Guides

QuickBooks Integration Competitive Write-Ups

Competetive Writ-ups

Here at LeanLaw, we wanted to get an idea of the competition. We initially wrote this document for internal purposes, but it was so helpful, we decided to publish it. Caveat: We think we’re better than everyone else, so there will be a bias. (You love your children, too, right?)

LeanLaw evaluated the competition: timekeeping and billing softwares in the legal space, comparing their integration with QuickBooks Online. We considered functionality related to trust management, invoice workflows, data syncing procedures, and A/R tracking. These are core features in the LeanLaw workflow that we feel are important to law firms today.

TimeSolv:

Compared to LeanLaw:

  • Timekeeping and invoicing are simple, but lack many of the custom settings that LeanLaw offers (start times, timekeeping for other users, bulk entry).

Pain Points:

  • The QuickBooks Connector (an app that only works from one machine – so the sync is not done in real time, therefore, there are 2 sets of data. If you name something slightly different, there will be multiple accounts: TimeSolv syncs both QuickBooks Online and QuickBooks Desktop through a desktop application that requires complicated setup. This program requires a manual push to QuickBooks Online from TimeSolv, and feels like a server backup.
  • Accounting is not an intuitive workflow, it’s redundant and inferior to QuickBooks Online. The sub-par QuickBooks Online integration means many extra (manual) steps for Accountants.
  • Trust accounting and retainers are not a key feature, and are difficult to implement.

Clio:

Compared to LeanLaw:

  • Clio is an All-In-One platform for practice management which includes timekeeping, invoicing and trust. This means that you have more than what you need, unless you leverage all the features. You might be paying more for things you won’t use. Their recent strides to improve their QuickBooks Online integration has made it better, but it’s still secondary to their integrated tools and not core to their workflows around timekeeping and invoicing.

Pain Points:

  • Have to track finances in both Clio and QuickBooks Online: Clio requires you to establish accounts in both QuickBooks Online and Clio, meaning that finances must be accounted for in both places – double entries means more manual workarounds. Even when deposits/payments are synced in both places, accounts must be setup in both. While their trust accounting integration to QuickBooks has improved, it can be clumsy and it’s not in real time, a burden on the bookkeeper to manage both environments and ensure accuracy.

MyCase:

Compared to LeanLaw:

  • MyCase is an All-In-One platform for practice management which includes timekeeping, invoicing and trust. This means that you have more than what you need, unless you leverage all the features. You might be paying more for things you won’t use.
  • Lacks real time sync. Push-sync is an outdated feature.
  • Because MyCase is the primary source of accounting information, the QuickBooks Online integration isn’t practical
  • Invoicing/Trust workflow feels similar to LeanLaw w/o QuickBooks Online.

Pain Points:

  • Not enough data is synced between MyCase and QuickBooks. Client information, trust deposits, and invoices are not updated in real time. MyCase only pushes over the invoice information, and doesn’t get the full pictures on a client’s accounting.

eBillity:

Compared to LeanLaw:

  • eBillity workflows are clunky, and require far more steps. The QuickBooks Online integration does not sync both ways, meaning if you enter a client in eBillity, it won’t sync to QuickBooks – you have to go to QuickBooks Online to create the client and sync back to eBility. This is a total drag on the workflow.

Pain Points:

  • The QuickBooks integration feels forced: Syncing is manual, requires administrative oversight.
  • Sync failures are common, feedback is unintuitive.
  • The process to make payments, track balances and basic accounting is difficult.
  • Too large/feature-packed for smaller firms to tackle. Even the pricing suggests that multiple users are needed to run the system.

Bill4Time:

Compared to LeanLaw:

  • Workflows are similar to LeanLaw, but more cluttered. Information is not presented well, and is often drowned out by less important data.

Pain Points:

  • Although they are predominantly timekeeping and billing, their price point is akin to a full practice management tool.
  • The QuickBooks Connector: Bill4Time syncs both QuickBooks Online and QuickBooks Desktop through a desktop application for invoices, client information and expenses – that requires complicated setup. This program requires a manual push to QuickBooks Online from Bill4Time, and feels like a server backup. The sub-par QuickBooks Online integration means many extra (manual) steps for Accountants.

At LeanLaw, we have a free 2 week trial for our law firm clients. Once you touch our legal timekeeping and billing software, you’ll get a sense of how intuitive it is to use. You’ve got nothing to lose and so much time to put back into your week for the the work that is meaningful to you.

Please feel free to connect with us for any questions you have.

Join The Movement!

Get Started