Litify vs Filevine: 3-Way Class Action Guide 2026

The legal category decision is which matter system is allowed to own the plaintiff record after intake, not which case-management vendor has more marketplace listings. A class-action or mass-tort desk has to take a lead, conflict-check, open a matter, collect medical and employment files, track docket dates, and keep a class list that still matches the filing. Litify and Filevine are the two platforms this page judges as systems of record. Clio Manage and MyCase sit in the matrix because many firms already own them; they win small-firm matters, not mass-tort plaintiff factories. None of the four is a court, a claims administrator, or a substitute for a written unique-id rule.

Litify vs Filevine for class action firms is a comparison of two legal practice systems used as the matter legal system of record, judged on plaintiff objects, document intake, docket visibility, API access, and the cost of keeping a class list in sync. Neither platform is your ESI vendor. Neither is a claims-administration system.

TL;DR: Choose Litify when the firm already lives in Salesforce-shaped objects, needs Litify matter and intake objects, and will actually staff a Salesforce-style admin. Choose Filevine when project-and-hashtag case files, inbound documents, and a Filevine-native desk are the operating habit. Add Clio Manage when the book is general practice with a side of litigation, not a plaintiff factory. Add MyCase when a small office needs billing and matters in one simpler catalog. US Tech Automations guards only when intake events, document packets, and matter writes cross products and a human must hold duplicates. no legal vendor paid for inclusion.

The category decision for class-action systems of record

A class-action case-management system is the database that stores who the plaintiff is, which matter they belong to, what files have arrived, and which deadline is next. It is not PACER and it is not the settlement fund. The failure mode is a signed retainer that never creates a matter, or two matters for one Social Security number, or a medical packet that sits in email while the docket runs.

Average billable hours captured: 1,892/year according to Clio 2025 Legal Trends Report (2025), 1,892 hours captured per attorney in that report. Use it for capture-rate arguments. Do not conflate captured hours with billed-realized hours, and do not pretend either Litify or Filevine will raise realization by itself. The comparison is whether the desk can find the plaintiff and the file without burning those hours on re-keying.

FRCP 23(a) prerequisites: 4 according to Cornell LII (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), 4 tests (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy). Software does not certify a class. Software that cannot export a unique plaintiff list will make those four tests more expensive to prove.

CAFA controversy minimum: $5 million according to GovInfo (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)), $5 million amount in controversy for the Class Action Fairness Act’s federal-jurisdiction path. That is a filing fact, not a vendor score. It is why mass-tort desks care about clean counts: jurisdiction and notice both start with a list you can defend.

The median annual wage for lawyers was $145,760 in May 2023 according to BLS (2024 Occupational Outlook), $145,760. Use it to size admin and litigation-support seats against case-management load, not to pick a logo.

Federal district civil filings remain in the hundreds of thousands per year according to U.S. Courts (caseload tables), hundreds of thousands. A class-action practice is a thin slice of that pile with an outsized document problem. Adjacent pages for other litigation stacks are Actionstep vs Filevine for midsized litigation, Filevine vs Clio Manage for personal injury, Actionstep vs PracticePanther, and legal document automation for real-estate transactional firms.

A majority of lawyers now use legal tech in daily practice according to ABA 2024 Legal Technology Survey Report (2024), a majority. That is a habit statistic, not a Litify-versus-Filevine score. Daily use still produces duplicate plaintiffs when the uniqueness key is an email the client no longer checks.

Key Takeaways

• Litify is the Salesforce-native matter platform; Filevine is the project-file platform. Clio Manage and MyCase win smaller general-practice books, not plaintiff factories.

• List prices (checked 2026-09-04): Litify, Filevine, Clio Manage, and MyCase should be written as contact vendor on this page — public class-action SKUs are not a single seat rate.

• Native Litify or Filevine automation can be enough when one matter system already holds the only required motion.

