Does it work with our system?
It is the first question every law firm asks after the demo. One firm uses Clio. Another uses Actionstep. A third runs a long-established case management system with an API that is documented in a PDF from years ago, and a fourth uses one where API access needs a partner agreement. Your product only works properly if it knows the firm's matters, clients and fee earners, because everything it does is attached to a matter.
Your first integration was built for your launch firm and lives inside your product code. Each new one is harder than the last, and firms on systems you do not support are told to wait.
Why every practice management system feels different
Practice management systems share the same core ideas but model them differently, and firms customise them further.
| Concept | How systems differ |
|---|---|
| Matter | Numbering schemes, matter types and statuses vary by firm and system |
| Client | Individuals and companies held differently; some link multiple clients per matter |
| Fee earner | Identified by initials, user IDs or email; supervisors held separately or not at all |
| Time and billing | Different activity codes, rates and rules for posting time |
| Documents | Held in the system itself or in a separate document management system |
When the first integration was written against one system's shapes, every later one either bends to fit them or adds special cases to your core code. Both make the product harder to change.
What integration gaps cost
Firms that cannot connect your product to their matters are unlikely to buy it, or buy it and use it as a side tool that nobody keeps up to date. Fee earners who have to type matter numbers into your product by hand make mistakes, and data ends up on the wrong matter, which in a law firm is a confidentiality problem as well as a nuisance. Developers who understand the integrations become a bottleneck, and fixes for one firm can break another.
Sales feels it first. Legal tech sales cycles are long already, and an integration question that cannot be answered confidently adds another round of calls with the firm's IT team. Firms on less common case management systems are often turned away early, even when the product would suit them, because nobody can say how long an integration would take or what it could support.
How we build an integration layer for law firms
What we build puts a clean boundary between your product and the systems it connects to.
- A matter-centred internal model: matters, clients, parties, fee earners, supervisors, matter types and statuses, in your product's own terms.
- An adapter per practice management system, such as Clio or Actionstep, handling authentication, paging, rate limits, webhooks or polling, and translation to your model.
- Per-firm configuration for the things firms customise: matter number formats, matter types, custom fields and status names.
- Two-way rules made explicit: what your product reads, what it writes back (such as time entries or documents), and what it never touches.
- Sync logs showing what came in, how it mapped, and what failed, readable by support staff.
- Contract tests per adapter, run on every release, so a change for one system cannot break another.
Where a system's API is limited or needs a partner agreement, we tell you plainly what your product can and cannot do with it, so your sales team can set expectations with each firm.
A new firm connecting
A firm on Actionstep signs. Their admin authorises the connection, and the sync pulls in their open matters and fee earners. Their matter types include two custom ones, which your support person maps in configuration without a release. Fee earners open your product and pick matters from a list rather than typing numbers. When a time entry fails to post back because of an activity code the firm restricts, the sync log shows exactly why, and the firm's admin fixes the code in minutes.
Checklist: practice management integration
- Your core code checks which practice management system a firm uses in many places.
- Fee earners type matter numbers into your product by hand.
- Adding a new system means changing code shared by every integration.
- Custom matter types or fields need a developer and a release.
- Support cannot see why a sync failed without asking a developer.