Filevine vs Litify vs AI-Native PI Software

Filevine, Litify, and the newer AI-native tools are not three flavors of the same product. They come from three different design eras and they solve three different problems. Filevine is a flexible, configurable case platform. Litify is a Salesforce-based system for larger, process-heavy firms. AI-native tools are built around automating the work itself rather than storing it. Which one is right depends less on feature checklists and more on whether you want a system you configure, a system you standardize on, or a system that does the clerical work for you. Here is the honest comparison.

I do not sell against these tools by pretending they are bad. They are good at what they were built for. The question is what you actually need.

What is Filevine good at?

Filevine's strength is configurability. It gives a firm a flexible canvas: custom project templates, custom fields, custom workflows you build to match how you practice. For a firm with a strong operations person who wants to design their own process, that flexibility is a real asset.

The flip side is that flexibility is work. A blank, configurable platform assumes you have the time and the person to configure it well and maintain it. Many firms buy the flexibility and never build the workflow, so they end up with an expensive set of folders. That is the general risk I described in general practice tools vs AI-native PI software: a tool that can do anything often does nothing until you build it.

What is Litify built for?

Litify is built on Salesforce and aimed at larger firms that want enterprise process discipline and are comfortable with the Salesforce ecosystem. If you already live in Salesforce or you run a big operation that needs heavy reporting, role hierarchies, and standardized process across many people, Litify fits that world.

The cost is complexity and price. Salesforce underneath means Salesforce administration, Salesforce pricing dynamics, and an implementation that is a project, not a signup. For a solo or a small firm, that weight is usually wrong, which is the distinction I drew in PI case software: what a solo firm needs vs a large firm.

What does AI-native mean here?

AI-native tools start from a different question. Not "how do we store and configure the case" but "how much of the case work can the software do itself." The design center is automation of the actual tasks: qualifying leads, retrieving records, drafting demands from the file, watching deadlines, updating clients.

The difference is philosophical. Filevine and Litify are systems of record you work inside. An AI-native system aims to be a system that works. That is the distinction I unpack in AI-native case management for PI law: the value is not the database, it is the labor the software removes. A firm that adopts one expects the tool to draft the demand and chase the records, not just hold them.

How should you actually choose?

Stop comparing feature lists. They all list the same features. Ask what you want the software to be.

If you have a dedicated operations person who wants to design a bespoke process, Filevine's configurability rewards that. If you are a large firm standardizing heavy process across many staff and you are already in the Salesforce world, Litify fits. If you want the software to do clerical work so your people handle exceptions and lawyering, that is the AI-native pitch, and it matters most to solos and lean firms who cannot staff their way through volume.

The mistake is buying the powerful configurable platform when what you actually needed was work taken off your plate. I listed the questions that expose this in questions to ask before buying PI case management software, and the biggest one is simply: after setup, who does the records chasing and the demand drafting, my staff or the tool? Watch out too for the mistakes firms make choosing case software.

The bottom line

Filevine sells flexibility. Litify sells enterprise process on Salesforce. AI-native software sells removed labor. All three can hold a personal injury file. Only one of them is trying to do the file's work for you. Decide which problem you actually have before you sit through three demos that all look the same.

If the answer is that you want the software to carry the clerical load, that is exactly the bet CaseSolo is built on.