• Orchestrate across intake, documents, and docket only after unique plaintiff keys, retries you own, and a reviewer exist.

• Capture rate and certification tests are process targets. Neither vendor is a substitute for Rule 23 work.

How we evaluated

For litify vs filevine for class action firms, legal buyers scored unique litify vs filevine for IDs, public legal pages checked 2026-09-04, and a 30-day proof — not a vendor demo.

Weighted buying criteria

Weights assume a plaintiff-side class-action or mass-tort desk with intake, medical records, and a docket. A defense-only shop should raise “matter security and hold” and lower “high-volume intake.”

Uniqueness is weighted high because a class list that cannot key on a stable plaintiff id will notice the same person twice and miss them once. Confirm API, Salesforce edition (for Litify), and export rights on the quote, not on a conference slide.

Capability evidence matrix

Scores from public product legal pages checked 2026-09-04: 2 = first-party legal description of matter/plaintiff case management; 1 = adjacent, confirm in the legal contract; 0 = not found for this class-action use. The USTA row is a first-party publishing-velocity figure, not a legal-tech benchmark.

USTA legal two-week publish velocity: 3,200 pages is this legal publisher artifact-backed June velocity ceiling (~3,200 legal pages in two weeks for litify vs filevine for). It does not mean Filevine indexes a PDF faster than Litify.

Clio Manage wins when the firm is already a Clio shop and class-action work is a minority of matters: billing, calendaring, and a known admin path beat a second platform. MyCase wins when a small office needs matters plus billing without Salesforce-shaped administration. Neither wins a plaintiff factory that lives on custom objects and inbound medical packets. That is where Litify vs Filevine actually starts.

Twelve-month cost picture

Public class-action platform prices are contract-specific. Checked 2026-09-04: write contact vendor rather than invent a per-user rate.

A 12-license mental model is a planning stub, not TCO. Add Salesforce (for Litify), document storage, and the litigation-support person who will merge duplicate plaintiffs every Friday. If you will not staff that person, do not buy the more flexible platform.

Firms that skip the system-of-record sentence pay twice. They buy Filevine, then discover intake still lives in a Litify trial, then buy Clio because billing never moved, then buy a connector because none of the three owns the class list. Write one sentence: “Litify is the matter system” or “Filevine is the matter system.” Every other tool is a pipe.

Vendor profiles

Litify: Salesforce-shaped matters

Litify is the legal shortlist pick when the firm wants matter, intake, and party objects on the Salesforce platform and will staff that admin model. Primary evidence is Litify. Matters, intakes, and related objects are first-party; value starts when those objects, not a generic Salesforce Sales Cloud, are what the desk actually uses.

Limitations: Salesforce edition, admin skill, and implementation cost. Choose Litify when the next three years of objects and APIs are the buying problem. Disqualify it when the firm needs a Filevine-native project file next month and has no Salesforce admin.

Filevine: project file and inbound documents

Filevine is the legal shortlist pick when the desk thinks in projects, hashtags, and inbound documents rather than Salesforce objects. Primary evidence is Filevine. Project files and document workflows are first-party.

Limitations: it is not Salesforce, and firms that already standardized on Litify objects will pay to translate. Choose Filevine when the operating model is the project file. Disqualify it when Litify plus Salesforce is already the matter legal system of record.

Clio Manage: general-practice legal system of record

Clio Manage is the legal shortlist pick when billing, calendaring, and matters for a mixed book already live in Clio and class-action work is not the factory. Primary evidence is Clio Manage. It wins everyday practice management. It does not win a mass-tort plaintiff line on its own.

Limitations: plaintiff-factory objects and document packets are not why firms buy Clio. Choose it when Clio already is the firm. Disqualify it as the class-action legal system of record when Litify or Filevine already owns that desk.

MyCase: smaller-office catalog

MyCase is the legal shortlist pick when a small office needs matters and billing in one simpler catalog. Primary evidence is MyCase. It wins simplicity. It does not win multi-state class lists.

