SmartAdvocate to CasePeer
This is a simplification within plaintiff work, usually chosen by smaller firms that want less system to manage. We migrate cases, providers, treatments, costs and negotiations into CasePeer native records, and tell you clearly which SmartAdvocate depth you will not get back.
SmartAdvocate is built for volume and complexity, including mass tort. A ten-person firm doing straightforward auto and premises work often uses a small fraction of it while carrying the interface density and administrative overhead of the whole platform. CasePeer covers that same practice with much less to learn and much less to configure.
The data maps better than in most migrations, which is the practical appeal. Both systems have native concepts for providers, treatment, costs, negotiations and liens, so you are matching structured records to structured records rather than inventing a destination. Staff usually pick CasePeer up quickly because the workflow is similar in shape and simpler in execution.
You lose depth and reporting. SmartAdvocate custom reporting, automation rules, mass tort handling and user defined field flexibility all reach beyond what CasePeer offers. A firm with growing intake volume or aggregate litigation ambitions should think twice, because this is a move toward simplicity and away from headroom.
SmartAdvocate
A plaintiff litigation case management system built specifically for personal injury and mass tort practices.
- Native medical provider and treatment tracking
- Deep case workflow and automation rules
- Strong negotiation and settlement tooling
- Extensive built-in reporting
- Cloud or on-premise deployment
- Dense interface with a real learning curve
- Billing is geared to contingency rather than hourly
- Deeper customization usually needs vendor or admin help
- Smaller integration marketplace than Clio
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 SmartAdvocate records map to CasePeer. Every row is reviewed with your team before anything is imported.
| SmartAdvocate | CasePeer | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | →Cases | Consolidate SmartAdvocate case types into the shorter CasePeer case type list. |
| Contacts and Parties | →Clients, Contacts and Providers | Role mapping is mostly direct; confirm how CasePeer expects each party type. |
| Providers and Treatment records | →Providers and Treatments | Strongest mapping in this migration; keep visit dates and billed amounts. |
| Negotiations and Settlements | →Negotiations and Settlements | Offer and counter history maps well when dates and amounts are exported. |
| Insurance and Policies | →Case insurance fields | CasePeer holds fewer policy details, so identify what you truly need. |
| User Defined Fields | →Native fields or notes | Fill-rate audit first; CasePeer has limited room for custom fields. |
| Documents | →Documents | Use SmartAdvocate document categories to drive the CasePeer folder mapping. |
| Case Notes, Tasks and Appointments | →Case Notes, Tasks and Calendar | Open items and human notes only; verify statute dates individually. |
What to watch for
- Your case type list will shrink. SmartAdvocate firms often run many case types with distinct field sets, and CasePeer expects fewer and simpler ones, so consolidation decisions have to be made before mapping. Make them with the people who work the files, not only with administrators.
- User defined fields are the main loss. CasePeer has far less room for custom fields than SmartAdvocate, so run a fill-rate report and be ruthless. Anything genuinely needed without a native home becomes a note and stops being reportable.
- Mass tort and aggregate litigation do not fit well. If any part of your practice involves large plaintiff groups or complex aggregate settlements, test that specifically in CasePeer before committing, because this is where the gap between the two platforms is widest.
- Reporting will be simpler than what you have. The SmartAdvocate report writer is a genuine strength, and CasePeer standard reports cover common questions rather than bespoke ones. List the reports partners read each week and confirm CasePeer answers them before signing.
- Provider deduplication is worth doing during the export. SmartAdvocate installations accumulate duplicate provider records over years, and loading them as they are carries the mess forward into a system with fewer merge tools.
- On-premise firms should use their database access while they still have it. A direct extract gives cleaner treatment, negotiation and history data than reports alone, and the server decommissioning and retention plan needs its own timeline.
Five to ten weeks is typical. Because both systems share plaintiff concepts, the mapping work is faster than most migrations, so the schedule is usually set by case type consolidation, provider cleanup and document volume. Firms that agree the simplified case type list in the first two weeks tend to finish at the short end.
Questions about this move
Does treatment data really map cleanly?
What do we lose by moving to CasePeer?
Will our staff find CasePeer easier?
How do we handle case types CasePeer does not support well?
Move from SmartAdvocate 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.