CasePeer to Filevine
This is a growth move, made by injury firms that have outgrown a fixed workflow and want to design their own. We design Filevine project types and sections that hold your treatment, cost and negotiation data as structured rows, then migrate cases and documents into them.
The strength of CasePeer is its opinion, and that becomes a constraint once your firm has a process of its own. Firms making this move usually want case types CasePeer does not handle, phase-driven supervision across multiple offices, or fields that reflect how they specifically work up a file. Filevine gives you that, at the cost of having to build it.
Document automation and intake are the other two drivers. Filevine document generation is stronger than what you have, which matters if you assemble demand packages at volume. Lead Docket is also a more capable intake and marketing attribution system than most firms have coming out of CasePeer, particularly if you spend seriously on advertising.
The honest downside is that you are trading a system that works on day one for one that works when you finish configuring it. Filevine needs an internal owner with time allocated. Firms that make this move without that person usually end up with a more expensive system and worse case hygiene than they had in CasePeer.
CasePeer
A cloud personal injury case management system with an opinionated workflow that most PI firms can adopt quickly.
- Purpose-built PI workflow out of the box
- Treatment and provider tracking included
- Negotiation, settlement and lien tracking
- Clean interface that staff adopt quickly
- Useful standard reporting with little setup
- Far less configurable than Filevine
- Limited hourly billing and trust accounting
- Not aimed at general practice matters
- Fewer integrations than Clio
Filevine
A project-based case management platform that firms configure heavily around their own phases, sections and custom fields.
- Deep configurability per project type
- Phases and deadline chains drive the work
- Strong document automation and templates
- Lead Docket for intake and marketing attribution
- Reporting across the fields you configure
- Configuration-heavy to build and maintain
- Billing and trust accounting are lighter than general practice tools
- Needs an internal owner to stay clean
- Cost of change grows with the configuration
What moves, and where it lands
How CasePeer records map to Filevine. Every row is reviewed with your team before anything is imported.
| CasePeer | Filevine | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | →Projects | Decide your project types first; they determine every field a case gets. |
| Providers and Treatments | →Repeating treatment sections | Design the section to hold rows before loading, or you lose the timeline. |
| Negotiations and Settlements | →Negotiation section and settlement fields | Keep each offer as a row with its date, amount and author. |
| Costs and Liens | →Cost and lien sections | Rebuild the categories you rely on, because Filevine will not supply them. |
| Clients, Contacts and Providers | →Contacts and Org Contacts | CasePeer contact roles map onto Filevine contact types and project roles. |
| Documents | →Docs | Build doc folders and categories first, then load by CasePeer category. |
| Case Notes | →Notes and Activity Feed | Human notes only, with author and timestamp preserved in the feed. |
| Tasks and Calendar | →Tasks, Calendar and deadline chains | Import dates, then build chains from anchor dates such as date of loss. |
| CasePeer intake | →Lead Docket | Treat as a separate phase and carry source values over for attribution. |
What to watch for
- You have to build the destination before anything can move. Treatment, negotiation, cost and lien data that CasePeer holds natively only survives if Filevine sections exist to receive it as rows. Get that section design signed off by the paralegals who use the data, not only by a partner.
- Settlement statement math becomes yours to design. CasePeer calculates net to client from cost types and liens, and in Filevine that logic lives in your configuration and templates, so plan and test it explicitly rather than discovering the gap at the first disbursement.
- Deadline chains need reliable anchor dates. Confirm that date of loss, date of filing and similar dates are populated and accurate in CasePeer before you build chains on them, because an empty anchor date produces silence rather than an error.
- Filevine gives you room to overbuild. Coming from CasePeer the temptation is to add every field anyone asks for, which produces the configuration sprawl that makes Filevine hard to maintain. Set a rule that a field needs an owner and a report before it exists.
- Document automation is a benefit you have to earn. Your demand and correspondence templates need rebuilding with Filevine merge fields, so scope the ten or fifteen documents your team uses most and budget that work rather than assuming templates come across.
- Plan Lead Docket separately. It is an implementation in its own right, with phone routing, forms and attribution, and stacking it onto the case migration weekend adds risk without adding value.
Eight to fourteen weeks, with configuration design taking most of the calendar. The data maps reasonably well once sections exist, so the schedule is really a function of how many project types you need, how much of your workflow you are redesigning, and whether Lead Docket is in scope. Do not set a go live date before section design is agreed.
Questions about this move
Will our treatment and provider data move?
Do we need someone to own Filevine internally?
How do settlement statements work after the move?
Is Filevine worth it for a small injury firm?
Move from CasePeer to Filevine.
Tell us how many matters, users, and documents are involved. We will come back with a plan, a field map, and a realistic timeline.