The plaintiff personal-injury firm is the legal buyer whose economics reward AI fastest, because nobody bills the hours. A file that takes 90 days to work up instead of 45 does not cost the client more — it costs the firm the next case it never had capacity to sign. Throughput is the purchase, not efficiency. And the choke point is the medical record: CASEpeer’s 2026 trends data has 56% of PI firms ranking “summarize and analyze medical records” as their top AI need, ahead of everything else on the list.
This stack covers the four jobs between a signed retainer and a demand on the adjuster’s desk. It also makes one argument the vendors will not make for you: your case-management choice constrains your AI choice, not the other way around. Buy in the wrong order and you end up paying per seat for an AI platform that reaches your case files by manual upload.
The spine: Filevine or Clio
Filevine is the spine for volume and for anything mass-tort. It is a plaintiff-native case management system built around custom workflows rather than a fixed matter model, which is why firms running thousands of active files land there. Intake and referral tracking run through Lead Docket. Filevine raised $400M across two all-equity rounds closing mid-2024 and late 2025 — Insight Partners led the first, Accel and Halo Fund co-led the second — at a $3B valuation as of September 2025, and it has bought its way deeper into drafting twice: Parrot in 2025, now Depositions by Filevine, and Pincites in 2026, now LOIS for Word. It also ships its own AI: MedChron for medical chronologies, DemandsAI for demand letters, Depo CoPilot as a deposition second chair, and AIFields to write AI output into case custom fields. Pricing is quote-only, landing roughly $50–150 per user per month depending on seat count and modules, and implementation runs 60–180 days with Filevine professional services because the workflow customization is the product.
Clio is the spine for the firm under about 15 attorneys running standard auto and premises files. It is the only component in this stack with a published price. The current ladder is EasyStart, Essentials, Advanced, and Expand, starting at $49 per user per month on clio.com/pricing; third-party trackers put the upper tiers near $89, $119, and $149 annually, but Clio renders only the entry price server-side, so treat the top of the ladder as tracked rather than quoted. Clio Duo, the AI layer, is a separate toggle on that page rather than an included feature. The $1B vLex acquisition that closed in June 2025 put a real research corpus behind the platform. What Clio buys a smaller PI firm is not depth — Filevine wins on depth — it is that a six-attorney shop can be live in a week instead of a quarter and can put the difference into the AI layer.
The rule for the fork: count open matters and count how many custom fields your intake form actually needs. Above roughly 500 open files, or with any mass-tort docket, Filevine. Below that with a standard auto and premises mix, Clio.
The AI layer: buy one, and buy it after the spine
Three plaintiff-native platforms compete for this slot, and they overlap heavily — all three do medical chronology and demand drafting. Firms routinely run two and pay twice for the same chronology.
Supio is the records-first pick. Its core unit is the treatment record, and the modules follow that line: Supio Intake, Medical Chronologies, AI Demand Letters, Case Ledger, Litigation Drafting, Cross-Case Analysis, and a mass-tort track. It has raised about $91M — a $25M Series A in August 2024 and a $60M Series B in April 2025 led by Sapphire Ventures with Thomson Reuters Ventures joining — and that TR round came with product access: Westlaw research reaches into Supio through CoCounsel Legal, which is the grounding story it leads with.
EvenUp is the demand-and-valuation pick. It has raised $385M in total, capped by a $150M Series E led by Bessemer in October 2025 above a $2B valuation, and reports roughly 10,000 cases a week across more than 2,000 firms. The engine is its Claims Intelligence Platform on the proprietary Piai model, trained on injury cases and medical records. The moat is the comparable-verdict corpus — the pitch is not that it drafts a demand but that it knows what similar files settled for.
Eve is the lifecycle pick. Named modules run wider than the workup: Analyst for firm-level dashboards, Intake Auditor for 24/7 lead qualification, Intake Signing for live retainer execution on the call, Atlas for data extraction, Agents for drafting, Comms Agent, and Eve Research. It has raised $164M across a $47M Series A led by Andreessen Horowitz and a $103M Series B led by Spark Capital that closed September 2025 above a $1B valuation. It carries a procurement risk the other two do not: in June 2026 AI.Law filed a patent-infringement suit against Eve and parent Butler Labs in the Northern District of California, case 3:26-cv-05930, over methods for turning unstructured material into long-form documents. The merits are unresolved. Guard: ask for indemnification and service-continuity terms covering that litigation, and keep the first term to twelve months. The head-to-heads are in Supio vs Eve and EvenUp vs Eve.
The seam nobody prices in
Read the vendors’ own integration pages before you read their feature pages. As of today, EvenUp’s integrations page names Litify, SmartAdvocate, and CASEpeer, plus SharePoint, Google Drive, and Dropbox for document storage. Filevine and Clio are not on it; EvenUp offers custom integrations on request. Supio’s site names Litify, MyCase, CASEpeer, and Westlaw, and otherwise describes connectors and APIs — again, neither Filevine nor Clio. Eve’s own site names no CMS partner at all, saying it works with your existing system or stands alone, though Clio’s app directory does carry an Eve listing.
