Software
Clio vs MyCase
Disclosure: some links on this page pay us a commission if you buy through them, at no extra cost to you. How we make money.
What we are and aren't: we're a marketing agency working with small firms. We build intake and marketing automation around both platforms and work inside them on client accounts. We don't implement practice management systems and we don't advise on trust accounting compliance. This comparison is strongest on intake, integration and marketing measurement — read a practising attorney's review alongside it.
For most small firms this comes down to ecosystem versus simplicity: Clio if you want the largest integration library and room to grow, MyCase if you want fewer decisions and a lower all-in cost. Both handle matters, documents, time, billing and trust accounting to the standard a small firm needs. Neither is a bad choice, and the feature comparison matters far less than the thing both are usually configured to ignore — intake.
Quick answer
| Choose | If |
|---|---|
| Clio | You want the widest integration ecosystem · you're likely to add tools over time · you want a dedicated intake product from the same vendor · you'll grow past a handful of attorneys |
| MyCase | You want more included in one price · you'd rather not evaluate add-ons · you're a solo or 2–3 attorney firm · client communication and simplicity matter more than extensibility |
The honest framing: you are choosing an ecosystem, not a feature set. Clio's advantage is that more things connect to it. MyCase's advantage is that you need fewer things to connect.
Pricing
Two pricing traps, both common:
Per-user includes staff. A firm quoting itself on three attorneys and then adding two paralegals and an office manager has doubled the bill. Price it for everyone with a login.
Intake is frequently a separate line. Firms discover this after committing to the platform, and it's the module that most affects revenue. Ask about it explicitly during evaluation, not after.
Feature comparison — only what changes the decision
| Clio | MyCase | |
|---|---|---|
| Matter management | Strong | Strong |
| Trust accounting | Meets small firm needs | Meets small firm needs |
| Integration ecosystem | Substantially larger | Smaller, more self-contained |
| Intake | Separate product in the same family | More included, less extensible |
| Client communication portal | Good | Often cited as a strength |
| Document automation | Good, more so with add-ons | Included, simpler |
| Practice-area depth | Broader third-party options | More generalist |
Trust accounting is not a differentiator between these two — both handle it for a small firm. It's the requirement that eliminates general-purpose CRMs from consideration entirely, which is why this category exists. Your firm's specific compliance obligations are a question for your bar association and your accountant.
The thing neither is usually configured to do
Most firms evaluate matter management and barely look at intake, which is backwards, because intake is where signed cases are won and lost.
A prospective client with an urgent problem contacts three firms. The first one to respond, with a person, usually gets the matter. Not the best firm — the first responsive one.
What that means for this decision:
| Question | Why it decides more than the feature list |
|---|---|
| What happens to an enquiry at 9pm Saturday? | A meaningful share of criminal defense and family law enquiries arrive outside business hours |
| Is lead source required at intake? | Without it you cannot calculate cost per signed case |
| Is a disposition recorded on every enquiry? | Including declined and never-contacted. Most firms track matters opened and never see what they lost |
| How fast is the first callback? | The single strongest predictor of whether the matter is signed |
Ask the "9pm Saturday" question in both demos. Vendors demo matter management because it shows well. The answer to that question is what determines how many cases you sign.
This is also where the platform choice matters least. Both can be configured to capture this properly. Almost no firm does, and that gap costs more than any difference between the two products.
What we build around them
For most firms we run GoHighLevel as the intake and marketing layer in front of the practice management system, rather than replacing it.
Why a separate layer at all: practice management systems are built for matters, which begin when someone becomes a client. Intake is everything before that — the enquiries that never become matters, the after-hours contacts, the follow-up sequences for people who haven't decided. That's marketing work, and it's usually thin in a platform designed around matters.
What it looks like: CallRail attributing calls, GoHighLevel capturing and sequencing enquiries with missed-call text-back, and only the ones that convert flowing into Clio or MyCase as matters. Cost per signed case by channel falls out of that setup, and almost no small firm can currently produce that number.
When you don't need it: a firm signing everything it can handle from referrals doesn't have an intake problem. Adding a layer would be solving something that isn't broken.
More on marketing for law firms · what we charge
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Clio or MyCase?
Neither, generally. Clio if you want the larger integration ecosystem and room to grow; MyCase if you want more included in one price and fewer decisions. You're choosing an ecosystem rather than a feature set.
Which is cheaper?
MyCase typically bundles more into the base price, but price both for everyone who needs a login — paralegals and staff included — and ask specifically whether intake is a separate module.
Can I use a general CRM instead?
Not for the whole job. General CRMs can't handle client trust funds to the standard bar rules require. Many firms run a marketing CRM for intake alongside legal software for matters, which is what we typically build.
Does either handle intake well?
Both can be configured to. Almost no firm does it fully — required lead source, a disposition on every enquiry including the ones you decline, and fast after-hours response are where cases are actually won.
Do I need an answering service too?
Frequently yes, and it's usually cheaper than the ad spend it protects. A live person after hours converts far better than voicemail in urgent practice areas.
What should I ask in the demo?
What happens to an enquiry that arrives at 9pm on a Saturday. It's the question that predicts signed cases, and it's the one demos spend least time on.
Written by Jared DeValk, founder of Nashville Digital. We build intake and marketing automation around both platforms on client accounts; we don't implement practice management systems. Last reviewed September 2026. Updated quarterly.
Nothing on this page is legal advice or advice on trust accounting compliance. Rules vary by jurisdiction and change — consult your bar association and your accountant.