Installing Litify is not the project. Deciding how your firm uses Case Type, what a matter plan assigns to whom, which date drives a deadline and what a partner sees on Monday morning — that is the project. We do that work with you, then build it, migrate to it and get your team using it. A focused implementation runs 6 to 10 weeks.
Trusted by 500+ organizations — including law firms and legal technology companies building their case, billing and reporting operations on Salesforce with Twopir Consulting.
Implementation Capability
Not at go-live. The decisions that sink an implementation are made early, quietly, and by whoever is available — and every one of them is expensive to reverse once matters are live on top of it.
It is the spine of the build. Case Type selects the intake questionnaire, selects the matter plan, and is the key integrations use when they create an intake. Set up as a flat list of twelve labels, it gives you one generic plan for twelve different kinds of case and no reporting dimension worth having.
A plan only works if it matches how your team actually runs a case, carries due-date logic someone will defend, and lands on the right role. Plans that do not get closed in bulk within a month — and the pipeline data goes with them.
The hard part is never the load. It is deciding which historical matters come, how closed cases map to your new stage model, what happens to records with missing required fields, and how you prove to a partner that nothing was lost.
Every implementation needs someone at the firm who can decide. Without one, design questions queue up behind a managing partner who is in depositions, and a ten-week build becomes a six-month one for reasons that have nothing to do with software.
Metric definitions are an architecture input, not a final phase. If nobody agreed what "open matter" means or which date starts the clock, the dashboards built in week nine will disagree with each other and partners will go back to the spreadsheet.
A one-hour walkthrough the week of go-live is not adoption. People need to practise in a sandbox on their own matters, and the staff who live in the system daily need more than the partners who look at it weekly.
A Litify implementation is the work of turning the installed managed package into your firm's operating model. The package ships a data model — Intake, Matter, Case Type, Matter Plan, Role, Time Entry, Invoice — and a set of capabilities. It does not ship the decision about how your practice areas map onto them, and that decision is what an implementation is.
Because Litify is a Salesforce application, an implementation is also a Salesforce project. The sharing model, page layouts, automation order of execution, validation rules, profiles and permission sets, sandbox strategy and deployment process are all part of the build. That is why we staff these with Salesforce architects rather than legal-software administrators alone. Product details are on Litify's own platform documentation.
We do not sell Litify licences — you buy those from the vendor. What we deliver is the configuration, the data migration, the integrations, the reporting and the adoption work that stands between a licensed org and a firm that actually runs on it.
Two weeks of mapping how the firm runs a case today, including the workarounds nobody documented.
Case type taxonomy, matter plan models, sharing design and metric definitions, signed off before any build.
Questionnaires branched by case type, routing rules, SLA clocks and conversion reporting.
Stages, task templates with real date logic, and assignment by role rather than by named user.
Timekeepers, rates, activity codes, client and carrier guidelines, invoicing and eBilling.
Extract, map, cleanse, load and reconcile — with a report your partners can check.
Role-based training in a sandbox on your own matters, not a generic demo.
The weeks after go-live, when the real edge cases arrive and someone has to fix them fast.
Scope drives timeline more than firm size does. Find the description closest to your situation — it is the fastest way to know what you are buying.
The 6-to-10-week build. A single practice area or a small set of closely related case types, hourly or contingency billing without carrier guidelines, and a source system whose data is in reasonable shape.
Boundary Assumes one decision-maker at the firm available weekly, and no integration beyond e-signature. Anything else moves you to the next column.
Where most mid-size firms land. More than one practice area means more than one operating model, and insurance defense work brings billing guideline enforcement that has to be designed, not switched on.
Boundary Add four to eight weeks over a focused build. The extra time is design, not typing — reconciling how two practices want the same object to behave.
When the migration is the risk rather than the configuration. Long history, custom fields nobody can explain, documents in three places, and a cutover that cannot drop a deadline.
Boundary Timeline is set by data quality, not volume. We profile the source before quoting, because a guess here is the one that hurts most.
Sequence matters. Each of these depends on the one before it, which is why an implementation that starts with dashboards ends up rebuilding them.
The first thing designed and the last thing anyone should change. It drives the questionnaire, the plan, the integrations and every report you will ever run.
Turning inbound volume into signed matters, with the qualification logic on the record rather than in someone's head.
The engine that makes a matter run itself. Stages the team recognises, tasks with dates that hold, assignment by role so staffing changes do not break anything.
Realization is won when an entry is written, not at month-end review. The client's rules go in front of the timekeeper while the work is fresh.
The phase that decides whether people trust the new system. Everything here is designed to be checkable by someone who is not a consultant.
Adoption is a design problem, not a communications one. If the system is slower than the workaround, people keep the workaround.
Not everything has to land in phase one — but some things do, because working around them teaches your team habits you will spend the next year undoing.
The sign-up packet is the moment an intake becomes a matter. If the executed agreement does not land on the record automatically, someone files it by hand and eventually someone forgets.
Moves Retainer and engagement packets out; executed documents, timestamps and signer audit trail back to the intake.Every inbound source should create an intake with its campaign attached. Integrations that create intakes need real Case Type record IDs rather than names — a mapping step most projects discover far too late.
Moves Form submissions, call and chat records, campaign and source attribution into a new intake record.A folder convention per case type, agreed before migration rather than after. Without one the matter record stops being the first place anyone looks, and that is very hard to reverse.
Moves Matter folder trees, generated documents, filed email and attachments with classification metadata.Worth doing properly rather than quickly. Partner connectors exist for QuickBooks, Accounting Seed and Sage Intacct; which one fits depends on how your finance team already closes a month.
Moves Invoices, expenses as bills, settlement receipts, parties as customers or vendors, payment status back.Defense firms billing insurers in LEDES format. We configure the codes and guidelines during the build even when the first submission is a phase later, because retrofitting them means re-coding historical time.
Moves LEDES invoices with task and activity codes, budget and rate data, rejection codes back for scorecards.Outgoing and incoming referrals are separate record types, and sending one populates the receiving firm's record. Even if you are not joining a network at launch, the case type list should anticipate it.
Moves Case type, client details, incident data and reference IDs out; incoming referrals converting to local intakes.You approve the design before we build it and the data before we cut over. Nothing in this sequence asks you to trust a consultant's judgement without seeing the working.
Two weeks mapping how a case runs today — intake to invoice, including the workarounds. If Litify is already installed we confirm the namespace, objects and package version in your org rather than assuming them.
Case type taxonomy, matter plan models, sharing and security design, integration boundaries and the metric definitions reporting will depend on. You sign this off before a build starts.
Configuration first, code only where configuration cannot reach. Built in a sandbox, reviewed with the people who will use it, tested against real matters from your own history.
Trial loads, a reconciliation pack you can audit, and a parallel run so live matters and deadlines are never at risk. Cutover has documented rollback points.
Floor support in week one, a backlog triaged daily, and adoption measured rather than assumed. We hand over when the system is being used, not when it is switched on.
What makes it longer Litify AI configuration, external integrations and complex workflow logic each extend the timeline — as does a migration from a system whose data was never clean. Structured matter templates and automated intake are what move a firm from signed engagement to a fully open matter in hours rather than days; that gain arrives at go-live, not before it.
The same platform, configured around completely different economics. A plaintiff firm optimises for intake conversion and settlement velocity; a defense firm optimises for realization against carrier guidelines. Those are not the same implementation.
High-volume intake with marketing attribution, referral flows both ways, records and bills tracked as deadlines, demand packets, negotiations and settlement disbursement.
Conflict checks before a matter opens, standardised plans across a carrier panel, time capture screened against billing guidelines, mass billing and LEDES eBilling.
Matter plans per visa type — family, student, corporate, PERM — with document checklists, form auto-fill from captured client data, a client portal and online payments.
A legal service request portal for the business, triage and routing, outside counsel collaboration, invoice review against billing rules, and spend dashboards finance will accept.
Two engagements from our legal practice. Both are Salesforce-architected case-to-cash builds — the same discipline a Litify implementation depends on, applied to firms with the same operating problems.
Twopir provided Salesforce customisation and integration services to help us build a robust, compliant, and scalable legal operations platform — connecting case management, document processing, and financial systems into one unified workflow. The result was transformative for how we run case-to-cash operations.
Streamlining case-to-cash operations with Salesforce, AWS and QuickBooks.
Twopir's specialized Salesforce customization enabled efficient integration of third-party systems and streamlined administration and billing, leading to seamless financial operations and enhanced productivity. Automated mass billing and matter management minimized errors across our entire legal workflow.
A 50% efficiency gain from Accounting Seed and Salesforce integration.
The most valuable thing a partner does during a build is talk you out of the things that will cost you later. Scope discipline is the whole job.
Litify's object and field reference sits behind a customer login, and public sources disagree on details as basic as the namespace prefix. We confirm the real objects, fields and package version in your org in week one — and we say so rather than quoting from a blog post.
Case Type drives the questionnaire, the matter plan and every integration that creates an intake. Getting it wrong is the single most expensive mistake in a Litify build, because every report and automation downstream inherits it.
Metric definitions and date fields are agreed during architecture. It is the difference between dashboards partners act on and dashboards they quietly stop opening — and it costs nothing if you do it in week three.
Trial loads, a reconciliation pack, and an exception list the firm signs off. Nobody should have to take a consultant's word that the data came across intact.
We help growing and mid-market companies solve complex CRM, integration and business system challenges, and we serve enterprise organizations with the same architecture discipline. Firms at that stage need a system that survives the next three years of growth — not one built for the org chart they had last year.
This page covers one service. Each one below goes into the detail a specific team needs — pick the one closest to the question you arrived with.
A focused implementation — core matter management, intake automation, billing setup and baseline reporting — typically runs 6 to 10 weeks. Engagements that add Litify AI configuration, external integrations or complex workflow logic take longer, and a migration from a system whose data was never clean can add several weeks on its own. We profile your source data during discovery and tell you which bucket you are in then, rather than at week six.
Three things, and none of them are technical. A named decision-maker at the firm who can answer design questions within a day or two. Access to your current system so we can profile the data rather than guess at it. And agreement among the partners about what the firm actually wants to measure — because that determines the case type taxonomy, and the taxonomy determines almost everything else. The Litify licences themselves you buy from the vendor.
No, and the process is designed so you do not have to take that on trust. We profile the source system before scope is fixed, produce a field-level mapping that the firm signs off, run trial loads into a full sandbox, and deliver a reconciliation pack that shows record counts and financial totals on both sides. Exceptions — records with missing required data — come to you as a list to decide on, never as a silent drop.
Yes, and it is common. The cost is design time rather than build time: two practices usually want the same object to behave in two different ways, and reconciling that is a conversation, not a configuration task. Budget four to eight weeks over a single-practice build. Doing them sequentially is also valid and sometimes cheaper, provided the case type taxonomy is designed for both from the start.
Usually not in the same phase. Litify ships named agents for intake qualification, conflict checking, matter summaries, damages work and invoice review, and Salesforce Agentforce can act over the same data — but every one of them reads the records your team creates. If case types are inconsistent or matter data is thin at go-live, an agent will confidently produce output nobody should act on. We assess readiness during discovery and normally sequence agents into the phase after go-live.
Hypercare: floor support in the first week, a backlog triaged daily, and the edge cases that only appear under real caseload fixed quickly rather than queued. After that most firms move to a lighter ongoing arrangement for the next tranche of work — another practice area, an integration, or the reporting that was deliberately left until the data was real. We measure adoption rather than assuming it, and we say so when it is not where it should be.
No. You license Litify directly from the vendor, and its pricing is published on the Salesforce AppExchange. Twopir Consulting is a Salesforce consultancy: we implement, configure and extend Litify, and we build the custom development around it on the Salesforce platform. That separation is deliberate — it means our advice about what to configure, build or skip is not tied to what we would earn on the licence.
A scoping conversation covers how your firm runs a case, what state your current data is in, and which of the three scope shapes you actually fit. You will leave it with a realistic timeline rather than an optimistic one.
Discovery · architecture · configuration · migration · training · hypercare