The practical consequence is uncomfortable and it is the reason to read this section twice. If you pick Filevine as your spine, none of the three publishes a Filevine connector — you are choosing between a custom integration, manual upload, and Filevine’s own MedChron and DemandsAI. If you pick Clio, Eve is the only one of the three with a listing. If you pick Litify, CASEpeer, or SmartAdvocate instead, all three AI vendors are open to you. Guard: make the named connector a written contract term with a go-live date, not a sales-call assurance, and price the fallback — a paralegal moving files by hand at roughly 15 minutes a case — into year one if the vendor will not commit.
The handoff chain
Signed retainer → the spine opens the matter and starts the deadline clock → records requests go out and land in the spine’s document store → the connector syncs the file to the AI layer → chronology and damages picture come back → demand draft → attorney review → demand out.
The chain that decides whether the stack pays back runs the other way: settlement or verdict outcome is written back against the AI layer’s pre-demand valuation, every file, within a week of resolution. Without that write-back you never learn whether the valuation engine is high, low, or right on your venue and injury mix, and after two quarters the attorneys quietly stop trusting the number and re-do the analysis by hand. Assign it to the person who closes files, not to a partner.
Cost reality
A 12-attorney firm with roughly 400 new files a year and 25 total seats across attorneys, paralegals, and intake:
- Spine, Filevine: quote-only at roughly $50–150 per user per month; 25 seats lands near $15,000–45,000/year, plus $10,000–40,000 of first-year implementation.
- Spine, Clio instead: $49–149 per user per month published; 25 seats lands in the same $15,000–45,000/year band with no implementation floor.
- AI layer, one vendor at about 15 seats: Eve benchmarks at roughly $100–300 per user per month, Supio at $150–400, EvenUp at $200–500. That is $18,000–90,000/year depending on which you pick.
- Medical-record retrieval: a separate line item none of these five covers.
Total: roughly $50,000–135,000/year for the software, with the AI layer and the spine at similar weight.
Two cost notes the demos skip. First, the meter matters more than the rate. EvenUp added per-case pricing in May 2025 alongside seats, and per-case reports put a demand near $300 — at 400 files a year that is about $120,000, worse than seats, while a firm under roughly 150 files a year comes out ahead on per-case. Ask for both quotes and run your own volume through each. Second, none of Supio, EvenUp, or Eve publishes a price; the bands above are third-party market estimates, so treat them as a budgeting range and not as a negotiating anchor.
Common variations
Drop the third-party AI layer and use Filevine’s own. Rule for the swap: if the spine is Filevine and demand volume is under about 200 a year, MedChron plus DemandsAI on the AI tier costs less than a second vendor and has no integration seam at all. Move off it when the complaint becomes demand quality or valuation accuracy rather than turnaround time — that is where the comparable-verdict corpus earns its price.
Pick the spine to keep the AI options open. Rule for the swap: if you have not bought a case management system yet and you already know which AI vendor you want, choose Litify, CASEpeer, or SmartAdvocate as the spine instead of Filevine or Clio. All three AI vendors publish connectors for at least two of those.
Run Eve as spine and AI together. Rule for the swap: a firm under five attorneys with no case management system can take Eve standalone, since Intake Auditor and Intake Signing cover the front of the file and Analyst covers the reporting. Add a real spine once you cross about 150 open matters, because trust accounting and deadline management are not what Eve is for.
Match rules
This stack is the right pick when:
- The firm runs contingency PI volume — auto, premises, or med-mal — where records review and demand assembly cap intake capacity
- New file volume is 200–1,500 a year, enough that per-file time savings compound into signed cases
- Somebody owns the outcome write-back weekly
- You are buying the spine and the AI layer in that order, in the same budget cycle
This stack is wrong when:
- Volume is under about 100 files a year — a well-built demand template and a records paralegal beat a $30,000 AI contract
- The practice is defense-side or insurance-side; these tools are built around plaintiff economics and a plaintiff’s view of damages
- The bottleneck is lead flow rather than workup — that is a marketing and intake problem, and no chronology engine fixes an empty pipeline
- The firm is mid-migration between case management systems; finish the migration, then integrate
What this stack does NOT replace
- Medical-record retrieval. Getting records out of providers is its own vendor category and its own delay. Every tool here starts once the PDFs exist.
- Lien resolution and settlement disbursement. Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA, and provider liens are a separate workflow with separate software.
- Trust accounting and IOLTA compliance. Clio covers this natively; if you run the Eve-standalone variation, you still need it somewhere.
- The attorney’s valuation judgment. A comparable-verdict number is an input to a demand, not the demand. Venue, the client’s presentation, and the adjuster across the table are not in any corpus.
- Litigation. Everything here is built for pre-suit workup and demand. Once a case files, deposition and discovery tooling is a different purchase — Depositions by Filevine and Depo CoPilot sit on the spine side, and document-heavy matters need the eDiscovery stack.
- The demand draft itself as a finished document. Every one of these produces a draft an attorney signs. If you want the drafting step under your own control instead of a vendor’s, the demand letter drafter skill is the build-it-yourself alternative.