Litify Alternatives for Mass Tort Firms in 2027: 6 Options

Pick the platform type before the vendor name

A Litify alternative, as this guide uses the term, is a case management platform a mass tort firm could run in place of Litify for intake, matters, claimant data and settlement tracking. Litify is a legal operations platform built on Salesforce, according to Epiq (2022), so the first choice is architectural: do you want a Salesforce-based operations layer your team administers, or a case system built around plaintiff work with its own workflows?

The category decision follows from that. Filevine is the option to quote first if you want one platform across matters, intake and depositions, with a mass-tort area you can configure. SmartAdvocate has a Mass Torts section on its site, and Neos lists Mass Tort among its case types, although it describes itself as built exclusively for personal injury. CasePeer is a personal injury system whose homepage does not mention mass torts. MyCase and Smokeball are small-firm practice management tools, so they belong on the shortlist when billing and trust accounting matter more than claimant-level administration. Our separate Litify versus Filevine comparison for class action firms covers that head-to-head in more depth.

TL;DR: Quote Filevine and SmartAdvocate first if mass tort is your core work. Choose CasePeer only if most of your matters are individual personal injury, since its homepage does not mention mass torts. Only CasePeer and MyCase publish plan prices on the pages we opened, so the rest of this comparison depends on quotes you will need to request.

Key Takeaways

• Only CasePeer and MyCase publish plan prices on the pages we opened. Litify, Filevine, SmartAdvocate, Neos and Smokeball direct buyers to quotes or demos.

• Litify's pricing page describes a scheduled introductory call followed by a tailored demo, not a price list, and we found no public implementation timeline for any option in this group.

• CasePeer's homepage describes the personal injury case lifecycle and does not mention mass torts or multi-plaintiff matters.

• Filevine and SmartAdvocate both show mass-tort material on their sites, but neither page we opened lists a specific multi-plaintiff grouping feature, so test that in a scripted demo.

• Automation that reads claimant data needs API or export access. MyCase's pricing page lists an open API on its Advanced plan, and we found no API details for the other options.

• Compare quotes on the same user count, billing term and module scope. A monthly rate and an annual rate are not the same basis.

Who this is for

This guide is for an owner or operations lead at a small legal business that handles mass tort or multi-plaintiff work and is close to replacing Litify. You need claimant-level tracking, intake that feeds the matter record, and a clear answer on who will administer the platform after go-live. If most of your work is individual personal injury with no multi-plaintiff grouping, read the CasePeer and Neos profiles first and treat the Litify comparison as optional.

Red flags: you need a written price before any demo, which most options here will not give you; your intake and claimant data cannot be exported or read through an API; or you expect one product to handle multi-plaintiff grouping, billing and trust accounting with no configuration.

Independent coverage of this group is thin. An undated Law.com article, behind a paywall, says small-firm lawyers have been slow to adopt case management software, according to Law.com (undated). We used it as context only, not as evidence about any product.

How we evaluated these tools

We did not score these products numerically. The weights below set what we looked at first and why. We used public vendor pages and one independent directory, with no demos, trials or customer interviews, so nothing here reports measured performance.

The independent signal is thin for most options. Filevine: 590 ratings on SourceForge's directory according to SourceForge (checked 2026). A rating count shows how many people rated a product, not how well it performed, which is why it only breaks ties.

What each vendor publishes about mass-tort work

This matrix records what each vendor's own pages say. "Not stated" means the pages we opened do not say it, which is not the same as saying the product lacks the feature.

We left Clio out of this matrix and the pricing table because we could not open its pricing page during this research, so we have no verified price or feature detail for it.

Pricing: what is public and what is quote-based

Public price lists are rare in this group. The table below puts the published rates into one scenario of 20 users so the spread is visible. Totals are our arithmetic on those rates, not vendor quotes. CasePeer's page shows only a monthly option, so its rows use the monthly rate. MyCase publishes annual billing rates, so its rows use those.

The CasePeer rates are $90, $130 and $160 per user per month, according to CasePeer (checked 2026). The MyCase rates are $50, $100 and $130 per user per month on annual billing, according to MyCase (checked 2026). Checked October 30, 2026: the MyCase annual-billing rates above matched a MyCase support-center article found in a web search that day. We did not re-confirm the CasePeer rates that day, because a CasePeer support page lists different figures, so confirm them with CasePeer before budgeting.

For the quote-based rows, a written quote on the same 20 users and modules is the only figure that can go in the cell.

MyCase's Advanced plan costs $130 per user monthly on annual billing according to MyCase (checked 2026), and the same page lists an open API on that tier. Check whether the quoted packages for the other vendors include trust accounting and billing, because MyCase lists its Accounting add-on separately.

Who should choose each option

Vendor profiles: fit, limits and setup

Litify, the baseline

Litify publishes no prices. Its pricing page describes a 30-minute introductory call and a 60-minute tailored demo led by a Solutions Engineer, according to Litify (checked 2026). That is a sales process, not a price list. The 2022 Epiq announcement describes a mass-tort data flow in which medical record retrieval progress, plaintiff fact sheet responses, lien information, settlement scoring and disbursement records appear inside Litify without re-entry. Use that list as the data flows to ask every alternative about. Best fit is a firm that wants Salesforce-based operations and reporting and has, or will hire, Salesforce administration capacity. The limitations are quote-only pricing and no public implementation timeline, so ask Litify for one in writing along with the name of the partner who would administer it.

