The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Microsoft Dynamics 365 works in account and contact records; Clio Manage 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 Clio Manage in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Microsoft Dynamics 365 | Clio Manage | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Account and Contact | Matter |
| Grouping | Account hierarchy and connections | Client and contact relationships on the matter |
| Activity history | Activities: tasks, appointments, emails and phone calls | Notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications |
| Documents | Notes, attachments, or SharePoint integration | Documents on the matter, with folders and versions |
| Getting data out | Dataverse export tooling and the Web API. | CSV export per module and a documented API; documents extract separately. |
| Who administers it | A named Dynamics administrator. | None. A firm administrator can run it. |
| Pricing | Per-user platform licensing plus build. | $49 to $149 per user per month billed annually. |
What breaks
- Microsoft Dynamics 365 works in account and contact records and Clio Manage works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Account hierarchy and connections becomes Client and contact relationships on the matter. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Microsoft Dynamics 365 stores it as activities: tasks, appointments, emails and phone calls; Clio Manage expects notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications.
- Plugins and Power Automate flows carry logic that no Dataverse export represents.
- 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 Microsoft Dynamics 365:
- Option sets and lookups need translating rather than copying.
- SharePoint-linked documents are references, not files, so document migration is a separate project.
- Plugins and Power Automate flows hold logic no export represents.
Arriving in Clio Manage:
- Time entries, trust transactions and invoices are separate exports from the matter data, and they have to reconcile afterwards.
- Document folder structure and versions do not survive a flat export.
- Custom fields are per matter type, so the same concept can exist under several names.
The field map
| Concept | In Microsoft Dynamics 365 | In Clio Manage | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Account and Contact | Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Account hierarchy and connections | Client and contact relationships on the matter | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Activities: tasks, appointments, emails and phone calls | Notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Notes, attachments, or SharePoint integration | Documents on the matter, with folders and versions | 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 upside of this direction is administrative. Microsoft Dynamics 365 assumes a named platform administrator and Clio Manage does not, so the ongoing cost drops as well as the license. The trade is expressiveness: any workflow encoded in the platform has to be rebuilt or given up.
The five phases
- Audit Microsoft Dynamics 365. 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 Clio Manage 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 Microsoft Dynamics 365, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Microsoft Dynamics 365 read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Clio Manage to Microsoft Dynamics 365 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 Microsoft Dynamics 365, applies your field map, loads Clio Manage, 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: Clio Manage.
Related migrations
- Clio Manage to Filevine
- Clio Manage to Litify
- Clio Manage to Salesforce
- Filevine to Clio Manage
- Litify to Clio Manage
- Salesforce to Clio Manage
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Microsoft Dynamics 365 into Clio Manage
Caddi reads Microsoft Dynamics 365, applies your field map, loads Clio Manage, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Microsoft Dynamics 365 to Clio Manage?
Audit the Microsoft Dynamics 365 data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Clio Manage sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Dataverse export tooling and the Web API. Clio Manage then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Microsoft Dynamics 365 to Clio Manage?
Microsoft Dynamics 365 works in account and contact records and Clio Manage works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Account hierarchy and connections becomes Client and contact relationships on the matter. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Microsoft Dynamics 365 stores it as activities: tasks, appointments, emails and phone calls; Clio Manage expects notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications.
How long does a Microsoft Dynamics 365 to Clio Manage migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Clio Manage is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Microsoft Dynamics 365 should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Clio Manage afterwards?
None. A firm administrator can run it. 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.