The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. MyCase works in case 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
| MyCase | Clio Manage | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Case | Matter |
| Grouping | Client and contact links on the case | Client and contact relationships on the matter |
| Activity history | Notes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messages | Notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications |
| Documents | Documents on the case, shared through the portal | Documents on the matter, with folders and versions |
| Getting data out | CSV export per module and a vendor-assisted extract. | CSV export per module and a documented API; documents extract separately. |
| Who administers it | None. Anyone on staff can run it. | None. A firm administrator can run it. |
| Pricing | $50 to $130 per user per month billed annually. | $49 to $149 per user per month billed annually. |
What breaks
- MyCase works in case 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: Client and contact links on the case 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. MyCase stores it as notes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messages; Clio Manage expects notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications.
- 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 MyCase:
- Client-portal messages are client communications, and dropping them can create a records gap.
- Billing, trust and time data reconcile separately from the case data.
- Custom fields are lightweight, so richer target systems will need decisions rather than mappings.
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 MyCase | In Clio Manage | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Case | Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Client and contact links on the case | Client and contact relationships on the matter | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Notes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messages | Notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Documents on the case, shared through the portal | 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 five phases
- Audit MyCase. 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 MyCase, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep MyCase read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Clio Manage to MyCase 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 MyCase, 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: MyCase and 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 MyCase into Clio Manage
Caddi reads MyCase, 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 MyCase to Clio Manage?
Audit the MyCase 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. CSV export per module and a vendor-assisted extract. Clio Manage then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from MyCase to Clio Manage?
MyCase works in case 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: Client and contact links on the case 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. MyCase stores it as notes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messages; Clio Manage expects notes, tasks, calendar entries and communications.
How long does a MyCase 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 MyCase 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.