Gadient Consulting

PERSONAL INJURY · SOFTWARE DECISIONS

Buy the workflow.
Verify the software.

Compare personal injury case-management platforms around the work your team needs to do. Separate included features from add-ons, then take the same checklist into every demo.

Clio · Filevine · Litify · SmartAdvocate · CASEpeer

Gadient Consulting · Documentation reviewed September 24, 2026. An editorial buying framework, not hands-on product testing or a ranked review.

1. Choose up to three platforms

3 of 3 selected. Uncheck one to choose another.

2. Choose your demo priorities
Get my demo checklist ↓

Compare the scope.

All operating areas stay visible. Your priorities are marked. “Unverified” means this review has not established inclusion; it does not mean the capability is absent.

Vendor documentation reviewed September 24, 2026. Confirm every inclusion in your written proposal.
Decision areaClio ↗Filevine ↗Litify ↗
Price & packageStarting price; confirm billing terms

Starter advertised from $49 USD per user/month. This is a base-plan starting price, not a complete PI configuration quote.

Official pricing / scope ↗		Custom quote

Packages are custom built. Request an itemized quote for the matter platform and required extensions.

Official pricing / scope ↗		Quote needed

No public price figure verified in the reviewed plaintiff offering. Request a complete license and implementation proposal.

Official pricing / scope ↗
Intake & handoffYour priorityTier / add-on

Clio Grow is included with Elite and offered as an add-on for Core and Signature.

Official source ↗		Separate named product

Lead Docket is the named intake product. Treat intake scope as a separate line in the proposed bundle.

Official source ↗		Vendor-described; confirm scope

The plaintiff offering describes intake questionnaires and marketing ROI visibility.

Official source ↗
PI case operationsYour priorityPI add-on

Personal injury functionality is offered as an add-on, including medical records and settlement tools.

Official source ↗		Published Matters package

Matters lists tasks, contacts, deadlines, document management, and document assembly.

Official source ↗		Vendor-described; confirm scope

Matter plans, document generation, case timelines, and settlement scenarios are described for plaintiff firms.

Official source ↗
Reporting & attributionYour priorityTier dependent

Reporting and custom-role capabilities vary across the published packages. Define the exact report and permissions you need.

Official source ↗		Extension

Periscope is listed as a business-analytics extension. Confirm the reports included in your quote.

Official source ↗		Vendor-described; confirm scope

The plaintiff offering describes dashboards and marketing-spend visibility. Test your own definitions and reconciliations.

Official source ↗
Client communicationTier dependent

Client portal appears in Core and higher packages. Verify the communication workflow in your proposed tier.

Official source ↗		Extension

Client Portal is listed as an extension. Confirm access, messaging, and licensing requirements.

Official source ↗		Scope unverified

Evaluate the proposed client communication channels and shared history explicitly; inclusion is not established here.

Official source ↗
Integration & exitDue diligence; inclusion unverified

Ask for a written field, document, and integration scope for your proposed Manage / Grow setup.

Official source ↗		Extension / scope confirmation

DataBridge and integrations appear among the extensions. Validate your specific export and integration requirements.

Official source ↗		Platform architecture

Litify is built on Salesforce. Ask how administration, integrations, permissions, and exports are allocated in your proposal.

Official source ↗

BRING THE SAME TEST TO EVERY DEMO

Your PI software demo checklist

Replacing an existing system. Platforms: Clio, Filevine, Litify.

Prepared from Gadient Consulting’s decision framework. Vendor documentation reviewed September 24, 2026. Your selections stay in this page and are not submitted.

Use your browser’s print dialog to save as PDF. No email required.

Set the acceptance criteria first

Use fictional or sanitized matters in demonstrations. Record the number of users by role, locations, required systems, implementation owner, target launch date, and budget. Ask every vendor to use the same scenario.

Firm requirements / owner: __________________________________________

Migration gate: Require a sample import and reconciliation of contacts, matters, custom fields, documents, deadlines, and history before agreeing the cutover. Name the rollback owner.

□ Intake & handoff

Create an inquiry, preserve its source and communication history, sign an agreement, then convert it into a matter. Which fields and attachments transfer?

Demonstrated / gap / owner: __________________________________________

□ PI case operations

Walk through treatment, record requests, medical bills, liens, expenses, and a proposed settlement. Show who owns each next action.

Demonstrated / gap / owner: __________________________________________

□ Reporting & attribution

Trace a signed case to its original campaign. Reconcile the report to actual matters, including duplicates, referrals, rejected leads, and unknown sources.

