Litify vs Filevine
TL;DR: Our Recommendation
If nobody in your building knows Salesforce, Litify's platform inheritance is a cost you pay rather than a benefit you collect. It earns its keep at large multi office plaintiff organizations with dedicated ops staff and reporting demands that Filevine cannot reach. Everyone else gets more litigation software per dollar out of Filevine.
Quick Comparison
| Feature | Litify | Filevine |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying Platform | Salesforce | Proprietary, built for legal |
| Licensing | Litify plus Salesforce platform licenses | Single vendor |
| Reporting | Salesforce reports and dashboards | Built in reporting and analytics |
| Intake | Litify intake objects | Lead Docket |
| Document Generation | Available, often paired with AppExchange tools | Native, heavily used |
| Deadline Management | Configurable on the platform | Deadline chains built in |
| Typical Implementation | Months | Weeks to a couple of months |
| Admin Skill Required | Salesforce admin | Power user or partner |
| Extensibility | Very high, via Apex, Flow, and AppExchange | Moderate, via API and integrations |
| Best Firm Size | Large, multi office, with ops staff | Small through large |
Litify
Litify is a legal case management product built on the Salesforce platform. Matters, intakes, and reporting all live as Salesforce objects, which means Salesforce reporting, sharing rules, and the AppExchange come along with it.
Best For: Large multi office plaintiff organizations that already run Salesforce or employ a Salesforce admin
Pricing: Quote based, and it sits on top of Salesforce platform licensing
Pros
- Salesforce reporting and dashboards, which are genuinely strong
- Granular permissions and sharing rules inherited from the platform
- AppExchange ecosystem
- Extends in directions the vendor never planned for, if you have the skills
Cons
- You are running Salesforce, with everything that implies for admin overhead
- Two vendors and two license lines instead of one
- Longer implementations
- Firms without in house Salesforce knowledge end up dependent on a consultant permanently
Filevine
Our PartnerFilevine is built for plaintiff and litigation work from the ground up. Project templates, deadline chains, document generation, and Lead Docket for intake are the core of it.
Best For: Plaintiff firms that want litigation workflows working in weeks rather than quarters
Pricing: Quote based
Pros
- Deadline chains and phase templates that match how litigation actually moves
- Document generation is a first class feature, not a bolt on
- Lead Docket for intake
- Faster to stand up
Cons
- Reporting is capable but not Salesforce
- You work within the model Filevine gives you
- Heavy customization eventually hits a wall
Detailed Breakdown
Litify made a bet in 2016 that legal software should not rebuild what Salesforce already solved. Records, permissions, reporting, workflow automation, an app marketplace, an API that every integration vendor already supports. Build the legal layer on top and inherit the rest.
The bet mostly paid off. Litify firms get reporting that other case management vendors cannot match, because they are not using Litify's reporting engine, they are using Salesforce's. Sharing rules let a firm give a referral partner read access to exactly the matters they referred and nothing else. Custom objects let you model something the vendor never imagined, like a lien resolution pipeline with its own stages and its own approval chain.
The cost arrives later. Salesforce is an environment, and environments need caretakers. Sandboxes, release cycles three times a year, profiles and permission sets, Flow automations that break quietly when a field is renamed. Firms that already run Salesforce for business development absorb this without noticing. Firms that bought Litify because it looked like the enterprise choice discover they also bought a job.
Filevine went the other way. Everything you see was built for a case moving through phases toward resolution. Deadline chains understand that a filing date pushes twelve downstream dates. Document generation is where firms spend real time, so Filevine invested there, and demand packages that took a paralegal a full day come out in minutes once templates are built. Lead Docket handles intake and does it well enough that firms running other case management systems buy it separately.
Filevine gives up depth of extension for that speed. You can integrate with it, automate around it, and configure a lot inside it. You cannot rebuild its data model. Firms with genuinely unusual operations sometimes find the edges.
One practical note on migration. Moving from Litify to Filevine, or the reverse, is not a weekend. Litify data lives in Salesforce objects with Salesforce relationships, and mapping those to Filevine projects and collections takes real analysis. Document volume is usually the long pole. Plan for a parallel period where intake goes to the new system and existing cases finish in the old one.
Key Differences
One is a platform, one is a product
Litify is a managed package on Salesforce. That gives you Salesforce's reporting engine, its sharing model, and thousands of AppExchange apps. It also means every upgrade, sandbox refresh, and permission set is a Salesforce task performed by someone who knows Salesforce. Filevine hands you a finished litigation product and asks you to work inside its shape.
Where the money goes
Litify's cost is not just the Litify line item. Salesforce platform licensing sits underneath it, and most firms running Litify well also have a Salesforce admin on staff or on retainer. Budget the person, not only the software.
Speed to working system
Filevine firms are usually running real cases in a few weeks. Litify projects tend to run longer because more decisions are open. Neither is wrong. A ten office mass tort operation with a data team benefits from those open decisions. A twelve attorney PI firm mostly pays for them.
Reporting depth
This is Litify's clearest advantage. If your managing partner wants attorney level settlement velocity sliced by referral source and case type, Salesforce reporting will get there. Filevine reporting covers what most firms ask for and stops short of that.
Who you depend on afterward
Filevine has a wide bench of implementation partners and its own support. Litify pulls you into the Salesforce consulting market, which is larger but not legal specific. Vet for plaintiff experience, not just Salesforce certifications.
When We Recommend Each
Litify
Excels At: Large multi office plaintiff organizations that already run Salesforce or employ a Salesforce admin
We typically recommend Litify for firms that prioritize salesforce reporting and dashboards, which are genuinely strong and granular permissions and sharing rules inherited from the platform.
Filevine
Excels At: Plaintiff firms that want litigation workflows working in weeks rather than quarters
We typically recommend Filevine for firms that prioritize deadline chains and phase templates that match how litigation actually moves and document generation is a first class feature, not a bolt on.
Conclusion
If nobody in your building knows Salesforce, Litify's platform inheritance is a cost you pay rather than a benefit you collect. It earns its keep at large multi office plaintiff organizations with dedicated ops staff and reporting demands that Filevine cannot reach. Everyone else gets more litigation software per dollar out of Filevine. Big Mode Consulting implements Filevine and can advise on either.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help Deciding?
We help law firms evaluate, implement, and migrate between platforms every week. Book a free consultation and we will give you an honest recommendation.
Related Comparisons
About the Author
Mauro Gonzalez is the founder of Big Mode Consulting with over a decade of experience in legal technology and enterprise IT. As a Clio Certified Consultant and Filevine implementation specialist, he has helped 50+ law firms modernize their technology stacks. He specializes in case management implementation, managed IT services, and ABA-compliant cybersecurity solutions.