Best CSAT Software for Law Firms: 6 Tools for 2027

The short answer for a small firm

Best CSAT software for law firms comes down to one split: a general survey tool with published monthly plans for firms that will send surveys themselves, or a legal-specific platform for firms that want practice-area benchmarking and will request a quote. Client satisfaction (CSAT) software sends a short rating survey to clients after a matter or service milestone, then reports those scores by matter, practice group or staff member.

TL;DR: Start with Typeform or SurveyMonkey if you need a visible price and can send surveys yourself. Choose ClearlyRated if law-specific surveys and peer benchmarks matter more to you than a published price. Treat CasePulse as a client-portal purchase and confirm its survey features in writing. Skip Delighted, which is no longer available.

Key Takeaways

• For most small firms, a general survey tool with published plans is the lowest-risk first step, and legal-specific features are worth paying for only when you need them.

• Typeform, SurveyMonkey and Sogolytics publish list prices; ClearlyRated and Qualtrics do not, and CasePulse publishes only a starting price for a client portal.

• Response caps and seat counts move the real cost more than the headline price, so count seats before you compare plans.

• Delighted is not a choice for a new program because its platform has shut down.

• The score matters less than the follow-up, so name one owner for every low score before you launch.

How we evaluated these tools

This is an informed buyer's guide built from public vendor pages, trade press and one commissioned legal survey. It is not a hands-on trial. Every vendor claim below is either cited to the page it came from or labeled as a vendor claim. The weights in the table below are our analytical judgment, not figures any vendor publishes, and we applied the same six criteria to every product.

The six weights total 100%. A product with no public price was not dropped. It was scored on the other criteria and marked quote-based, so the buyer knows what to ask for.

Published prices and plan limits

Pricing checked November 13, 2026.

The table below uses list prices from each vendor's pricing page. The 12-month column is the monthly list price times 12, multiplied by seats where the price is per user. Where a page shows no figure, the cell says Quote-based or Not stated.

Team Advantage plan: $30 per user per month according to SurveyMonkey (checked 2026). SurveyMonkey's Team Advantage plan costs $30 per user per month when billed annually, starting at three users, and it includes 50,000 responses per year. The Team Premier plan is priced at $92 per user per month on the same page, with 100,000 responses per year.

Typeform's plan cards list the Basic plan at $39 per month, the Plus plan at $79 and the Business plan at $129, according to Typeform (checked 2026). The same page's comparison table shows different monthly figures for those three plans, so confirm the number at checkout before you compare.

Sogolytics's Pro plan costs $99 per month when billed monthly, and its free plan allows 200 responses per year, according to Sogolytics (checked 2026).

Starting price on the client portal: $250 per month according to CasePulse (checked 2026). That page describes an Unlimited access plan billed month to month, priced by company size and case-management integration, and it names four integrations: Litify, Neos, Needles and LawBase.

ClearlyRated's pricing page shows no dollar figures. It names three plans, Establish, Expand and Transform, and describes annual subscriptions tiered by the number of full-time employees (ClearlyRated pricing page). Qualtrics shows "Request Pricing" on its product cards and says you "only pay for what you plan to use" (Qualtrics pricing page).

Three-person cost math

The table below applies the same list prices to a three-person team. It is an illustration, not a firm-size threshold. Three users is the starting seat count for SurveyMonkey's team plans, and it is the seat count that Typeform's Plus plan includes.

Typeform's Plus plan is the lowest-priced option in this table that states three seats. Its list price is on the Typeform pricing page.

Consider a firm that closes 40 matters a month and expects a 30% response rate, which is a planning assumption, not a benchmark. That gives 12 responses a month, well under the 100 that Typeform's Basic plan allows, so volume is not the constraint. Seats are the constraint: Basic includes one seat, so three people who read results need Plus at $79 per month, or $948 across twelve months ($79 × 12). Each submission produces a form_response event in Typeform's webhook payload, as shown in Typeform's webhook example, so a routing step can start from it. The docs I opened do not state a plan requirement for webhooks, so confirm that before you buy.

Feature matrix, normalized

The matrix puts each product on the same six columns. "Not stated" means the page I opened did not say, not that the feature is missing. The response cap is normalized to a yearly figure where the vendor publishes a monthly one.

Only two products in this set describe law-firm use on the pages I opened, and they are the only two that address matter-level workflow. Neither publishes a response cap, which makes volume planning harder than it is for the general tools.

The six tools, profile by profile

Each profile separates the vendor's published facts from our read.

