Meet the 2026 Clio Integration Award Winners: RedactifyAI, AltFee, and Querious

2026 Clio Integration Award winners at a glance

The 2026 Clio Integration Award winners are RedactifyAI (Best New App), AltFee (Best Business of Law App), and Querious (Best Practice of Law App). All three handle different parts of a firm’s work inside Clio.

RedactifyAI: Best New App

Redaction is tedious work, and at many firms, it still happens outside the practice management system. Someone downloads the files, marks what has to go, uploads the new versions, and hopes nothing slipped through. One overlooked account number or privileged email can expose a client’s information—and in litigation, it can lead to sanctions or a privilege waiver.

Founded in January 2026, RedactifyAI brings that work into Clio. You sign in with your existing Clio account and pull documents from any matter or folder. Its AI then flags names, financial details, medical records, privileged content, and other sensitive information across PDFs, Word files, and scanned images. Once you’ve reviewed its suggestions, RedactifyAI strips the flagged text out of the file for good, so it can’t be copied or recovered. The clean copy is saved to the matter next to the original, and an exportable audit trail records every redaction for compliance or discovery.

At one mid-size litigation firm, redacting a single production set used to take half a day. With RedactifyAI, it takes about 20 minutes, according to the firm’s legal operations director. Until now, that kind of speed and record-keeping was hard for a small firm to justify paying for. Now there’s a free plan to try it, and the Clio integration comes with every paid plan, starting at $19 a month. For larger teams handling high-volume discovery and compliance work, higher tiers add unlimited templates and side-by-side version comparisons.

That range is a large part of why RedactifyAI was named Best New App only months after launch. It takes on a problem nearly every firm shares, and it puts careful, well-documented redaction within reach of firms of all sizes.

AltFee: Best Business of Law App

Suppose your firm charges a flat $3,500 for a standard estate plan. The figure was probably set a while ago, based on experience and a rough sense of what other firms were charging. It’s hard to know whether it still covers the work. After all, once the client pays, nobody has much reason to go back and add up the hours.

AltFee builds that check into how you price flat fees and other alternative fee arrangements. You define the services you offer, scope the tasks each one involves, and set a price that reflects both the work and its value to the client. The fee goes into the Clio matter, and as your team records time, AltFee compares the two. Over time, that comparison, together with Clio’s billing and payment data, shows which services are underpriced. AltFee also tracks proposals, so you can see which quotes clients tend to accept.

AltFee reports that value-based pricing adjustments have raised its customers’ fees by an average of 11.6%. Better pricing can also show up in a firm’s realization rate, which compares what the firm bills with the value of the time it records. After Vancouver firm DL&Co made AltFee the foundation of how it prices new work, its realization rate rose 21%, according to a case study.

AltFee won Best Business of Law App because it helps firms keep their legal pricing strategies in step with how fast they now work. As AI tools like Clio Work shorten routine tasks, billing by the hour captures less of the value that work delivers. A flat fee built on your own data lets your firm benefit from working more efficiently, while clients still know up front what they’ll pay.

Querious: Best Practice of Law App

If you’ve used an AI notetaker on a client call, you know the notes can be surprisingly good. The problem is where they end up. They tend to sit in a separate app or an inbox while the matter in Clio stays untouched, so someone still has to copy over the important parts and reconstruct the time entry from memory.

Querious was founded by attorney Hilary Bowman and is built specifically for legal conversations, a category the company calls legal conversational intelligence. Whether you’re on a video call, on the phone, or meeting in person, it suggests follow-up questions and flags legal issues you may want to raise in real time. When the conversation ends, it drafts a time entry, a summary of the facts, a preliminary legal analysis, and a list of follow-up tasks, and saves them to the Clio matter. For privacy, it strips out personal information before analyzing what was said and keeps no audio or full transcript afterward.

Querious estimates that it saves attorneys 10 to 15 minutes of admin per client conversation and cuts pre-call preparation by about 75%. By its calculation, the recaptured time and new business are worth $54,000 to $89,000 per attorney each year.

A Best New App finalist in 2025, Querious stood out this year for its new two-way integration with Clio. Before a meeting, it pulls summaries of earlier conversations from Clio, so its prompts reflect what the client has already told you. By the second or third call, its suggestions build on what earlier meetings covered.

Key trends from the 2026 Clio Integration Award winners

Last year’s winners, VERA, CollBox, and Clearbrief, showed that legal tech is most useful when it fits into the way legal professionals already work. This year’s winners take that further, drawing on the information already in Clio and adding to it each time they’re used. Here are three trends we see in this year’s group.

