Personal injury firms live and die by intake volume and case velocity. A firm juggling 200 active claims can't afford software that buries medical records, loses track of statute-of-limitations deadlines, or makes a paralegal re-enter the same client data three times across intake, litigation, and billing. The wrong case management platform doesn't just slow you down — it costs you cases you should have settled higher, faster.
Personal injury firms live and die by intake volume and case velocity. A firm juggling 200 active claims can't afford software that buries medical records, loses track of statute-of-limitations deadlines, or makes a paralegal re-enter the same client data three times across intake, litigation, and billing. The wrong case management platform doesn't just slow you down — it costs you cases you should have settled higher, faster.
We evaluated three platforms attorneys actually use at scale in PI practice: Filevine, MyCase, and Clio. Each takes a different bet on what a PI firm needs most — Filevine bets on litigation-specific workflow depth, MyCase bets on affordability paired with a genuinely usable client experience, and Clio bets on breadth, with the largest integration ecosystem in legal software. None of these three is a bad choice; the differences are about fit, not quality.
Our evaluation combined vendor documentation, published pricing, third-party user reviews (Capterra, G2, Clio's own comparison pages where verifiable), and hands-on trial access where available. Where a vendor doesn't publish pricing, we say so explicitly rather than guessing — that's the case with Filevine, and it matters for your buying process.
How We Evaluated
Pricing transparency and total cost. PI firms scale headcount with caseload, so per-user pricing compounds fast. We looked at whether list pricing is public, what's actually included at the entry tier, and where the real cost hides (add-on modules, e-signature, texting, storage caps).
PI-specific workflow support. Generic case management handles matters; PI needs damages tracking, medical record chronology tools, statute-of-limitations calendaring, treatment-status tracking, and lien management. We checked for purpose-built PI features versus generic fields you'd have to configure yourself.
Ease of use and onboarding time. A platform your paralegals fight with every day erodes any feature advantage. We weighed reported implementation timelines, interface complexity, and whether the vendor requires paid onboarding to get functional.
Client communication and intake. PI cases are relationship-heavy and often high-volume at the top of the funnel. We evaluated built-in client portals, texting, and intake/CRM tooling, since a weak intake pipeline directly costs signed cases.
Integrations and ecosystem. Firms run billing, e-signature, medical record retrieval, and accounting tools alongside case management. We checked native integrations and app marketplace depth, since duct-taping tools together is a recurring pain point in PI ops.
Support quality. We looked at support channel availability (phone vs. ticket-only), response time as reported by users, and whether support is included or paywalled behind a higher tier.
Our Picks
#1: Filevine
Filevine was built by litigation attorneys with plaintiff-side workflows in mind, and it shows in ways generic case management software can't replicate. The standout is its "Projects" architecture — every case is a customizable pipeline with phases, tasks, and deadlines that mirror how a PI case actually moves from intake through demand, negotiation, and settlement. Add-on modules like Filevine MedChron (AI-assisted medical record summarization and chronology building) and damages calculators are the reason firms doing serious PI or mass tort volume choose it over competitors — reviewing thousands of pages of medical records manually is exactly the bottleneck this software targets.
Pricing is not public. Filevine sells enterprise-style, quote-based contracts, and the sales process typically involves a demo and negotiated per-user pricing that scales with modules selected (base platform, MedChron, Immigration/other verticals). Third-party reviews and user reports commonly put realistic per-user costs in the $75–$100+/month range once you add the modules most PI firms actually use, though you should treat any number not confirmed directly by Filevine's sales team as an estimate, not a quote.
Feature depth is real: texting and client communication tools, e-signature, a document automation engine, reporting dashboards built for tracking firm-wide case value and settlement pipeline, and a genuinely deep permission system for larger teams. Litigation-heavy firms report meaningfully less time spent on manual data entry once the platform is configured.
The limitations are the flip side of the depth: implementation takes longer than MyCase or Clio, the interface has a steeper learning curve for staff coming from simpler tools, and because pricing isn't published, you can't budget against it without going through a sales call. Solo practitioners and very small firms often find Filevine is more platform than they need, at a price they can't easily evaluate up front.
- Purpose-built PI/litigation workflow (damages tracking, case phases, negotiation pipeline)
- MedChron module addresses the single biggest time sink in PI practice — medical record review
- Deep reporting on case value and settlement pipeline across the firm
- Strong permission/role controls for firms with paralegals, case managers, and multiple attorneys
- Native texting and document automation reduce manual re-entry
- No published pricing — every quote requires a sales call, making apples-to-apples comparison hard
- Longer onboarding/implementation curve than MyCase or Clio
- Module-based pricing means the "real" cost is often higher than the base platform suggests
- Overkill and likely overpriced for solo or very low-volume PI practices
#2: MyCase
MyCase's pitch is straightforward: full case management, client portal, texting, and billing at a price a two-to-five-attorney PI firm can actually justify. Pricing starts at $39/mo per user, published openly on their site — a meaningful contrast to Filevine's quote-only model — with higher tiers unlocking advanced billing, workflow automation, and MyCase IQ, its AI layer for document summarization and legal research assistance. Because MyCase sits under the AffiniPay umbrella alongside LawPay, trust accounting and payment processing integrate natively, which matters for PI firms managing settlement disbursements and client trust funds.
