Filevine to CasePeer
Smaller injury firms move from Filevine to CasePeer to stop maintaining a configuration nobody has time to own. We work out which Filevine fields your team really uses, map them onto CasePeer native records, and archive the rest cleanly rather than pretending they fit.
Filevine is powerful in proportion to the attention you give it. Firms that bought it hoping the flexibility would solve a process problem, then never staffed an operations owner, end up with half-built project types and automation nobody trusts. CasePeer removes that failure mode by having the opinion built in and giving you less to get wrong.
For a standard auto and premises practice, most of what you configured in Filevine already exists in CasePeer: providers, treatment, costs, negotiations, liens, settlement statements and intake. Staff adopt it faster because there is less to learn and fewer ways to fill a field in badly. Reporting works on day one instead of after a field cleanup project.
You give up range. CasePeer will not support an unusual case type, deep document automation, or the level of custom reporting Filevine allowed. Multi-office firms enforcing one workflow across several practice groups usually should not make this move. Firms under about twenty people running ordinary injury work often find it a much better fit.
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
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
What moves, and where it lands
How Filevine records map to CasePeer. Every row is reviewed with your team before anything is imported.
| Filevine | CasePeer | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Projects | →Cases | Several Filevine project types usually collapse into fewer CasePeer case types. |
| Sections and Custom Fields | →Native CasePeer fields | Triage first; CasePeer has fewer places to put a nonstandard field. |
| Provider and treatment sections | →Providers and Treatments | Maps well when your sections captured visit dates and billed amounts. |
| Cost and lien sections | →Costs and Liens | Category mapping matters; CasePeer settlement math depends on cost types. |
| Contacts and Org Contacts | →Clients, Contacts and Providers | CasePeer types contacts by role, so add a role column to exports. |
| Docs | →Documents | Consolidate Filevine folder trees into the simpler CasePeer document structure. |
| Notes and Activity Feed | →Case Notes | Human notes only; automated feed entries should be archived, not loaded. |
| Tasks and Calendar | →Tasks and Calendar | Open tasks and future dates, then verify every statute date after loading. |
| Lead Docket Leads | →CasePeer intake | Simpler pipeline, so expect to lose some Lead Docket attribution detail. |
What to watch for
- The triage is the project. Expect to find that a large share of your Filevine custom fields are empty, duplicated across project types, or populated only by someone who has left. Run a fill-rate report per field before mapping and use it to justify dropping fields rather than debating each one.
- Document automation goes away in the form you know it. CasePeer generates documents but not at the level Filevine does, so firms relying on complex assembled demand packages should test that specific workflow before committing.
- Cost and lien data needs careful category mapping. CasePeer calculates settlement statements and net to client from cost types and lien records, so a lazy mapping produces numbers your staff correct by hand on every disbursement.
- CasePeer has less room for unusual case types. If you run anything outside standard injury work in Filevine, such as mass tort, workers compensation or a niche litigation type, confirm CasePeer handles it acceptably before you scope the migration.
- Filevine deadline chains have no direct replacement, so deadlines become dates your team maintains. Export the full open deadline list, load it, then verify it case by case rather than assuming the new system recalculates anything.
- Do not migrate the whole activity feed. Filevine feeds are dense with system events, and a bulk load turns CasePeer case notes into something nobody reads. Filter to user-authored entries and keep an exported archive of the rest.
Five to ten weeks for most firms. The load itself is straightforward, so the schedule is set by field triage, document volume and the treatment and cost mapping. Firms willing to accept a simpler field set move quickly. Firms that try to reproduce a full Filevine configuration in CasePeer discover the platform will not allow it, usually a few weeks in.
Questions about this move
Is CasePeer a downgrade from Filevine?
What happens to fields CasePeer has no home for?
Will our treatment and provider data move?
How long should we keep Filevine after go live?
Move from Filevine to CasePeer.
Tell us how many matters, users, and documents are involved. We will come back with a plan, a field map, and a realistic timeline.