ClearlyRated

Vendor facts: ClearlyRated's legal survey page describes industry-specific client surveys that can be customized by practice area or matter type, with control over scheduling and frequency to limit survey fatigue. It also describes dashboards by practice group, office and individual partner, benchmarking against peer firms, and automated alerts for at-risk relationships (ClearlyRated legal survey page). The page also covers review generation, which is a separate job from surveys.

Our read: The best fit is a firm that wants practice-area segmentation and peer benchmarks and will take a sales conversation. The limitations are a missing public price, headcount-based tiering, and two different average response rates on different pages of the same site, so ask for the method behind any response figure before you rely on it. For implementation, expect to disclose your staff count, then ask how alert rules are set and who can see partner-level scores. The pages I opened do not describe a case-system connector, so plan that work separately. If you need reviews more than surveys, that is a different buying decision, and the review angle deserves its own comparison.

Red flag: if a vendor will not give you a price range before a call, you cannot build a budget around it.

CasePulse

Vendor facts: CasePulse's blog says the product connects to a firm's case-management platform, triggers surveys automatically at key stages, stores feedback and flags items for follow-up (CasePulse blog). Its pricing page, however, sells a client portal with unlimited cases, messages, files and forms on a month-to-month plan.

Our read: The best fit is a firm that wants a client portal and status updates alongside feedback, and that uses one of the four named case systems. The main limitation is that the survey claims and the pricing page describe different things. The pricing page does not mention survey triggers, so you need to confirm the trigger events, the case system name and the report format in writing before you sign. For implementation, treat the integration as the real project, because the pricing page says integration type affects cost.

Red flag: if the survey triggers cannot be confirmed in writing, you are buying a portal, not a CSAT program.

SurveyMonkey

Vendor facts: The Team Advantage and Team Premier plans are priced per user on annual billing with a three-user start, and both carry a per-response charge after the included volume. Enterprise is custom and requires a demo request (SurveyMonkey pricing).

Our read: The best fit is a small team that wants a well-known general survey tool and will send a post-matter survey by link. The limitations are that the pricing page does not describe legal templates or a case-system connector, and per-user pricing grows with headcount. For implementation, build one matter-close survey, send it from your closing checklist, and plan for a manual step or your own build to get responses into matter records.

Typeform

Vendor facts: Typeform's plan cards list Basic at 100 responses per month with one seat, Plus at 1,000 responses with three seats, and Business at 10,000 responses with five seats, which adds drop-off rates and conversion tracking. Enterprise has custom limits, single sign-on and dedicated support. Its developer documentation describes a webhook payload with an event_type of form_response, a form_id, a response token, and a hidden object (Typeform webhook example).

Basic plan: $39 per month for 100 responses according to Typeform (checked 2026).

Our read: The best fit is a firm that wants a low-cost form, a visible monthly price and a webhook it can route into other systems. The limitations are the mismatch between the comparison table and the plan cards on the pricing page, and the single seat on Basic. For implementation, build a matter-close form and use the webhook to start a routing step. The docs show a hidden object in the payload, but I did not confirm how a hidden value is set on a form link, so test that before you rely on it.

Sogolytics

Vendor facts: Sogolytics's pricing page lists a Free Pro plan, a Pro plan and a Pro Max plan, each with response caps and email caps by year. Its enterprise products are priced on request. The page does not mention law-firm templates.

Our read: The best fit is a budget-conscious firm that wants a general survey tool with published monthly plans and clear annual caps. The limitations are that seat counts are not stated on the page, the product reads as general-purpose on the pages I opened, and enterprise pricing requires a request. For implementation, the setup is self-serve for a first survey, but ask about seats and any case-system integration before you move off the free plan.

Qualtrics

Vendor facts: Qualtrics shows "Request Pricing" on every product card, names one plan, CX Foundational, and says you pay for what you plan to use. Its pricing metrics are employee count for Employee Experience and interactions, including survey responses and minutes of video feedback, for Market Research (Qualtrics pricing page). For Delighted, Qualtrics says the product "is no longer available" and that Qualtrics offers the same feedback collection on its own platform, according to Qualtrics.

Our read: The best fit is an enterprise program with a named owner and budget for a sales cycle. The limitation is that usage-based quote pricing is hard for a small firm to forecast. For implementation, plan for an admin owner and a formal quote before any pilot.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations: if you only need one post-matter survey a quarter, a manual send from Typeform or a SurveyMonkey team plan is simpler, and a routing build adds cost you do not need. If your case system already sends and reports client surveys and you accept its reporting, start there. If you need peer benchmarks across firms, ClearlyRated is designed for that, and US Tech Automations is not a benchmarking product.

