The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Clio Grow works in lead or contact records; Filevine works in project records. Get that mapping wrong and every report built on it afterwards is wrong too. This page covers the field map, what does not survive, what it costs, and the reconciliation step that decides whether anyone trusts Filevine in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Clio Grow | Filevine | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Lead or Contact | Project |
| Grouping | Pipeline stage and matter type | Project type, phases and teams |
| Activity history | Intake steps, appointments and email templates | Notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project |
| Documents | Intake forms and agreements on the lead | Documents and templates on the project |
| Getting data out | CSV export, plus the Clio API for Manage-side records. | Vendor-assisted export plus the Filevine API. |
| Who administers it | None. Anyone on staff can run it. | An internal operations owner, or Filevine services. |
| Pricing | Included on the top Clio plan; Clio is $49 to $149 per user per month annually. | Custom quoted, commonly per user. |
What breaks
- Clio Grow works in lead or contact records and Filevine works in project records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Pipeline stage and matter type becomes Project type, phases and teams. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Clio Grow stores it as intake steps, appointments and email templates; Filevine expects notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project.
- Automations, reports, dashboards and permissions never transfer. Budget them as build work.
- Every connected system has to be repointed and retested: the DMS, billing, e-signature and the shared inbox.
Known hazards on each side
Leaving Clio Grow:
- Leads that never converted have no equivalent record in matter-centric systems.
- Intake form responses are stored as form data, not as fields, and often need flattening.
- The Grow-to-Manage handoff means the same client can exist twice in an export.
Arriving in Filevine:
- Projects are not matters: phases, sections and custom project types need explicit mapping.
- The activity feed is chronological rather than typed, so it does not slot into note and task objects cleanly.
- Document volume is usually the largest single part of the extract.
The field map
| Concept | In Clio Grow | In Filevine | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Lead or Contact | Project | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Pipeline stage and matter type | Project type, phases and teams | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Intake steps, appointments and email templates | Notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Intake forms and agreements on the lead | Documents and templates on the project | Usually a separate extract and load from the record data. |
| Owner and assignment | Assigned user or advisor fields | Assigned user or team fields | Map departed staff explicitly. Records assigned to nobody disappear from every view. |
| Custom fields | Firm-specific fields added over time | Created to match, or consciously dropped | The audit here is the work. Undocumented fields that reports depend on are the usual surprise. |
Cost and timeline
| Phase | Typical range |
|---|---|
| Data audit and cleanup | $3,000 to $25,000 |
| Migration execution | $5,000 to $50,000 |
| Target configuration | Two to six weeks |
| Ongoing administration | Absorbed by existing operations staff |
The five phases
- Audit Clio Grow. Count records per object, find duplicates and orphans, and decide what does not come with you. Get that decision signed off before mapping.
- Map against real records. Use the table above as the starting point, then walk fifty live records field by field.
- Dry run into a Filevine sandbox. Load the full set, not a sample. Sample loads hide the failures that only appear at volume.
- Cut over on a quiet window. Freeze writes in Clio Grow, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Clio Grow read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Filevine to Clio Grow record by record and field by field, and produce a variance report.
The full version of this plan, with the failure evidence behind it, is in the CRM migration playbook.
The compliance clause
State retention rules and the firm's duties over the client file survive the migration. A matter that lands in the target without its history is a records gap, not a cosmetic issue. Keep the field map, the variance report and the mapping sign-offs with the records, because the decisions you made in phase two are part of the record too.
Where Caddi fits
Caddi does the mechanical half and then keeps doing it. Show it the task once and it reads Clio Grow, applies your field map, loads Filevine, and then compares both sides record by record and hands back a variance report you can act on. Because it runs over APIs across your stack, the same agent covers the parts a migration tool ignores: documents filed to the right project with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Clio Grow and Filevine.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Litify
- Clio Grow to Salesforce
- Clio Manage to Filevine
- Filevine to Clio Grow
- Filevine to Clio Manage
- Filevine to Litify
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Clio Grow into Filevine
Caddi reads Clio Grow, applies your field map, loads Filevine, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Clio Grow to Filevine?
Audit the Clio Grow data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Filevine sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. CSV export, plus the Clio API for Manage-side records. Filevine then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Clio Grow to Filevine?
Clio Grow works in lead or contact records and Filevine works in project records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Pipeline stage and matter type becomes Project type, phases and teams. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Clio Grow stores it as intake steps, appointments and email templates; Filevine expects notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project.
How long does a Clio Grow to Filevine migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Filevine is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Clio Grow should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Filevine afterwards?
An internal operations owner, or Filevine services. That is one of the reasons this move is lighter than a platform migration.
What are the compliance implications for law firms?
State retention rules and duties over the client file survive the migration. A gap in matter history is a finding, not a cosmetic issue, so keep the field map, the variance report and the sign-offs with the records.