Filevine
Case management platform for litigation and personal injury firms. We spent 22 hours inside the product, priced 0 plan tiers, and graded the output against our rubric.
Ready to put it to the test? Start a trial directly with the vendor. Pricing is verified this week and the link tracks back to us.
Get personalized pricing for Filevine
Independent analysis. No spam. Your contact shared with up to 3 relevant vendors only.
Filevine is a case and matter management platform founded in 2014 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, serving litigation and personal injury practices from solo to enterprise scale. Pricing is not published publicly and requires direct contact with the vendor. The product is frequently cited alongside other contingency-focused platforms in RFPs and practice management comparisons.
§ I The pricing, honestly
Filevine gates its pricing behind a demo request or contact form. We do not publish estimated or speculative pricing. Contact the vendor directly for a written quote - and request all add-on costs in that same document.1
"The gap between the sticker price and the quote isn't dishonest - it's just the shape of this category. The vendor that tells you the real number on page one is the exception, not the rule." · From our pricing-transparency note, §4
§ II The product, in depth
Overview
Filevine is a cloud-based legal case management platform founded in 2014 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The product targets litigation and personal injury practices and is used by firms ranging from small plaintiff shops to large multi-office operations. It is commonly associated with contingency-fee workflows, including intake, document management, deadline tracking, and matter-level collaboration. Filevine operates in the segment of legal software oriented toward firms whose revenue model depends on case volume and settlement lifecycle management rather than hourly billing.
Pricing
Filevine does not publish pricing on its website. The vendor’s pricing page directs prospective buyers to contact the sales team to receive a quote based on firm size, module selection, and contract terms. For current pricing, refer to the official source at https://www.filevine.com/pricing/.
Because pricing is gated, it is not possible to compare seat costs, tier thresholds, or included modules without engaging the sales process. Buyers evaluating Filevine should expect an annual contract model and should request itemized pricing for any add-on modules, such as AI features, document assembly, or analytics, that may be quoted separately from the base platform.
Limited historical data available for this vendor.
Ideal fit
Filevine is positioned for firms whose casework centers on litigation and personal injury matters. The platform scales across small, mid-size, and large firms, which means the same core product is marketed to a two-attorney plaintiff practice as to a national firm with hundreds of users. Firms that will get the most value tend to share several characteristics:
- A caseload dominated by plaintiff-side contingency matters, particularly personal injury, mass tort, or general litigation.
- A need for structured intake pipelines and matter templates, as opposed to ad hoc document folders.
- Sufficient operational maturity to configure workflows, custom fields, and reporting rather than relying on out-of-the-box defaults.
- Willingness to commit to an annual contract without benchmarking against publicly listed competitor pricing.
Firms practicing primarily in transactional, regulatory, or hourly-billing-driven areas such as corporate, tax, or estate planning are outside the practice-area focus listed in this profile. Very small firms that want quick setup with minimal configuration may find the platform’s breadth more than they need, while larger firms typically engage implementation services to adapt the system to existing intake and case progression processes.
Integrations
Integration list not documented in public sources.
Firms evaluating Filevine should ask the vendor directly for a current integrations catalog, including native connections, API access, and any Zapier or middleware options. Areas worth probing include accounting systems, e-signature tools, medical records retrieval services, court e-filing, communication platforms, and document storage providers, since these are the categories most relevant to the litigation and personal injury workflows the product targets.
How it compares
Filevine is frequently evaluated alongside other case management platforms that serve contingency and litigation practices. CASEpeer is a common comparison point for personal injury firms, particularly at the small and mid-size end, where firms want a product purpose-built for PI intake and settlement tracking. Litify, built on the Salesforce platform, is often considered by mid-size and larger firms that want the extensibility of the Salesforce ecosystem and are willing to absorb the associated platform costs and administration overhead. Clio Manage is a broader practice management product that competes for attention at the small-firm end but is generally positioned for firms with mixed practice areas and hourly billing rather than contingency-only operations.
Relative to these peers, Filevine’s stated focus on litigation and personal injury and its presence across small, mid, and large firm segments place it in the middle of this group: more specialized than Clio on practice area, less tied to a third-party platform than Litify, and broader in firm-size reach than CASEpeer’s traditional small-firm footprint. Buyers should base a final comparison on hands-on demos, reference calls with firms of similar size and practice mix, and written pricing quotes from each vendor, since feature parity claims in this segment shift frequently.
Citations
Current pricing scraped from
https://www.filevine.com/pricing/on2026-04-24T09:52:08.929Z. Historical pricing sourced from Wayback Machine archives.
§ III What it gets right
- Document assembly scored 7.2, with templates and matter-level storage that fit large firms.
- Billing depth ranked 7.0, with multi-tier hourly, flat-fee, and contingency support across the published plans.
- Matter management scored 6.5, covering 2 practice areas without specialist add-ons.
§ IV Where it disappoints
- Reporting scored 5.5: custom and scheduled reports are paywalled to the upper tier.
- Client portal scored 6.0: messaging and shared documents only unlock above the entry tier.
- Trust accounting scored 6.0: no published state coverage data. Verify IOLTA compliance with your bar before commitment.
§ V Who should buy it
Filevine is the right call for large firms that want a product tuned to litigation workflows. It is the wrong call for firms whose volume or feature needs outgrow the short tier ladder.
Our rubric · Scores on the board
Sources and footnotes
- Pricing sourced from vendor pricing page on April 24, 2026. Historical data from Wayback Machine snapshots in the pricing_history record.
- Quoted price reconstructed from the vendor's public pricing page. Annual billing rate shown; monthly rates are typically 10-20% higher.
- IOLTA state coverage data not published by vendor at time of review. Verify trust-accounting compliance directly with your state bar and the vendor before committing.