Buying Process
How do we evaluate litigation software mid systems integration?
Updated July 2026
Evaluate it in parallel, because a litigation layer does not sit inside your core-system program. It reads what defense counsel already sends, so the evaluation itself requires no integration work, and the eventual connection runs through APIs alongside the claims system rather than through the project consuming your IT capacity. Change the evaluation criteria, not the timeline: screen hardest for zero dependency on the integration schedule.
Why do buyers assume they must wait for the integration to finish?
Because the core-system program has frozen everything around it: IT capacity is committed, new-system requests get deferred on principle, and nobody wants to add scope to a project that is already hard. The freeze logic is sound for systems that would touch the integration. It quietly misapplies itself to a litigation layer that would not, and the litigated book keeps leaking while everyone waits.
7 to 14%
Estimated leakage on litigated-claims spend from inefficiency and missed resolution, when the litigation file sits outside the system of record. The leakage does not pause for your integration timeline.
EY
That is the real cost of the default answer. Deferring the evaluation does not defer the leakage: cases settle late, reserves drift, and counsel gets assigned on invoices instead of results for every quarter the integration program runs. The right question is not whether you have capacity for another integration. It is whether the thing you are evaluating needs one.
Why does a litigation layer not depend on the core-system program?
Because its inputs come from defense counsel, not from the system being integrated. A litigation layer reads the status reports, depositions, and demand packages counsel already sends, structures them, and keeps every case scored and current. None of that touches the claims-core critical path. It is not a rip and replace, and it does not replace your claims system: it makes the litigated stretch of the claim visible while your core program proceeds.
- The working data is counsel work product: status reports, depositions, demands, expert reports.
- The evaluation runs on that work product directly, so no claims-system connection is required to prove value.
- The eventual claims-system sync runs through APIs, without any significant IT resource drain on your organization.
- Nothing is ripped out or replaced, so the litigation layer adds no scope to the integration program.
What evaluation criteria matter most mid integration?
Screen for independence first, capability second. A capable platform that needs your integration team is unavailable to you for the life of the core program, which makes it the wrong platform right now. Ask every vendor the same four questions: what the evaluation requires from IT, what the connection eventually requires, what gets replaced, and what happens to the rollout if the core program slips.
| Criterion | What to look for | Why it matters mid integration |
|---|---|---|
| Dependency on the integration schedule | None; the platform runs on counsel work product from day one | Anything gated on the core program inherits its delays |
| IT lift to evaluate | None beyond standard security review | Your integration team stays on the integration |
| Connection model | API-based sync with the claims system, configured, not built | A quick API connection adds no scope to the core project |
| What gets replaced | Nothing; the claims system stays the system of record | A rip and replace mid program is a nonstarter, and rightly so |
How should the rollout sequence work alongside the integration?
In three moves that never cross the core program's path. Evaluate now, on your own litigated files, using what counsel already sends. Run the litigation layer in parallel, structuring the litigated book while the integration proceeds. Then connect through APIs once the core program stabilizes, syncing the structured litigation file with the claims system both ways. Each step delivers value before the next one starts.
- Evaluate now: run the platform against real counsel work product from your own litigated book, with no claims-system connection required.
- Run in parallel: let the litigation layer keep cases scored and current while the integration program proceeds untouched.
- Connect when ready: sync the structured litigation file with your claims system through APIs, on your schedule, not the vendor's.
Sequenced this way, the integration program is an argument for starting, not for waiting. The core project fixes the system of record. The litigation layer fixes the part of the claim the system of record has never seen, and every quarter it runs before the connection lands is a quarter of the litigated book made visible instead of deferred.
Common questions
Will adding litigation software add scope to our core-system integration?
No, and this is the test to hold any vendor to. A litigation layer works from what defense counsel sends: status reports, depositions, demand packages, expert reports. That input channel exists today and does not run through the system being integrated, so evaluating and even running the platform adds nothing to the core program's scope. The claims-system connection comes later, through APIs, as a configured sync rather than a build, and it does not replace your claims system. If a vendor's answer to this question involves your integration team, your middleware program, or a dependency on the core project's data model, that product is not a litigation layer, it is another integration, and deferring it until the core program finishes is the right call. The point of the layer architecture is that you never have to make that trade.
The litigation gap in your claims system→What does it actually cost to wait until the integration finishes?
The leakage you were already carrying, extended for the life of the program. EY has estimated that 7 to 14 percent of litigated-claims spend leaks through inefficiency and missed opportunities to resolve, and that leakage runs on the litigated book regardless of what your integration timeline says. While the file stays dark, ripe cases settle late, reserves drift from what the record supports, and firms get chosen on invoice detail instead of results. There is also the program cost: the 10% Targeted Defense Spend Reduction is the anchor target a CaseGlide program is built around, a target rather than a guarantee, and deferring the evaluation defers the start of the program that works toward it. Waiting is not neutral. It is a decision to keep the litigated stretch of every claim invisible for another year or two.
How much can you reduce defense spend?→Do we need IT involved to run the evaluation?
Only where you would want them anyway: the security and data-access review. The evaluation itself runs on defense counsel work product, so there is no connector to build, no environment to stand up, and no claim on the integration team's time. What IT and security should absolutely review is the same thing they review for any platform touching privileged material: audit coverage, data segregation, retention, and access controls. That review runs on documents and meetings, not on engineering capacity. When you later connect the platform to your claims system, the sync runs through robust APIs without any significant IT resource drain on your organization, and you schedule that connection when the core program can absorb it. Keep the two workstreams separate and the evaluation never competes with the integration for the same people.
The security review a litigation platform requires→How is this different from replacing our claims system?
It is the opposite move. Your claims system is built to hold the claim, and it stays the system of record throughout. What it was never built to do is read the prose defense counsel sends and structure it in real time, which is why the litigated stretch of a claim goes dark inside even a well-run claims shop. A litigation layer closes that specific gap: it reads counsel work product, keeps every case scored and current, and syncs the structured file back to the claims system through APIs, not a rip and replace. Nothing migrates, nothing is decommissioned, and your core-system program keeps its scope. That is precisely why the mid-integration objection does not apply. You are not evaluating a successor to the system being integrated. You are evaluating a layer that makes it more valuable.
What is litigation intelligence?→CaseGlide is the litigation intelligence platform for Fortune 500 legal departments and insurance claims organizations. It structures live litigation data from defense counsel into executive decisions: reducing defense spend, settling the right cases sooner, and shrinking litigated claim volume.
Next step · See it on your docket
See what your litigation portfolio is telling you
A 30 minute walkthrough on your own docket. No slides, no committee.