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; 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
| Litify | LexisNexis InterAction | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Contact |
| Grouping | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter | Company, relationship and folder structures |
| Activity history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history |
| Documents | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider | Largely external; the system tracks relationships, not files |
| Getting data out | Salesforce reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. | Vendor-assisted extract; relationship intelligence is hard to represent in flat files. |
| Who administers it | A named Salesforce administrator. | Marketing or BD technology staff. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted; implementations commonly run three to six months with outside help. | Custom quoted. |
What breaks
- Litify works in matter 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: Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter 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. Litify stores it as salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects; LexisNexis InterAction expects relationship activity, mailing lists and event history.
- 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 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 Litify | In LexisNexis InterAction | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Matter | Contact | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter | Company, relationship and folder structures | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Salesforce tasks and events plus Litify activity objects | Relationship activity, mailing lists and event history | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Salesforce Files or a connected storage provider | 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 upside of this direction is administrative. Litify assumes a named platform administrator and LexisNexis InterAction 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 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 Litify, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Litify read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare LexisNexis InterAction 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 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: Litify and LexisNexis InterAction.
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 Litify into LexisNexis InterAction
Caddi reads Litify, 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 Litify to LexisNexis InterAction?
Audit the Litify 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. Salesforce reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. LexisNexis InterAction then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Litify to LexisNexis InterAction?
Litify works in matter 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: Intake, Party and Role objects around the matter 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. Litify stores it as salesforce tasks and events plus litify activity objects; LexisNexis InterAction expects relationship activity, mailing lists and event history.
How long does a Litify 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 Litify 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.