The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. CosmoLex works in matter records; Lawmatics works in contact or matter 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 Lawmatics in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| CosmoLex | Lawmatics | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Contact or Matter |
| Grouping | Client and contact links | Pipeline stage and campaign membership |
| Activity history | Notes, tasks and calendar | Automations, email sequences and appointments |
| Documents | Documents on the matter | Intake forms, agreements and e-signature records |
| Getting data out | CSV export; accounting data extracts separately. | CSV export and the Lawmatics API. |
| Who administers it | None. | A marketing or operations owner. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted. | From about $199 per month. |
What breaks
- CosmoLex works in matter records and Lawmatics works in contact or matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Client and contact links becomes Pipeline stage and campaign membership. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. CosmoLex stores it as notes, tasks and calendar; Lawmatics expects automations, email sequences and appointments.
- 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 CosmoLex:
- The general ledger and trust accounting are the reason firms chose it, and most targets do not replace them.
- Accounting and matter data have to reconcile after the move or the books do not tie.
- Historic trust transactions carry retention obligations of their own.
Arriving in Lawmatics:
- Automation sequences and campaign history are the product, and they do not migrate.
- Form submissions are stored as submissions rather than as fields.
- Attribution data is easy to lose, which breaks the reporting the firm bought it for.
The field map
| Concept | In CosmoLex | In Lawmatics | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Contact or Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Client and contact links | Pipeline stage and campaign membership | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Notes, tasks and calendar | Automations, email sequences and appointments | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Documents on the matter | Intake forms, agreements and e-signature records | 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 CosmoLex. 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 Lawmatics 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 CosmoLex, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep CosmoLex read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Lawmatics to CosmoLex 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 CosmoLex, applies your field map, loads Lawmatics, 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 contact or matter with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Lawmatics.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Lawmatics
- Clio Manage to Lawmatics
- Filevine to Lawmatics
- Lawmatics to Clio Grow
- Lawmatics to Clio Manage
- Lawmatics to Filevine
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile CosmoLex into Lawmatics
Caddi reads CosmoLex, applies your field map, loads Lawmatics, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from CosmoLex to Lawmatics?
Audit the CosmoLex data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Lawmatics sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. CSV export; accounting data extracts separately. Lawmatics then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from CosmoLex to Lawmatics?
CosmoLex works in matter records and Lawmatics works in contact or matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Client and contact links becomes Pipeline stage and campaign membership. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. CosmoLex stores it as notes, tasks and calendar; Lawmatics expects automations, email sequences and appointments.
How long does a CosmoLex to Lawmatics migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Lawmatics is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in CosmoLex should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Lawmatics afterwards?
A marketing or operations owner. 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.