The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Filevine works in project records; LexisNexis InterAction works in contact 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 LexisNexis InterAction in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Filevine | LexisNexis InterAction | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Project | Contact |
| Grouping | Project type, phases and teams | Company, relationship and folder structures |
| Activity history | Notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history |
| Documents | Documents and templates on the project | Largely external; the system tracks relationships, not files |
| Getting data out | Vendor-assisted export plus the Filevine API. | Vendor-assisted extract; relationship intelligence is hard to represent in flat files. |
| Who administers it | An internal operations owner, or Filevine services. | Marketing or BD technology staff. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted, commonly per user. | Custom quoted. |
What breaks
- Filevine works in project records and LexisNexis InterAction works in contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Project type, phases and teams becomes Company, relationship and folder structures. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Filevine stores it as notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project; LexisNexis InterAction expects relationship activity, mailing lists and event history.
- 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 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.
Arriving in LexisNexis InterAction:
- Relationship strength and who-knows-whom data is derived, not entered, so it cannot simply be exported and reloaded.
- Mailing lists and event history are often the most-used data and the least considered in scoping.
- Partner-level data ownership rules have to be reproduced in the target or the firm will not adopt it.
The field map
| Concept | In Filevine | In LexisNexis InterAction | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Project | Contact | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Project type, phases and teams | Company, relationship and folder structures | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Documents and templates on the project | Largely external; the system tracks relationships, not files | 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 Filevine. 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 LexisNexis InterAction 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 Filevine, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Filevine read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare LexisNexis InterAction to Filevine 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 Filevine, applies your field map, loads LexisNexis InterAction, 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 with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Filevine and LexisNexis InterAction.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Filevine
- Clio Manage to Filevine
- Filevine to Clio Grow
- Filevine to Clio Manage
- Filevine to Litify
- Filevine to Salesforce
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Filevine into LexisNexis InterAction
Caddi reads Filevine, applies your field map, loads LexisNexis InterAction, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Filevine to LexisNexis InterAction?
Audit the Filevine data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a LexisNexis InterAction sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Vendor-assisted export plus the Filevine API. LexisNexis InterAction then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Filevine to LexisNexis InterAction?
Filevine works in project records and LexisNexis InterAction works in contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Project type, phases and teams becomes Company, relationship and folder structures. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Filevine stores it as notes, deadlines and activity feed on the project; LexisNexis InterAction expects relationship activity, mailing lists and event history.
How long does a Filevine to LexisNexis InterAction migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where LexisNexis InterAction is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Filevine should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers LexisNexis InterAction afterwards?
Marketing or BD technology staff. 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.