Litify
Salesforce-based case management platform for plaintiff and mass tort 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 Litify
Independent analysis. No spam. Your contact shared with up to 3 relevant vendors only.
Litify is a legal operations platform built on the Salesforce ecosystem, targeting mid-sized and large plaintiff firms with a focus on personal injury and mass tort practices. It competes in the enterprise tier of legal practice management, where configurability and data architecture matter more than out-of-the-box simplicity. Pricing is not publicly listed and requires direct contact with the vendor.
§ I The pricing, honestly
Litify 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 We do not publish estimated or speculative pricing.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
Litify is a legal practice management and operations platform founded in 2016 and headquartered in New York, NY. The product is built natively on the Salesforce platform, which shapes how it handles data modeling, reporting, automation, and third-party extensibility. Its core user base consists of mid-sized to large plaintiff firms, particularly those concentrated in personal injury and mass tort work, where intake volume, referral tracking, and matter standardization across thousands of cases drive software requirements. Litify is known in the market for bringing Salesforce-style CRM mechanics (pipelines, dashboards, workflow rules) into a legal matter management context, and for serving firms that have outgrown smaller case management tools but still need heavy configuration to match their specific operational models.
Pricing
Litify does not publicly disclose pricing tiers, per-seat rates, or packaging on its website. Prospective buyers are routed through a contact-sales process, and quotes are typically shaped by factors such as user count, Salesforce licensing requirements, implementation scope, and any add-on modules. Because Litify runs on Salesforce, total cost of ownership generally includes both the Litify subscription and the underlying Salesforce platform licenses, which is a distinct cost structure compared to standalone legal practice management tools.
For current pricing inquiries, refer to the vendor’s contact page at https://www.litify.com/pricing/.
No pricing history is available in this dataset. Limited historical data available for this vendor.
Ideal fit
Litify is oriented toward mid-sized and large firms, per the target firm size classification. It is not positioned for solo practitioners or very small firms, largely because the Salesforce-based architecture assumes a certain scale of users, administrative capacity, and budget for implementation and ongoing configuration. Firms that already use Salesforce elsewhere in their business, or that have in-house or contracted Salesforce administrators, will find the platform easier to operate and extend.
On practice area, Litify’s profile aligns with personal injury and mass tort firms. These practices tend to share operational traits that map well to the platform: high-volume intake funnels, referral source tracking, standardized case milestones, settlement and lien management, and large claimant rosters in mass tort matters. Firms with a maturity level sufficient to undertake a structured implementation project, document their workflows, and train users on a configurable system are typically better fits than firms seeking a turnkey tool deployable in days.
Firms whose caseloads are dominated by practice areas outside of plaintiff-side injury and mass tort work, or whose size sits below the mid-market threshold, should evaluate whether Litify’s cost structure and configuration overhead justify the investment relative to lighter-weight alternatives.
Integrations
Integration list not documented in public sources.
Because Litify is built on Salesforce, firms typically gain indirect access to the Salesforce AppExchange and standard Salesforce APIs, but specific named integrations maintained by Litify are not listed in the input data for this profile. Buyers should confirm directly with the vendor which document management, e-signature, accounting, medical records retrieval, and communications tools are supported with native or certified connectors.
How it compares
Against peers targeting similar firm sizes, Litify sits in a segment with Filevine and SmartAdvocate, both of which also concentrate heavily on plaintiff personal injury and mass tort practices. Filevine is known for its customizable project and case templates and has a broad footprint among mid-sized contingency firms. SmartAdvocate has a long-standing reputation among personal injury firms, particularly those that want a purpose-built PI case management system without a separate CRM platform underneath. Litify’s primary differentiator in this comparison set is architectural: being Salesforce-native means firms can leverage the broader Salesforce ecosystem for reporting, AppExchange add-ons, and enterprise integration patterns, at the cost of additional platform licensing and, often, a more involved implementation. Firms choosing among these options typically weigh whether they want a purpose-built legal tool (SmartAdvocate), a highly customizable legal-specific platform (Filevine), or a legal layer on top of a general-purpose enterprise CRM (Litify). Smaller practice management tools oriented toward solos and small firms, such as Clio or MyCase, are not direct competitors at the size and practice-area profile Litify serves.
Citations
Current pricing scraped from
https://www.litify.com/pricing/on2026-04-24T09:52:17.106Z. 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
Litify is the right call for large firms that want a product tuned to pi 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.