For PI-specific work, MyCase covers the fundamentals well — task and deadline management, document storage, a genuinely well-reviewed client portal (clients can check case status and message the firm without calling), and text messaging built into the platform. What it doesn't have is Filevine's PI-native depth: there's no dedicated medical chronology tool or damages calculator out of the box. Firms handling high case volume or complex mass tort work end up building those workflows manually with custom fields and templates rather than getting them pre-built.
The client experience is where MyCase consistently outperforms in reviews — for a PI practice where client anxiety and communication volume are constant, a portal clients actually use (rather than ignore) has real operational value. Onboarding is also faster than Filevine's; most small firms report being functional within days, not weeks.
The honest limitation: MyCase is a strong generalist, not a PI specialist. A high-volume PI firm processing hundreds of medical record sets a year will hit MyCase's ceiling faster than Filevine's. It's the right tool for firms optimizing for cost and simplicity, not the right tool for firms optimizing for litigation-specific automation.
- Transparent published pricing starting at $39/mo per user
- Strong, well-reviewed client portal and native texting
- Fast onboarding — typically functional within days
- Native trust accounting/payment integration via the AffiniPay/LawPay ecosystem
- MyCase IQ adds AI-assisted document summarization at no extra platform switch
- No dedicated PI tools — no medical chronology builder or damages calculator
- Advanced billing and automation features are gated behind higher tiers
- Custom field/workflow setup required to replicate what Filevine offers natively
- Less suited to high-volume litigation or mass tort caseloads
#3: Clio
Clio is the largest player in legal case management by user base, and its core strength for a PI firm isn't a PI-specific feature — it's breadth. Clio Manage handles matter management, calendaring, document storage, and time tracking, while Clio Grow (sold separately or bundled) covers intake and CRM, which matters for PI firms running active marketing and lead generation. The real differentiator is the app marketplace: over 250 integrations covering everything from e-signature to accounting to medical record retrieval services, meaning a firm can build a PI-specific stack around Clio rather than being confined to what one vendor built in-house.
Pricing starts at $49/mo per user for the entry tier, published transparently on Clio's site, with higher tiers ($69–$99+/mo range historically, confirm current tiers directly since legal SaaS pricing shifts) unlocking more automation, reporting, and Grow's intake tools. That transparency is a real advantage over Filevine's quote-only model, and Clio's onboarding resources (including a large partner/consultant ecosystem) are more mature than either competitor's, simply due to scale.
For PI specifically, Clio is capable but generic — task management and custom fields can approximate case-phase tracking, but there's no native damages calculator or medical chronology tool. Firms typically pair Clio with a specialized PI add-on from the marketplace to close that gap, which adds cost and complexity Filevine avoids by building it in.
Where Clio wins decisively is for firms with mixed practice areas (PI plus other matter types) or firms that already have a tech stack they don't want to abandon — Clio's job is to be the hub, not to replace every specialized tool. For a pure-play, high-volume PI firm, that flexibility can also mean more setup work than a purpose-built platform requires.
- Transparent pricing starting at $49/mo per user
- Largest integration/app marketplace in legal software — build a custom PI stack
- Clio Grow adds strong intake/CRM tooling for lead-heavy PI practices
- Mature onboarding ecosystem and large consultant/partner network
- Works well for firms with mixed practice areas, not just PI
- No native PI-specific tools (damages tracking, medical chronology) — requires add-ons
- Grow (intake/CRM) is often a separate purchase from Manage, adding to total cost
- Higher tiers needed to unlock automation that competitors include earlier
- Breadth can mean more configuration work to match a PI-specific workflow out of the box
Bottom Line
If your firm handles serious PI or mass tort volume and medical record review is eating your team's time, Filevine's purpose-built tooling justifies its opacity on pricing — get the quote and run the ROI math against staff hours saved. If you're a solo or small PI practice watching every dollar, MyCase gets you real functionality, a client portal your clients will actually use, and transparent pricing you can budget against today. If you want maximum flexibility, mixed practice areas, or you already have tools you don't want to replace, Clio's ecosystem is the safer long-term bet.
For most PI firms evaluating this decision fresh, our default recommendation is MyCase for firms under roughly ten attorneys, and Filevine for firms above that threshold or handling high-complexity litigation — the case density is what determines whether Filevine's specialized tools pay for themselves. Clio is the right call specifically when PI isn't your only practice area and you need one platform to serve multiple case types without duct tape.