Filevine

Best fit is a multi-practice firm that wants one platform across matters, intake, depositions and signatures, with a mass-tort area it can configure. Filevine's pricing page lists LOIS, Matters, Intake, Depositions and Signatures as packages and says "All packages are custom built for your team's needs." The limitation is that no price is published, and the mass-tort content we found is a practice-area link rather than a feature description. For implementation, ask the vendor to split the configuration plan into what it builds and what your staff builds, and to name the matter types it will set up first. We found no public implementation timeline.

CasePeer

Best fit is a plaintiff-side personal injury firm that wants published monthly per-user rates and no long-term contract. CasePeer's pricing page lists Basic, Pro and Advanced, says there is no long-term contract or setup fee, and says the monthly rate depends on the number of active users. The limitation is that CasePeer's homepage describes the personal injury case lifecycle and does not mention mass torts or multi-plaintiff matters. Ask for bulk intake and claimant grouping in writing before you assume they exist. The absence of a long-term contract makes a limited pilot easier to start, but the pilot still needs your intake forms and claimant fields mapped before it tests anything useful.

SmartAdvocate

Best fit is a mass tort and personal injury firm that wants a choice of server-based or cloud deployment and AI summaries of records. The site's Mass Torts section says the software can "Optimize your firm's mass tort case processes." The homepage lists an Intake Wizard with lead assignment and intake scoring, SmartIntelligence summaries of medical records, depositions and motions, and an integration list that includes medical records retrieval. The limitation is that the site publishes no plan prices and routes visitors to a demo, and we did not find a published list of mass-tort features beyond the section headline. Settle the deployment choice early, because it changes who maintains the system.

Neos

Best fit is a personal injury-first firm that wants per-user pricing through a quote and a platform Assembly Software describes as built exclusively for personal injury. The Neos product page says the product is "priced per user, so your cost scales with your team," and directs readers to "Explore Neos plans and schedule a consultation for a tailored quote." It lists Mass Tort among its case types, but the page does not describe what that case type does. Verify multi-plaintiff features in the demo, and ask how the workflows handle a group of claimants rather than one case at a time.

Smokeball

Best fit is a solo or small firm that wants intake, billing, trust accounting and an AI assistant in one tool. Smokeball's pricing page names Bill, Boost, Grow and Prosper+ plans, says pricing depends on the number of users, the selected plan and the contract term, and offers a quote. The limitation is that the site describes its audience as solo lawyers, small law firms and growing legal teams, and the pages we opened have no mass-tort content. It is on this list as a comparison point, not as a claimant-administration option. Confirm trust accounting and billing migration first, and get the quote once your user count is settled.

MyCase

Best fit is a small firm that wants published per-user rates for billing, trust accounting and client communication in one product. MyCase's pricing page lists Basic, Pro and Advanced, and Advanced adds conflict-check tracking, split billing and an open API. The limitation is that the pages describe practice management, not claimant grouping or bulk intake. The Accounting add-on is priced separately, so include it when you compare totals. If you expect to automate anything later, the open API on Advanced is the prerequisite to check first.

Where manual copying happens, and a proposed workflow

The most common pain in mass tort intake is copying: the same claimant appears on the intake form, in the case system and in the settlement spreadsheet. The 2022 Epiq and Litify integration shows the kind of data flow to ask about. The two workflows below are proposed designs, not deployed systems or measured results, and each needs a test with your own fields before any live claimant data moves.

Proposed intake workflow (configurable): the trigger is a new intake form submission, or a HubSpot contact linked to a potential matter (the association event described in the worked example below). The action maps intake fields such as claimant name, incident date and treatment provider into the case system's matter fields, through its API or an import file, and searches for an existing record with the same name and incident date. The output is either a draft matter with a task list for the intake specialist, or a duplicate flag. Prerequisites are API or CSV export access in the case system, a stable intake form ID, and a field map the firm signs off on. Human review points are an intake specialist confirming each draft before a matter is created, and conflict checks remaining a manual decision. US Tech Automations could configure this design in a test environment before any live data moves.

Proposed claimant-status check (configurable): the trigger is a scheduled export, for example nightly, of matter status and claimant IDs from the case system. The action compares that export with the batch or settlement spreadsheet the firm keeps and flags claimants whose status differs. The output is an exception list for the responsible paralegal, with counts by status, and no edits to the case record. Prerequisites are a scheduled export that includes claimant IDs and a named owner for the spreadsheet. The human review point is an attorney reviewing each exception before any status changes, because a wrong automated update can affect a settlement. US Tech Automations would configure the comparison and the report, and the firm keeps the case record and approves every change.