Limitations: scale and plaintiff-factory workflow. Choose MyCase for a small mixed book. Disqualify it when you are buying a class-action legal system of record.

Implementation hours belong on the sheet. A Litify path includes Salesforce. A Filevine path includes document-tool decisions. Neither number includes the reviewer who will reject a duplicate plaintiff. Count that person as a line item.

Class action and mass tort share a plaintiff-factory problem and split on how the list is used. A Rule 23 class needs a list you can defend for numerosity, notice, and later claims administration. A mass-tort inventory needs the same unique person, plus medical chronology, employment or exposure facts, and a docket that does not care that the person also exists in a sibling filing. Litify’s Salesforce objects help when those facts are fields you will report on for years. Filevine’s project file helps when the inbound PDF is the work and the hashtag is how the desk finds it. Clio and MyCase help when that factory is not the firm.

Intake is where uniqueness is won or lost. A web form that creates a matter on submit will create two matters for one person as soon as the person uses a second email. Hold matter-create until a government-id hash or a documented surrogate key is present, then write the matter. If the firm will not collect that key, the software cannot invent it. Conflict checks that run only on name-plus-DOB will miss hyphenates, nicknames, and spouses who share a phone.

Documents are a completeness problem, not a storage problem. A medical packet that is “in the system” but missing operative reports is not complete. Write a 5-item checklist per litigation (intake form, retainer, ID, treating records, lien or benefits) and fail closed when any item is absent. Filevine tends to win the inbound-file habit. Litify tends to win the object you can query. Either can hold a checklist if you actually build the checklist. Neither will notice a missing page because a folder looks full.

Docket dates must live in the matter system if the matter system is the legal system of record. A paralegal spreadsheet that is “the real docket” means you bought a DMS and kept the risk. If Litify is the matter system, the hearing date is a Litify field. If Filevine is the matter system, the hearing date is a Filevine field. Dual entry is how a continuance gets served on the wrong list.

Export is the unromantic buying test. Ask for plaintiff id, matter id, document id, and docket date in a file you can open without the vendor. Salesforce-shaped Litify orgs can be easier to extract if you already know Salesforce. Filevine exports depend on the project structure you built. Clio and MyCase exports are often good enough for a mixed book and not enough for a class list. Read the export before you sign, not after the opt-out period starts.

Admin skill is part of TCO. Litify without a Salesforce-literate admin is a stalled object model. Filevine without a project-template owner is a pile of hashtags. Clio without a billing owner is a calendar. Name the person. If the name is “we will hire,” put that salary on the same sheet as the subscription.

Docket-to-matter walkthrough

An illustrative mass-tort desk runs 3 active litigations, 2,400 plaintiff records, and 18,000 inbound document pages per month. When Litify creates or updates a litify_pm__Matter__c without a unique plaintiff key, a configurable US Tech Automations workflow can require a government id hash, a signed retainer flag, and a non-duplicate matter, then write a Filevine or Litify task for the intake lead and hold docket notice until a human confirms the class list. Prerequisites: Litify/Salesforce API credentials (or Filevine API credentials), a uniqueness key on plaintiff-plus-matter, document-export access, and a reviewer for duplicates. Outputs: a task, a G11182 pass/fail reason, and a legal exception list — not a promised certification date. Nothing here is a live customer result.

A second configurable path starts at the inbound medical packet. US Tech Automations can read a Filevine project document event, compare packet completeness to a 5-item checklist, and open a paralegal task when any item is missing. The data-extraction agent workflow is the matching product route for that packet hold. Native Litify or Filevine automation still does the easy status changes.

Zapier plus Make plus n8n for legal in legal can move a new litify_pm__Matter__c into Slack, retry a failed write, and keep a run log if you design legal run history, unique litify vs filevine for keys, access, and retention. That is a fair DIY choice for one stable recipe. A proposed agent design would add a durable plaintiff-id ledger and a legal human hold before class-list write — not a claim that a legal no-code path cannot retry litify vs filevine for.

