When Litify Fits, When It Doesn't, and What to Do About It

How I Learned to Evaluate Legal Platform Fit

I needed a fix.

I was CTO walking into a large legal services operation running on an aging database system: manual data entry, no defined workflows for case management, and clunky swivel-chair integrations to every external partner system. It worked for a small operation, but it wasn't going to scale across different case types.

We needed a modern platform. Litify seemed like the obvious answer: Salesforce-powered, legal-focused, configurable. But twenty minutes into the evaluation, I started running different math.

The intake problem: Litify offers configurable intake questionnaries, conditional logic and a customizable builder.  However, we needed a robust intake form that used external data and complex logic to qualify a case before moving onto a next step.  It also lacked a complex document generation workflow for the myriad of HIPAA, HITECH, Retainer, etc. document variations.  

The workflow problem: We handled multiple case types requiring specialized evidence gathering—medical record requests and reviews, environmental testing coordination, document management across jurisdictions. The Matter Plan feature offers a configurable project management tracking mechanism, but we needed more.  We needed to dynamically adjust the required data input, calculation, and 3rd party integrations depending on the type of case and the individual client's situation.

The licensing problem: Here's what caught me off guard: due to Salesforce platform licensing restrictions, Litify couldn't give us access to Sales Cloud or Service Cloud features our operations team needed.  We needed Campaign and Lead Management features from Sales Cloud. The Service Cloud Case object and associated functionality, not available. No native telephony integration either. All of these gaps meant I needed to buy core Salesforce licenses as well, and an IVR system.

I ran the numbers. The proposal for customizing the platform to fit our actual workflows came to $400,000—and that was before we discussed data migration or configuring Litify itself.

For our situation, that math pointed toward building custom on native Salesforce. But here's what I've learned since: the answer depends entirely on your situation. I've worked with firms where optimizing their existing Litify setup was the right move. Others where keeping Litify for core functions and building custom modules for specific gaps made sense. And yes, others where migration was the only path forward.

The lesson wasn't "Litify bad, custom good". It was "run the numbers for your situation".

A Diagnostic Framework: Three Paths Forward

If you're currently on Litify—or evaluating it—the question isn't "is Litify good?" It's "good for what, and for whom?"

Most firms aren't in a binary "keep it or ditch it" situation. The nuanced middle is where the real decisions happen.

Symptoms Worth Watching For

How do you know which path fits? Start by recognizing the patterns.

Signs You Need Optimization (Not Replacement)

Your team complains about Litify, but the complaints are about configuration and training—not architecture. Reports run slowly because nobody optimized the queries. Integrations fail because they were set up incorrectly. Staff bypass features because they were never properly trained.

Frustrating. It seems like it would be a very handy tool. But it is not built for how I practice and it is not intuitive on how to adjust it to fit how we do things. — Capterra Reviews

Sometimes "not built for how I practice" means the platform genuinely doesn't fit. But sometimes it means the implementation team configured it wrong, and a proper optimization project fixes 80% of the friction.

Signs You Need Augmentation (Hybrid Approach)

Litify handles your core matter management fine, but specific workflows don't fit the templates. You've tried configuring around it. You've hired consultants. The workarounds keep multiplying.

Benefits litigation illustrates the challenge of multi-stage case progression. ERISA claims, for example, move through initial denial, administrative appeal, external review (where applicable), and federal court litigation—each with different timelines, parties, and evidentiary requirements.

One Litify user noted that the platform "is geared towards presuit case management only" with no "component to help with tracking the discovery process." While Litify supports parent-child matter relationships and configurable workflows, firms with practices requiring distinct matter phases may find themselves creating workarounds.

For these firms, the answer often isn't "migrate everything." It's keep Litify for intake and basic matter management, build a custom appeals-tracking module that integrates with it. You don't have to start over—just address the specific gap.

Signs the Architecture Fundamentally Doesn't Fit

The problems aren't about configuration or specific workflows. They're structural.

• You need Sales Cloud or Service Cloud capabilities that Litify's licensing model doesn't include
• Your case volume has outgrown the platform's performance envelope
• Every new case type or workflow requires a five-figure customization project
• You're maintaining parallel systems (external data warehouse, separate telephony, manual reporting) to compensate for platform limitations

After using for about 18 months I have serious doubts that Litify will ever be a tool that makes my job easier. It seems to take me much longer to do things than in the past. — Capterra Reviews

When the workarounds cost more than the platform saves, and there's no configuration fix available, migration becomes the rational choice.

The Math That Matters

Here's the framework I use when helping firms evaluate their options:

Step 1: Calculate your ongoing friction cost

Add up: licensing fees + consultant fees for customizations + staff time spent on workarounds + opportunity cost of processes that don't fit. Annualize it.

Step 2: Compare to your options

• ‍Optimization project: Typically a one-time investment to fix configuration, integrations, and training gaps
• Augmentation: One-time build for custom modules plus integration work, keeping your Litify investment intact
• Migration: Larger one-time investment plus transition period, but eliminates ongoing friction entirely

Step 3: Run the break-even

For one firm I worked with, ongoing friction was costing $80k/year. Optimization couldn't fix the architectural mismatch—the issues were structural. An augmentation project cost $60k and eliminated 70% of the friction. Break-even: nine months.

For another firm, a $15k optimization project solved their problems entirely. Migration would have been expensive overkill.

The answer depends on your situation. The mistake is not running the numbers.

What I Learned Building the Alternative

After evaluating Litify, we built custom on native Salesforce. That experience taught me things I couldn't have learned from vendor demos:

Starting with actual workflows produces better outcomes. When you map the platform to how your firm actually operates, not how a template assumes you operate, adoption is higher and friction is lower.

Configurable" has limits. The configuration options in packaged solutions rarely accommodate true operational complexity. At some point, you're not configuring—you're fighting the architecture.

The real cost isn't the platform. It's the friction. Licensing fees are predictable. Consultant fees for endless customizations, staff time on workarounds, and opportunities lost to inflexible systems—those costs compound quietly until they dwarf the original investment.

Salesforce is powerful when it enables your processes, not when it constrains them. The same underlying platform that powers Litify can be built to match your specific practice. The question is whether a pre-built template serves you better than purpose-built architecture.

That experience became the foundation for how Harrier approaches legal platform implementations today. Not "Litify is wrong"—but "let's figure out what's actually right for your situation."

What's Next?

Not sure which path fits your firm?

Book a 30-minute Litify Assessment with Michael Marsh our Managing Partner & Legal Strategist. He will review your current setup, identify the friction points, and give you an honest recommendation. Optimize, augment, or migrate.

No pitch for a predetermined solution. Just clarity on what makes sense for your situation.

Book your assessment.

‍

‍