform configured badly, plus AI metering you did not budget for.
Choose Litify and the risk is overbuying — a six-figure implementation for capability your firm does not have the volume or the staff to use.
All three risks are real. Pick the one your firm is best equipped to manage.
What to do before you sign
- Count every seat, not just attorneys. Case managers, paralegals and intake staff need licences. Per-seat pricing on a 30-person firm including support staff is a different number from 12 attorneys.
- Model three years, not one. Licensing × seats × 36, plus implementation, plus AI metering, plus the integration subscriptions you will actually keep.
- Get the AI terms in writing. What is included, what is metered, and what tier gates which feature. Do not accept "AI is included" verbally.
- Ask for the exit terms. Data format, retention period, deletion confirmation, and who pays for the return.
- Run a demo on your own records. Not the vendor's sample data. A Filevine MedChron run on your last 2,000-page case tells you more than any slide.
- Check the compliance paperwork. Any platform touching medical records needs a BAA, a current SOC 2 Type II report, and a subprocessor list — the checklist in our HIPAA and SOC 2 guide for legal AI tools applies to all three.
- Decide who owns the rollout internally. If nobody in the firm can own configuration for six weeks, Clio is the honest answer regardless of which platform has better features.
For the broader category view — including point solutions that sit alongside case management rather than replacing it — see our guide to the best AI legal software for US personal injury firms. For the printable due-diligence list, use the Legal AI Vendor Compliance Checklist.
Frequently asked questions
Is Clio or Filevine better for a personal injury firm?
Filevine is the better fit for firms that do predominantly plaintiff PI, because demand automation, medical chronologies and case phases are native. Clio is better for firms with mixed practices under about 10 attorneys, where the broader platform and faster deployment outweigh PI-specific depth.
How much does Litify cost per user in 2026?
Published starting price is $150 per user per month. Reported all-in costs typically run $165–$330 per user per month depending on configuration, and implementation is commonly quoted between $10,000 and $250,000+. Reported seat minimums of 10–20 users make it uneconomic for small firms.
Why doesn't Filevine publish its pricing?
Filevine prices each configuration rather than each seat, because the platform is sold as four packages (Matters, Intake, Depositions, Signatures) plus an AI layer and extensions. The practical consequence is that your quote depends on scope and negotiation, so the comparison should be on three-year total cost rather than a per-user figure.
Does Filevine include AI in the base plan?
According to Filevine's product terms, AI in the base plan is metered at three chats per user per month. MedChron medical chronologies sit only in the LOIS Expert tier, and legal research, automations and reporting are billed separately. Firms should confirm the AI allocation in writing for their specific configuration.
Which of the three has the best AI in 2026?
Litify's ACE is the broadest agentic workflow set, covering cross-matter reasoning, instant demands, time capture and call intelligence. Filevine's LOIS is the most tightly integrated with the case record and can write back to set tasks and move deadlines. Clio's Manage AI is the most narrowly scoped, focused on drafting, summaries and billing rather than PI-specific work.
Can a small PI firm use Litify?
Generally no, on economics rather than capability. Reported seat minimums of 10–20 users and implementation costs starting at $10,000 mean the per-matter cost is too high below roughly 15–20 users. Small firms are better served by Clio or Filevine.
Does Clio have PI-specific features?
Yes. Clio's Personal Injury Add-On, launched in 2023, tracks medical providers, records requests, treatment dates, bills, liens and outstanding balances, and handles damages categorisation and settlement calculations. It is priced per user on top of the base tier.
How long does migration take?
Clio is typically days to a few weeks and offers free migration. Filevine is weeks to a few months and is usually implemented through a certified partner on a separate contract. Litify is months, and implementation is commonly delivered by professional services or a systems integrator.
Related reading on Dedon Tech: best AI legal software for US personal injury firms · how agentic AI is changing plaintiff law firm workflows · HIPAA and SOC 2 compliance for legal AI tools · AI medical record summaries: accuracy and traceability · full site map
0 Comments: