Clio vs MyCase for law firms
Both run intake, matters, trust accounting and a client portal for a small or mid-size firm. Clio wins on breadth: a larger app marketplace and an open API for firms that want to build on top. MyCase wins on clarity: published per-user pricing and trust accounting bundled into its cheapest plan.
The short answer
Pick Clio if you want the widest ecosystem of add-ons and integrations, or you plan to build custom software against a well-documented API. Pick MyCase if you want trust accounting and billing in your entry tier without waiting for a higher one, and you'd rather see the exact per-user price before you call sales. Both are solid systems of record. Neither answers your phone, drafts your first pass, or collects your invoice by itself, and that's the part firms usually notice only after they've already picked one.
Both publish per-user monthly pricing. Check the current page before you budget; either vendor can move a feature between tiers without much notice. MyCase's published tiers, verified on its own pricing page, run Basic, Pro and Advanced. Case and contact management, time entry, invoicing and trust accounting are included from Basic. Its open API arrives at Advanced. Clio publishes tiered per-user pricing too, but we didn't get a clean read of its current tier names and prices this session. We're not quoting numbers we haven't verified. Confirm Clio's tiers on its own pricing page before you commit a budget line.
The decision usually isn't price anyway. It's which gaps you're willing to work around. Clio's own marketplace lists hundreds of integrations. A firm chasing a specific add-on, document assembly, a particular e-signature tool, a state-bar-specific form pack, often finds it there first. MyCase folds more into its own product instead of a marketplace. That means fewer separate subscriptions, but a narrower set of specialist add-ons if your firm needs one it doesn't build itself.
The dimensions a managing partner actually weighs
Feature checklists miss the point. These are the seven that change what your firm can do on day one and what it's stuck rebuilding around in year two.
| Dimension | Clio | MyCase |
|---|---|---|
| Intake & CRM | Clio Grow sits alongside Clio Manage as a dedicated intake and CRM product, so lead capture and matter management can run as two connected pieces rather than one. | Client intake forms and a legal CRM ship inside MyCase's own tiers rather than as a separate product, verified on MyCase's own pricing page. |
| Billing & trust accounting | Time entry, invoicing and trust accounting are core to Clio Manage across its plans; check the current tier page for which billing features sit where. | Time entry, invoicing and trust accounting are included from MyCase's entry tier, verified on MyCase's own pricing page; split billing arrives at its top tier. |
| Document tools | Document management and template automation are established parts of Clio's platform, with depth that varies by plan; confirm the current feature-to-tier mapping before you buy. | Unlimited document storage from the entry tier, unlimited eSignature and document generation from the middle tier, and advanced document automation at the top tier, verified on MyCase's own pricing page. |
| Client portal | A client-facing portal is part of Clio's offering; the exact access level by tier is worth confirming on Clio's current pricing page. | A client portal is included from MyCase's middle tier onward, verified on MyCase's own pricing page; the entry tier has more limited access. |
| Integrations & API openness | The Clio App Directory is the largest marketplace of the two. Its REST API uses OAuth 2.0 with an authorization-code flow, and Clio Manage documents a rate limit of 50 requests per minute during peak hours, per access token, with higher limits off-peak and no custom increases available. | 70-plus integrations from the middle tier, with open API access arriving at the top tier, verified on MyCase's own pricing page. MyCase's API reference sits behind a developer login, so you can't fully scope an integration before you have an account. |
| Reporting | Reporting is part of Clio's platform across plans, with depth that scales by tier; the current pricing page names which reports sit where. | Customizable reporting is included from the entry tier, with premium reporting added at the middle tier, verified on MyCase's own pricing page. |
| Ecosystem & who it suits | The broader ecosystem: more integrations, more consultants certified on it, more firms already running it. That breadth is the case for Clio when your workflow needs a specific add-on it already lists. | A tighter, more self-contained product. That's the case for MyCase when you'd rather have fewer separate subscriptions and a clearer price before the sales call. |
Clio
Where it wins
- The largest app marketplace of the two, so a specialist add-on your firm needs, document assembly, a particular e-signature tool, a state-specific form pack, is more likely to already exist for it.
- A well-documented REST API with OAuth 2.0 authorization-code auth, which matters if your firm or a vendor plans to build something custom on top rather than live entirely inside the vendor's own screens.
- Clio Grow as a separate, connected intake and CRM product, useful for a firm that wants intake and matter management to scale independently.
- The dominant platform by adoption, which means more integration partners, more consultants who know it, and more firms to compare notes with.
Where it hurts
- We couldn't verify Clio's current tier names and prices this session; its pricing page didn't return a readable result, so confirm the exact numbers yourself before budgeting.
- Breadth cuts both ways: a large marketplace means more third-party pieces to vet, price and keep working together as each vendor updates on its own schedule.
- Clio Manage's API rate limit, 50 requests per minute during peak hours per access token, means a bulk sync or backfill has to be queued and incremental rather than firing a call per row on a screen.
MyCase
Where it wins
- Per-user pricing published plainly on its own site, verified this session: Basic, Pro and Advanced tiers, so a firm can budget without a sales call first.
- Trust accounting and invoicing sit in the entry tier rather than gated behind an upgrade, which matters for a small firm watching every line item.
- Document generation and eSignature are included from the middle tier rather than sold as a separate add-on.
- A more self-contained product: fewer separate subscriptions to reconcile if your firm doesn't need a wide marketplace.
Where it hurts
- Its full API reference sits behind a developer login, so you can't fully scope a custom integration before your firm has an account, which is a planning cost, not a technical one.
- Open API access is reserved for the top tier, verified on MyCase's own pricing page, so a firm on Basic or Pro that later wants a custom build has to upgrade first.
- A smaller third-party marketplace than Clio's, so a specialist add-on your workflow needs is less likely to already exist for it.
Which one wins, and under what conditions
This isn't really a feature contest. It's a question about how your firm wants to grow, and what you'd rather deal with along the way.
- 01You want the widest set of ready-made add-ons, or you're already planning custom software on top of your practice management system: Clio's marketplace and documented API make that path easier to scope.
- 02You want trust accounting and document automation without climbing two tiers first, and you'd rather see the price before the demo: MyCase's published entry-tier feature set gets there sooner.
- 03You're a small firm on a tight budget watching every line: compare MyCase's entry tier against whichever Clio plan matches feature-for-feature, since the cheapest headline price on either side isn't always the cheapest way to the features you need.
- 04You're planning a custom intake agent, a drafting pipeline, or a reporting layer across the PMS and QuickBooks: check the access model and rate limits on your chosen platform before you scope the build, because that's the constraint that actually shapes the architecture.
- 05Neither wins if your real problem is what happens before a lead ever reaches either system, or after the invoice goes out unpaid. Both platforms assume a firm administrator or a paralegal is already at the keyboard to run the conflict check and log the billable hour.
Where both stop
Clio and MyCase both do the job they're built for: hold the matter, the calendar, the document and the invoice. Neither one is built to answer the phone at 5:15pm. That's when the receptionist has left, and the lead is already dialing the next firm on the list. Neither drafts the first pass of a demand letter from your templates and matter facts. Neither chases an unpaid invoice without a partner remembering to send the reminder.
This isn't a pitch to replace whichever one you pick. Keep it. We build the layer that writes into it. AI intake answers, screens and books the consult straight into your matter record. Drafting assembles from your templates and matter data, with a lawyer's review built in and nothing leaving your environment. Billing automation captures time from the work and sends reminders no partner has to remember. Dashboards pull your PMS together with QuickBooks, so realization, WIP and collections stop living in three places that disagree.
- 01AI intake that books straight into Clio or MyCase — /industries/legal/ai-intake
- 02Drafting that saves into your matter record, with review built in — /industries/legal/document-automation
- 03Billing automation on top of either platform's invoicing — /industries/legal/billing-automation
- 04Dashboards across your PMS and QuickBooks — /industries/legal/custom-software
The privilege question doesn't change by platform
In United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., ruled from the bench 10 February 2026), a defendant used a consumer AI tool on his own case. That cost him privilege over the material, because the tool's own published terms allowed disclosure and training on what he'd entered. Whichever practice management system your firm runs, the same question applies to anything you connect to it. What does the vendor's contract actually say about your data? Who else receives it?
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) says a firm can't rely on an AI tool uncritically. It has to vet a vendor's security itself; a boilerplate consent clause in an engagement letter isn't enough on its own. California's 2026 rewrite goes further for agentic tools: a lawyer must not let an AI system take an action only a lawyer is allowed to take. So anything we build on top of Clio or MyCase stays scoped to the matter. It runs on written no-training terms and names every vendor in the chain as a recipient. A lawyer's sign-off stays on anything sent or filed. Private deployment is available where a client's own obligations require it.
- Access scoped to the matter, never the whole firm's data.
- Written no-training terms, produced on request.
- A lawyer reviews and approves before anything is sent or filed. Nothing is filed or sent by the system itself.
- IntakeClio or MyCase, either records it
- First responseAI intake, writes into whichever PMS you run
- DraftingAssembled from your templates, saved to the matter, lawyer reviewed
- BillingAutomated reminders and collections, native invoicing untouched
- ReportingPMS plus QuickBooks, joined, not native to either
Keep the system you picked. This is the layer neither one ships on its own.
Some of the systems we have shipped
Questions managing partners ask
01Is Clio or MyCase better for a small law firm?+
MyCase is the clearer pick for price: per-user pricing published plainly, plus trust accounting and billing in the entry tier. Clio is the pick for breadth: more integrations, more consultants who know it, and Clio Grow as a dedicated intake and CRM product. Neither is wrong. They trade breadth for clarity in different directions.
02Do both integrate with QuickBooks?+
Both are built to connect to standard accounting workflows, and QuickBooks is the most common target for a law firm's books. Confirm the current sync mechanics and which tier includes it on each vendor's own pricing page. That detail moves with their release schedules.
03Which one has the better API for a custom build?+
Clio's is more openly documented: REST with OAuth 2.0 authorization-code auth. Its rate limit, 50 requests per minute during peak hours per access token, is published and stable enough to design around. MyCase's full API reference sits behind a developer login, so you can't fully scope an integration until your firm has an account there. Either way, we confirm exactly what your account exposes during the audit, before anyone estimates the build.
04Can we switch from one to the other later?+
Yes, and firms do it in both directions. Budget real time for it: matter and document migration, rebuilding your billing setup, and retraining whoever runs intake and billing day to day. Treat it as a project with its own timeline, not a settings change you make on a slow afternoon.
05Does either one answer the phone or draft documents with AI?+
Both have added AI features to their own products over time. The details move fast, so we won't quote specifics we haven't verified this session. Check each vendor's current AI page directly. What we build sits alongside either platform instead. Intake that answers and books into your matter record. Drafting that assembles from your templates with a lawyer's review built in.
Related reading
- Legal, for law firms →The hub: AI intake, document automation, billing automation and custom software, built around the PMS you run.
- Clio alternatives for law firms →Who should leave Clio, who shouldn't, and the third option.
- Best legal practice management software →An honest roundup of the packaged tools, with the custom build last.
- The Clio API: what a real integration involves →OAuth 2.0, the 50-requests-a-minute ceiling, and what that means for a sync.