Platform, or a stitched-together stack

For many firms the real alternative is not a platform at all. It is a Zapier, Make or n8n flow stitched to spreadsheets, or an in-house build, and that is a fair option. Zapier's help center lists run statuses such as Errored, Safely halted, On hold and Handled error, plus Autoreplay for retries after temporary failures, and a custom error handler can route a failed step to an alternate workflow. Zapier turns off a Zap when 95% of runs error in 7 days according to Zapier (checked 2026). That safeguard is useful, and it also shows why someone has to watch the run history.

n8n's execution page lists four statuses, Failed, Running, Success and Waiting, according to n8n (checked 2026), and says a retry resumes at the failed node rather than the trigger. The same page warns that the failed node reprocesses all of its items, so check the target app for duplicates before retrying and prefer upsert operations where the app offers them. Either tool can keep run histories, retries and error branches when it is configured. What you still own is observability (who reads the run history and how often), idempotency (no duplicate claimant records on retry), escalation for errors on claimant data, access controls on who can see which matters, and maintenance when a case system changes its API. n8n's docs also leave retention to the deployment and offer a setting that does not save failed production executions at all, so confirm those settings before you rely on retries.

A proposed US Tech Automations design would move the duplicate check, the exception queue and the approval step into the workflow itself, and would write the run-history owner, alert routing and access settings into the design document, so the firm is not depending on one person's flow. Prerequisites are API or export access, a named owner and a review schedule. Review points are an attorney approving any claimant-facing change and the firm's administrator signing off on who can see which matters.

Skip US Tech Automations in three cases. If your volume is a few dozen matters and one flow covers intake, a single flow is simpler to run than a designed system. If the case system you buy already has the automation you need, such as the automated workflows MyCase lists on its Pro plan, use that first. And if the case system exposes no API or export path, there is nothing for an automation to read, so pick the platform before you automate it.

The worked example below is illustrative, not a customer. A 20-user plaintiff team takes 240 new intake contacts a month, and staff re-key each one at 6 minutes, which is 1,440 minutes, or 24 hours a month, of copying that a proposed workflow could target. If intake lands in HubSpot and a webhook fires when a contact is linked to a potential matter, the 24 hours becomes a review queue instead of a re-keying task, and a person still checks each draft. HubSpot's webhook documentation lists contact.associationChange as a subscription type, which is the event to subscribe to in that design. For cost, multiply 20 users by the per-user rate in the pricing table and by 12 months, then set that total beside the written quote from each vendor. Price the 24 hours at your own staff rate to see how much of the annual cost the copying represents.

Decision checklist before you request quotes

• Ask every vendor for a written quote on the same user count, billing term and modules.

• Request a demo script that shows multi-plaintiff grouping, bulk intake and settlement tracking, not a general product tour.

• Confirm which claimant data can be exported or read through an API, and in what format.

• Get the configuration plan in writing: what the vendor builds and what your staff builds.

• Name the person who administers the platform after go-live, and cost that role.

• Confirm whether trust accounting and billing are in the quoted package or priced separately.

• Ask how each vendor handles the data flows you use now, such as intake, medical records and lien tracking.

• Name an owner for any automation's run history, error alerts and approval steps.

Common mistakes in Litify replacement evaluations

• Comparing a monthly rate with an annual rate as if they were the same basis.

• Treating a third-party directory's "starting price" as the vendor's price. The directory listings for this group disagree with each other and with vendor pages, so we did not use them.

• Reading "mass tort" on a homepage as multi-plaintiff grouping.

• Leaving the data-export test until after signing.

• Letting an automation change claimant records without an attorney approval step.

Frequently asked questions

Is Filevine a like-for-like Litify replacement?

No single product is a like-for-like swap, but Filevine is the option to quote first for a multi-practice firm that wants a configurable mass-tort area. Its pricing is custom and not published, so the written quote will decide the comparison.

Which Litify alternatives publish prices?

On the pages we opened, only CasePeer and MyCase publish per-user rates. Litify, Filevine, SmartAdvocate, Neos and Smokeball direct buyers to quotes or demos.

Can Zapier or n8n replace a case management platform?

They can handle narrow tasks such as intake copying or exception reports, but you own run monitoring, duplicate prevention, escalation and access control. Neither replaces the case record itself.

Why is Clio missing from this comparison?

We could not open Clio's pricing page during this research, so we did not include a price or feature set we could not verify.

Does any vendor publish a mass-tort implementation timeline?

Not on the public pages we opened. Ask each vendor for a written timeline and for a reference firm with a similar matter count.

Should I pick the cheapest published option?

Only if it covers the multi-plaintiff work you need. The published-price options here are practice management and personal injury tools, and their pages do not describe claimant administration.

Bottom line

If mass tort is your core work, shortlist Filevine and SmartAdvocate, request written quotes on the same user count, and run a scripted demo on grouping and data export before you decide. Choose CasePeer if most of your matters are individual personal injury and you want a published monthly rate. Keep Neos and Smokeball as narrower fits, and treat MyCase as a small-firm billing tool. Before you move live claimant data, see how US Tech Automations configures this for a proposed intake or exception-report design you can test first.