The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Intapp DealCloud works in deal or opportunity records; Litify works in 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 Litify in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Intapp DealCloud | Litify | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Deal or Opportunity | Matter |
| Grouping | Company, coverage teams and relationship tiers | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter |
| Activity history | Interactions, meetings and pipeline history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects |
| Documents | Linked from external storage | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider |
| Getting data out | Platform export tooling and the DealCloud API. | Salesforce reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. |
| Who administers it | A dedicated BD or operations team. | A named Salesforce administrator. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted. | Custom quoted; implementations commonly run three to six months with outside help. |
What breaks
- Intapp DealCloud works in deal or opportunity records and Litify works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Company, coverage teams and relationship tiers becomes Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Intapp DealCloud stores it as interactions, meetings and pipeline history; Litify expects salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects.
- You are acquiring a named-administrator requirement. Managed Salesforce admin support runs $2,500 to $9,000 a month if the role has no internal owner.
- 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 Intapp DealCloud:
- Deals are not matters, and mapping between the two loses either pipeline or delivery detail.
- Coverage models and relationship tiers are firm-specific configuration.
- Interaction capture is often automated, so the volume of history is large.
Arriving in Litify:
- The Party and Role model carries relationships that flatten into nothing in simpler systems.
- Firm-specific Apex and Flows built during implementation are invisible in any export.
- Retained Litify admin support runs roughly $65 to $80 an hour, which is a cost that follows you until the migration completes.
The field map
| Concept | In Intapp DealCloud | In Litify | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Deal or Opportunity | Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Company, coverage teams and relationship tiers | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Interactions, meetings and pipeline history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Linked from external storage | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider | 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 implementation | Three to six months with outside help |
| Ongoing administration | $2,500 to $9,000 a month if unowned internally |
Note the third and fourth rows. Moving to Litify means acquiring an administration requirement, and that cost recurs long after the migration closes. See before you hire a Salesforce developer for how to split that work between a person and an agent.
The five phases
- Audit Intapp DealCloud. 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 Litify 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 Intapp DealCloud, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Intapp DealCloud read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Litify to Intapp DealCloud 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 Intapp DealCloud, applies your field map, loads Litify, 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 matter with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Intapp DealCloud and Litify.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Litify
- Clio Manage to Litify
- Filevine to Litify
- Litify to Clio Grow
- Litify to Clio Manage
- Litify to Filevine
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Intapp DealCloud into Litify
Caddi reads Intapp DealCloud, applies your field map, loads Litify, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Intapp DealCloud to Litify?
Audit the Intapp DealCloud data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Litify sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Platform export tooling and the DealCloud API. Litify then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Intapp DealCloud to Litify?
Intapp DealCloud works in deal or opportunity records and Litify works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Company, coverage teams and relationship tiers becomes Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Intapp DealCloud stores it as interactions, meetings and pipeline history; Litify expects salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects.
How long does a Intapp DealCloud to Litify migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Litify is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Intapp DealCloud should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Litify afterwards?
A named Salesforce administrator. Name that person before you sign, because an unowned org drifts and the reporting advantage you bought disappears.
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.