Demonstrated / gap / owner: __________________________________________

Clio: questions to resolve

  • Which roles need the PI add-on, and is Grow licensed separately for any of our users?
  • Convert a Grow inquiry into a Manage matter with campaign source, signed documents, and prior messages intact.
  • Show a settlement scenario with medical bills, liens, expenses, and the client's proposed net recovery. Identify manual steps.

Included tier / add-on / cost / follow-up: ______________________________

Filevine: questions to resolve

  • Which demonstrated functions belong to Matters, Lead Docket, Periscope, or another extension?
  • Change a case stage and show the tasks, deadlines, and notifications that follow. Who maintains those rules?
  • Show the intake-to-matter handoff, then reconcile a campaign report to signed matters without a spreadsheet repair step.

Included tier / add-on / cost / follow-up: ______________________________

Litify: questions to resolve

  • Which licenses, implementation services, integrations, and ongoing administration are included in this proposal?
  • Restrict sensitive matter access by role and show how leadership can still reconcile firm-level reporting.
  • Make a workflow change in a test environment. Who approves, tests, releases, and documents it?

Included tier / add-on / cost / follow-up: ______________________________

Commercial and implementation sign-off

Request separate line items for licenses, intake, texting, e-signatures, integrations, data migration, training, configuration, support, renewal increases, and data export at exit. Distinguish one-time charges from recurring fees and usage charges.

For each requirement, record: demonstrated, configuration required, integration required, or unresolved. Assign an owner and deadline to every unresolved item. A proposal should describe the demonstrated workflow, not just the product name.

Decision / conditions / accountable owner: _____________________________

Source and updated comparison: www.gadientconsultingllc.com/pi-software/

Go deeper before the demo.

PLATFORM BRIEF

Clio ↗

Evaluate the complete package, not just Manage.

Consider Clio when your firm wants to evaluate a modular practice-management setup, especially if more than one practice area shares the same system. The decision is whether the combined configuration supports your PI workflow without fragile handoffs.

Read the evaluation guide →

PLATFORM BRIEF

Filevine ↗

Define the bundle and the person who owns it.

Consider Filevine when the evaluation centers on configurable matter workflows and the relationship between intake and case operations. Assign an internal owner for fields, task logic, report definitions, and change requests before implementation.

Read the evaluation guide →

PLATFORM BRIEF

Litify ↗

Make governance part of the buying decision.

Consider Litify when your firm is prepared to evaluate both plaintiff workflows and platform governance. The operating question is who will administer the system and keep reporting consistent as teams, locations, and processes change.

Read the evaluation guide →

PLATFORM BRIEF

SmartAdvocate ↗

Choose the deployment model before comparing costs.

Consider SmartAdvocate when your evaluation requires an explicit choice between a hosted cloud system and a firm-managed server deployment. Compare the full operating responsibility, not just the software fee.

Read the evaluation guide →

PLATFORM BRIEF

CASEpeer ↗

Compare the tier that contains your real workflow.

Consider CASEpeer when your firm wants to evaluate a PI-focused system against a published tier structure. Build the comparison around the tier that includes your communication and intake needs, then add optional services.

Read the evaluation guide →

How to use this comparison

A case-management system manages active matters. Your intake CRM, call attribution, document tools, and client communications may be separate products. Judge the handoffs as well as the individual features. There is no universal winner without your staffing, workflow, reporting, and implementation requirements.

What the evidence labels mean

“Tier” and “add-on” reflect the vendor’s published packaging. “Vendor-described” confirms a public capability description, not contractual inclusion. “Scope unverified” identifies a question to resolve, not a missing feature. Pricing snapshots may change and do not include all implementation, usage, or third-party costs.

When is a platform ready to buy?

When your team has seen its required workflow demonstrated, received a complete scope and cost proposal, assigned implementation ownership, and agreed how success will be tested. Do not treat a marketing checklist as an acceptance test.

What should you measure after launch?

Track missing intake fields, failed handoffs, overdue tasks, duplicate records, and unresolved reporting differences against a baseline from your current process. Define who fixes each exception. Use your intake audit and attribution framework to set those requirements before selecting software.

Planning vendor meetings? Explore the legal conference directory. For the broader operating plan, use the growth planning workbench.

YOUR NEXT MOVE

Make the software serve the operating plan.

Start with your firm's goals, current structure, and the decision you need to make.

856-357-3540