The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Litify works in matter records; Clio Grow works in lead or 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 Clio Grow in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Litify | Clio Grow | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Lead or Contact |
| Grouping | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter | Pipeline stage and matter type |
| Activity history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects | Intake steps, appointments and email templates |
| Documents | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider | Intake forms and agreements on the lead |
| Getting data out | Salesforce reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. | CSV export, plus the Clio API for Manage-side records. |
| Who administers it | A named Salesforce administrator. | None. Anyone on staff can run it. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted; implementations commonly run three to six months with outside help. | Included on the top Clio plan; Clio is $49 to $149 per user per month annually. |
What breaks
- Litify works in matter records and Clio Grow works in lead or contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter becomes Pipeline stage and matter type. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Litify stores it as salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects; Clio Grow expects intake steps, appointments and email templates.
- Logic held in Apex, Flows and validation rules leaves no trace in any export. Read it out of the org before you decommission it.
- 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 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.
Arriving in Clio Grow:
- Leads that never converted have no equivalent record in matter-centric systems.
- Intake form responses are stored as form data, not as fields, and often need flattening.
- The Grow-to-Manage handoff means the same client can exist twice in an export.
The field map
| Concept | In Litify | In Clio Grow | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Lead or Contact | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter | Pipeline stage and matter type | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects | Intake steps, appointments and email templates | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider | Intake forms and agreements on the lead | 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. Litify assumes a named platform administrator and Clio Grow 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 Litify. 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 Grow 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 Litify, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Litify read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Clio Grow to Litify 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 Litify, applies your field map, loads Clio Grow, 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 lead or contact with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Litify and Clio Grow.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Filevine
- Clio Grow to Litify
- Clio Grow to Salesforce
- Clio Manage to Litify
- Filevine to Clio Grow
- Filevine to Litify
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Litify into Clio Grow
Caddi reads Litify, applies your field map, loads Clio Grow, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Litify to Clio Grow?
Audit the Litify data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Clio Grow sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Salesforce reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. Clio Grow then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Litify to Clio Grow?
Litify works in matter records and Clio Grow works in lead or contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter becomes Pipeline stage and matter type. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Litify stores it as salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects; Clio Grow expects intake steps, appointments and email templates.
How long does a Litify to Clio Grow migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Clio Grow is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Litify should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Clio Grow afterwards?
None. Anyone on staff 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.