Why the follow-up decides the score

A rating changes outcomes only when someone reads it and acts on it within days, and most firms that run a survey never assign that step. The strongest independent-looking figure I could verify comes from a 2026 legal client-experience survey. It was fielded by Researchscape for Case Status, a legal client-engagement vendor, so treat it as directional.

Prioritized clients saying they would return: 49% according to Researchscape (2026). The same report says clients whose treatment was prioritized reported "higher satisfaction and greater loyalty," and the comparison group in the report was clients focused on the outcome alone.

Here is a proposed, configurable routing design a firm could ask US Tech Automations to build for the follow-up step. It is not a live deployment, and no measured result exists for it.

Trigger: a matter-close survey built in Typeform sends a form_response event when a client submits. Action: the flow reads the form ID and response token, takes the matter reference from the hidden value set in the survey link, writes the score to the matter record, and, for any score in a range you choose, opens a task for the responsible attorney. Output: one row per matter in a shared log, plus an open task that carries the free-text comment.

The prerequisites are an API or import path into your case system that accepts writes, a matter reference format fixed before launch, and a survey link that carries the hidden value. The human review points are simple but required: an attorney reviews every low-score task before any client contact, and the flow never sends an automatic reply to a client.

A second configurable step runs weekly. It reads that week's matter rows and posts counts by practice group to a channel the operations lead reads. The review point is a quarterly check of the score range against what the team actually acts on, because a threshold set once and never revisited stops matching the work.

Building the routing yourself in Zapier, Make, or n8n

Zapier, Make and n8n can run the same routing if you configure it. They can keep run histories, retry failed steps, branch on errors and write audit evidence. The buyer still designs and owns the parts that fail quietly: observability (who checks that yesterday's run succeeded), idempotency (a repeated webhook should not create two tasks), escalation rules for a low score nobody reads, access controls on client data, and maintenance when an API changes.

A proposed US Tech Automations design would configure the same trigger, mapping and task steps, with the same prerequisites and the same human review points. The practical difference is who builds and maintains the flow. If your firm has someone who will own the run log and the escalations every week, a build in one of those tools is a fair choice.

Who this is for, and common mistakes

Who this is for:

• Choose Typeform if you want a low-cost form, a visible monthly price and a webhook you can route, and you can accept one seat per plan.

• Choose SurveyMonkey if you want a general survey tool with per-user team plans and will send surveys by link.

• Choose ClearlyRated if you want legal-specific surveys and peer benchmarks and will take a quote.

• Choose CasePulse if you want a client portal and can confirm survey triggers in writing.

• Choose Sogolytics if you want a general tool with published monthly plans and do not need law-specific templates.

• Skip Qualtrics unless an enterprise team owns the program and budgets for a sales cycle.

Red flags: you need a price before any call and no vendor will give one; no one owns the low-score follow-up; or you plan to use Delighted, which is covered in the FAQ below.

Common mistakes:

• Starting on a free plan and hitting its response cap in the middle of a quarter.

• Buying a single-seat plan for a team that needs several logins.

• Reading a vendor's response-rate claim as a benchmark for your own firm.

• Sending one generic survey to every client instead of a survey for each matter type.

• Launching before someone owns each low score.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best CSAT software for a small law firm?

For most small firms, Typeform or SurveyMonkey is the best starting point, because both publish plan prices and can send a survey without a sales call. Choose a legal-specific product only when practice-area benchmarking is worth a quote.

Is there CSAT software built for law firms with published prices?

Not on the pricing pages I checked. ClearlyRated and Qualtrics publish no dollar figures, and CasePulse publishes only a starting price for a client portal.

Can a general survey tool send a survey after every closed matter?

Only if something triggers the send. None of the base-plan pages I checked describe a matter-close trigger, so plan on a webhook, a connector or a manual step.

Is Delighted still an option for new programs?

No. Delighted's platform shut down on June 30, 2026, according to SalesforceBen (2026), and Qualtrics now points users to its own platform.

Do we need an integration before we start?

Not for a first survey, but you need one to route scores into matter records. Confirm your case system's API or import path before you choose a tool, because the pages I opened name integrations only for CasePulse.

Conclusion

A workable plan for a small firm is to pick one tool from the two categories, publish one post-matter survey, and assign one owner to every low score. If those scores need to reach matter records automatically, see how US Tech Automations configures this for a proposed routing design, and confirm the API path with your case system first.