The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Salesforce works in account and contact, plus whatever custom objects you built records; Actionstep 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 Actionstep in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Salesforce | Actionstep | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Account and Contact, plus whatever custom objects you built | Matter |
| Grouping | Account hierarchy and relationship objects | Matter type and step-based workflow |
| Activity history | Tasks, Events and EmailMessage | Steps, tasks and notes tied to the workflow |
| Documents | Files and ContentDocument links, or an external DMS | Documents on the matter with template links |
| Getting data out | Reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. | CSV export and the Actionstep API. |
| Who administers it | A named Salesforce administrator. | An internal workflow owner. |
| Pricing | Platform license plus build; managed admin runs $2,500 to $9,000 a month. | Custom quoted. |
What breaks
- Salesforce works in account and contact, plus whatever custom objects you built records and Actionstep works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Account hierarchy and relationship objects becomes Matter type and step-based workflow. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Salesforce stores it as tasks, events and emailmessage; Actionstep expects steps, tasks and notes tied to the workflow.
- 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 Salesforce:
- Apex, Flows, validation rules and sharing rules never appear in an export, and they carry business logic.
- Record IDs are the glue between object extracts, so extract order and external IDs decide whether reassembly works.
- Every org has custom fields nobody remembers creating, and a few that reports still depend on.
Arriving in Actionstep:
- The step-based workflow is the system's value and has no direct equivalent elsewhere.
- Matter state lives partly in the workflow position rather than in fields.
- Multi-jurisdiction configurations multiply the number of matter types to map.
The field map
| Concept | In Salesforce | In Actionstep | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Account and Contact, plus whatever custom objects you built | Matter | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Account hierarchy and relationship objects | Matter type and step-based workflow | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Tasks, Events and EmailMessage | Steps, tasks and notes tied to the workflow | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Files and ContentDocument links, or an external DMS | Documents on the matter with template links | 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. Salesforce assumes a named platform administrator and Actionstep 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 Salesforce. 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 Actionstep 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 Salesforce, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Salesforce read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare Actionstep to Salesforce 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 Salesforce, applies your field map, loads Actionstep, 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: Salesforce and Actionstep.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to Salesforce
- Clio Manage to Salesforce
- Filevine to Salesforce
- Litify to Salesforce
- Redtail CRM to Salesforce
- Salesforce Financial Services Cloud to Salesforce
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Salesforce into Actionstep
Caddi reads Salesforce, applies your field map, loads Actionstep, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Salesforce to Actionstep?
Audit the Salesforce data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a Actionstep sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Reports and the Bulk API, one extract per object, reassembled on IDs. Actionstep then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Salesforce to Actionstep?
Salesforce works in account and contact, plus whatever custom objects you built records and Actionstep works in matter records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Account hierarchy and relationship objects becomes Matter type and step-based workflow. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Salesforce stores it as tasks, events and emailmessage; Actionstep expects steps, tasks and notes tied to the workflow.
How long does a Salesforce to Actionstep migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where Actionstep is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Salesforce should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers Actionstep afterwards?
An internal workflow 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.