Decision checklist

Use this as a buying filter, not a score you can game with a demo script.

• Can you write “Litify is the matter system” or “Filevine is the matter system” in one sentence today?

• Does the quoted edition include the API you will actually call?

• Is there a uniqueness key that is not email?

• Who rejects a duplicate plaintiff on a named day of the week?

• Where do medical packets land if email is down?

• What export do you leave with if you cancel in month 13?

• Are Clio Manage or MyCase already doing billing well enough that they should stay billing-only?

If you cannot name the reviewer, stop the purchase. Software will not invent that person.

Notice and claims-administration vendors will ask for a list with stable ids, addresses, and opt-out flags. If that list can only be built by a paralegal exporting five reports and grepping names, you do not have a class list. You have a week of emergency work every time the court sets a date. Build the export as if the administrator will call tomorrow.

Medical chronologies are not the same object as the packet. The packet is the files. The chronology is the structured dates. Filevine desks often keep chronology in a project section. Litify desks often keep it in related objects. Either is fine. Spreadsheet-beside-the-DMS is how a treating date drifts from the PDF that supposedly proves it.

Lien, benefit, and bankruptcy flags change settlement math. They belong on the plaintiff record, not in a trial notebook. If only one person knows where those flags live, that person is the legal system of record and they will go on vacation.

Who this legal page is for

This comparison is for a managing attorney, litigation-support lead, or intake director choosing a matter legal system of record for class-action or mass-tort work, possibly adding an orchestrator, with a named owner for plaintiff hygiene. It assumes you already file in court somewhere else.

Red flags: skip a legal orchestration layer for litify vs filevine for when Litify or Filevine already run the only required path, when you have no second system to sync, or when nobody will own duplicate plaintiffs. Do not buy Clio Manage or MyCase to replace a plaintiff factory. Do not buy Litify without a Salesforce admin you can name.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations: leave it out when the matter system’s native automation already is the process, when Filevine or Litify already governs the only multi-app recipe with logs you trust, or when a legal no-code scenario with error branches already notifies intake. honest legal self-selection beats a second litify vs filevine fee.

Class-action case management FAQ

Should a class-action firm pick Litify or Filevine?

Pick Litify when Salesforce-shaped matter objects and a platform admin model matter more than a Filevine project file; pick Filevine when the desk already thinks in projects, hashtags, and inbound documents.

Do we need Clio Manage if we already pay for Litify?

Only if billing, calendaring, or a mixed general-practice book still lives in Clio and you have a reason not to move it. Litify does not automatically include Clio.

Is Filevine a Litify alternative for every firm?

No. It is an alternative when the operating model is the project file. It is not a Salesforce-object substitute, and it is not a claims administrator.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations?

Skip it when native matter-system automation already covers the motion, when an integration you already run has logs you trust, or when there is no second system to sync.

What Salesforce edition do Litify buyers actually need?

Treat the edition that exposes the API you will call as the default; confirm API on the quoted Salesforce edition before you sign a cheaper SKU.

How should we pilot a matter system plus document sync?

run 30 legal days across 40 intakes, 12 duplicates, 25 complete packets, 10 incomplete packets, and 8 docket mismatches. Expand on unique ids and packet completeness, not on dashboard polish.

Pick the matter system, then the pipe

Choose Litify for Salesforce-native matters, Filevine for project files and inbound documents, Clio Manage when a mixed book already lives there, and MyCase for a small-office catalog. Then prove unique plaintiff ids from intake to class list.

The team at US Tech Automations can map a configurable intake-to-matter and packet-to-checklist trail. Review the data-extraction workflow after you have named the litify vs filevine matter system, the document store, and the reviewer.

Industry context according to ABA Tech Report (checked September 4, 2026).