The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. LexisNexis InterAction works in contact records; CosmoLex 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 CosmoLex in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| LexisNexis InterAction | CosmoLex | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Contact | Matter |
| Grouping | Company, relationship and folder structures | Client and contact links |
| Activity history | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history | Notes, tasks and calendar |
| Documents | Largely external; the system tracks relationships, not files | Documents on the matter |
| Getting data out | Vendor-assisted extract; relationship intelligence is hard to represent in flat files. | CSV export; accounting data extracts separately. |
| Who administers it | Marketing or BD technology staff. | None. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted. | Custom quoted. |
What breaks
- LexisNexis InterAction works in contact records and CosmoLex works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Company, relationship and folder structures becomes Client and contact links. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. LexisNexis InterAction stores it as relationship activity, mailing lists and event history; CosmoLex expects notes, tasks and calendar.
- 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 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.
Arriving in 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.
The field map
| Concept | In LexisNexis InterAction | In CosmoLex | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Contact | Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Company, relationship and folder structures | Client and contact links | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history | Notes, tasks and calendar | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Largely external; the system tracks relationships, not files | Documents on the matter | 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 LexisNexis InterAction. 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 CosmoLex 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 LexisNexis InterAction, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep LexisNexis InterAction read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare CosmoLex to LexisNexis InterAction 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 LexisNexis InterAction, applies your field map, loads CosmoLex, 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: LexisNexis InterAction.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to LexisNexis InterAction
- Clio Manage to LexisNexis InterAction
- Filevine to LexisNexis InterAction
- LexisNexis InterAction to Clio Grow
- LexisNexis InterAction to Clio Manage
- LexisNexis InterAction to Filevine
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile LexisNexis InterAction into CosmoLex
Caddi reads LexisNexis InterAction, applies your field map, loads CosmoLex, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from LexisNexis InterAction to CosmoLex?
Audit the LexisNexis InterAction data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a CosmoLex sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Vendor-assisted extract; relationship intelligence is hard to represent in flat files. CosmoLex then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from LexisNexis InterAction to CosmoLex?
LexisNexis InterAction works in contact records and CosmoLex works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Company, relationship and folder structures becomes Client and contact links. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. LexisNexis InterAction stores it as relationship activity, mailing lists and event history; CosmoLex expects notes, tasks and calendar.
How long does a LexisNexis InterAction to CosmoLex migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where CosmoLex is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in LexisNexis InterAction should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers CosmoLex afterwards?
None. 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.