MyCase vs HighQ: What Legal Collaboration Looks Like in the Real World

Thomas Hawkins – April 12, 2025  – 6 mins read

Collaboration tools used to be an afterthought in legal IT — a bolt-on to the core stack. But in today’s hybrid, client-driven world, they’ve become central to how we deliver legal work. Over the last few years, I’ve had hands-on experience working with both MyCase and HighQ, two platforms that promise better communication, collaboration, and client engagement.

Here’s my honest take on how they stack up — not from the vendor’s brochure, but from the real-world trenches of implementation, support tickets, and fee-earner feedback.

The Context: What We Needed

We were looking for platforms that could:

• Improve client collaboration without flooding inboxes
• Create internal efficiencies for matter teams working across locations
• Integrate (cleanly) with our DMS and PMS
• Be intuitive enough that we wouldn’t need a 3-week onboarding for end users

We tested and implemented both tools in different contexts — MyCase for smaller client teams and HighQ for more complex litigation and cross-functional collaboration.

MyCase: Straightforward, Client-Friendly, and Compact

Pros:

• Designed for small to mid-sized firms and general practitioners
• Combines case management, messaging, billing, and document sharing in one tidy platform
• The client portal is user-friendly — great for firms without a full-time client services team
• Chat and messaging features reduce email traffic, especially for ongoing matters

Cons:

• Limited in complexity — internal collaboration features feel basic compared to enterprise tools
• Customisation and integration options are slim
• Better suited for end-to-end use (i.e., if you’re already using MyCase for matter management)

Best suited for:
Firms wanting simple, all-in-one client communication and collaboration in a single platform, with minimal overhead or technical complexity.

HighQ: Enterprise-Grade Power with a Steeper Curve

Pros:

• Built for complex, multi-party collaboration, including litigation, deal rooms, and external counsel coordination
• Granular permissions allow precise control over who sees what, which is vital for regulated matters
• Great for internal project management — workflows, document automation, tasks, dashboards
• Integrates well with Microsoft 365, iManage, and other core systems (if configured correctly)

Cons:

• The initial setup can be resource-heavy — expect to spend time on configuration and user training
• While powerful, the interface can be overwhelming for casual users
• Requires a clear internal owner — if left unattended, it gets messy fast

Best suited for:
Firms with complex collaboration needs, especially in litigation or transactions, where internal and external users need access to a controlled workspace.

What We’ve Found in Practice

In our environment, we’ve deployed both — strategically.

• MyCase works best for our smaller teams and more straightforward client work. It’s intuitive, fast to deploy, and ticks the boxes for communication, billing, and updates.
• HighQ is where we build our serious collaboration environments — especially when we need structured data rooms, matter-centric dashboards, or custom workflows tied to court timelines or compliance checks.

They serve different purposes. Trying to force one tool to do everything leads to frustration. Knowing their strengths makes it easier to match the right one to the matter.

Final Thought: Choose for the Matter, Not the Market

There’s no single “best” collaboration platform in legal. What works for a 5-person team handling real estate will crumble under the needs of a 40-participant litigation project with sensitive disclosures.

So, we’ve shifted our thinking. Instead of asking “Which platform is best?”, we ask:

• What’s the matter complexity?
• Who are the end users — partners, juniors, clients, third parties?
• How much integration and control do we need?

That’s how you avoid overspending, underdelivering, or replacing a tool every two years.