Meet Caddi in personFuture ProofSep 14–17Booth 248 · Zone 1ADVISE AIOct 20–22AI for Mid-Sized LawNov 5Legal InnovatorsNov 17–18
All migration guides
CRM migration

MyCase to Lawmatics Migration

What actually moves, what has to be rebuilt, and how to prove the result matches. MyCase is An all-in-one system for small firms, with CRM as a module rather than the point; Lawmatics is Marketing automation and intake CRM for growth-focused firms.

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; Lawmatics works in contact or 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 Lawmatics in month two.

The two systems, side by side

MyCaseLawmatics
Primary recordCaseContact or Matter
GroupingClient and contact links on the casePipeline stage and campaign membership
Activity historyNotes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messagesAutomations, email sequences and appointments
DocumentsDocuments on the case, shared through the portalIntake forms, agreements and e-signature records
Getting data outCSV export per module and a vendor-assisted extract.CSV export and the Lawmatics API.
Who administers itNone. Anyone on staff can run it.A marketing or operations owner.
Pricing$50 to $130 per user per month billed annually.From about $199 per month.
Record models drive the field map below. Where the two rows differ, that line is a decision rather than a mapping.

What breaks

  • MyCase works in case records and Lawmatics works in contact or 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 Pipeline stage and campaign membership. 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; Lawmatics expects automations, email sequences and appointments.
  • 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 Lawmatics:

  • Automation sequences and campaign history are the product, and they do not migrate.
  • Form submissions are stored as submissions rather than as fields.
  • Attribution data is easy to lose, which breaks the reporting the firm bought it for.

The field map

ConceptIn MyCaseIn LawmaticsWhat to watch
Primary recordCaseContact or MatterDifferent shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves.
GroupingClient and contact links on the casePipeline stage and campaign membershipThe target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied.
Activity historyNotes, tasks, calendar and client-portal messagesAutomations, email sequences and appointmentsExpect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not.
DocumentsDocuments on the case, shared through the portalIntake forms, agreements and e-signature recordsUsually a separate extract and load from the record data.
Owner and assignmentAssigned user or advisor fieldsAssigned user or team fieldsMap departed staff explicitly. Records assigned to nobody disappear from every view.
Custom fieldsFirm-specific fields added over timeCreated to match, or consciously droppedThe audit here is the work. Undocumented fields that reports depend on are the usual surprise.
Map against fifty real records, including the ugly ones, rather than against the schema. Every remap is a decision with a compliance consequence, so record who made it.

Cost and timeline

PhaseTypical range
Data audit and cleanup$3,000 to $25,000
Migration execution$5,000 to $50,000
Target configurationTwo to six weeks
Ongoing administrationAbsorbed by existing operations staff
Published 2026 ranges. Cleanup and customization discovered mid-project commonly pushes first-year cost 30 to 50 percent past the original estimate.

The five phases

  1. 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.
  2. Map against real records. Use the table above as the starting point, then walk fifty live records field by field.
  3. Dry run into a Lawmatics sandbox. Load the full set, not a sample. Sample loads hide the failures that only appear at volume.
  4. Cut over on a quiet window. Freeze writes in MyCase, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep MyCase read-only for at least a quarter.
  5. Reconcile. Compare Lawmatics 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.

Spend your first two weeks on MyCase and your last two weeks on reconciliation. Loading Lawmatics is the part any vendor can do. Migrations that go wrong almost always shortened one of the two ends.

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 Lawmatics, 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 or matter with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.

Caddi automation for these systems: MyCase and Lawmatics.

Related migrations

Migration without the manual pass

Move and reconcile MyCase into Lawmatics

Caddi reads MyCase, applies your field map, loads Lawmatics, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.

Frequently asked questions

How do you migrate from MyCase to Lawmatics?

Audit the MyCase data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Lawmatics 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. Lawmatics then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.

What does not transfer from MyCase to Lawmatics?

MyCase works in case records and Lawmatics works in contact or 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 Pipeline stage and campaign membership. 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; Lawmatics expects automations, email sequences and appointments.

How long does a MyCase to Lawmatics migration take?

Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Lawmatics 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 Lawmatics afterwards?

A marketing or operations owner. 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.