1. AI is moving inside the workflow

Most solo and small firms have tried AI by now. Clio’s 2026 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms found that 71% of solo practitioners and 75% of small firms use it for legal work. Far fewer have seen a payoff, with only about a third reporting that AI has increased their revenue, compared with 59% of enterprise firms.

The report traces the gap between firms that are working faster and firms that are earning more to three things: how they price their work, how they bring in new clients, and how well their tools work together. We’ll come back to pricing with AltFee. The last factor is where RedactifyAI and Querious come in.

Nearly half of solo and small firms rely on generic, consumer-grade AI tools that have no connection to their matters, while firms using integrated, legal-specific tools have fewer barriers to adoption and better, more secure outcomes. Both winners start from the matter itself, so the documents and notes they produce land where the rest of the firm already looks for them.

2. The best integrations send data both ways

Integrations can move information in one direction or in both. A one-way integration might push a document into Clio, for example, without ever reading anything back. Querious and AltFee work in both directions, which is why they get more useful the longer a firm relies on them.

Every conversation Querious saves to a matter gives it more context for the next one. AltFee works the same way with pricing: each closed matter adds to the record it uses for the next quote. So when you’re comparing Clio integrations, ask whether information moves in both directions. And because a two-way integration reads from your matters as well as writing to them, it’s important to understand how it protects that information, including what it stores and where it’s processed. 

3. Pricing is catching up to AI efficiency

AI puts new pressure on the billable hour. Under hourly billing, revenue is tied to the time the work takes, so when AI shortens a task, the fee for that task shrinks with it. If a three-hour task now takes one, the client gets the same result for a third of the cost, and the firm collects a third of the fee. ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in 2024, confirms that lawyers who bill hourly can charge only for the time they actually spend. Yet about 90% of U.S. legal dollars still run through hourly billing, according to the 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market from the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.

Faster work doesn’t have to mean lower revenue, though. Clio’s 2026 Legal Trends Report compared firms using Clio’s AI tools with similar firms that weren’t. Firms using any of the tools came out ahead, but the strongest results were at firms using AI for both their legal work (Clio Work) and their firm operations (AI in Manage). Compared with firms not using any of Clio’s AI tools, these firms recorded:

• 10% higher revenue per responsible lawyer, versus about 8% for firms using any Clio AI tool
• 6.5% more recorded billable hours per responsible lawyer, versus 4.5%
• Collection rates 2.5 percentage points higher, versus 1.9 percentage points

In other words, these firms record more billable work, collect more of what they bill, and earn more per lawyer. But the report is clear that these gains don’t happen automatically. When AI frees up time, a firm has to decide what to do with it, whether that’s putting it toward more billable work or taking on more matters.

How a firm prices its work matters, too. Even after accounting for how widely they had adopted AI, firms using alternative fees, such as flat, capped, or value-based fees, were the most likely to say AI had improved their revenue. Firms billing hourly were the least likely. With a flat fee, if the price holds while the work takes less time, the time saved can go toward margin or new matters.

Smaller firms have been slow to adjust their pricing. Clio’s 2026 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms report found that 86% of solo firms and 78% of small firms haven’t changed their pricing since adopting AI, compared with 46% of enterprise firms. AltFee is built for that gap. With it, firms set flat fees from their own Clio data. Because it compares each fee with the time the matter actually took, it also shows whether those fees stay fair as tools like Clio Work speed up the work.

In short, here’s what each winner brings to a firm:

• RedactifyAI brings fast, auditable redaction into the Clio matter.
• AltFee uses every closed matter to price the next one more accurately.
• Querious captures both the substance of a client conversation and the billable time that goes with it.

Why legal software integrations matter for law firms

Legal software integrations are connections between the tools your firm uses, such as your practice management system and accounting software, or your legal AI and billing software. They let information like contacts, documents, time entries, and payments move between systems automatically, so no one has to enter it twice.

A firm’s technology rarely follows a plan. Tools arrive as needs come up, each chosen on its own merits, and people end up carrying information from one to the next. That’s how a client’s new address gets updated in one system but not the other, signed engagement letters sit in someone’s inbox until they get filed, and checking where a matter stands means opening several programs. None of this takes long on its own, but it’s part of why so little of the day ends up billable.

Clio’s 2026 Legal Trends Report projects that the average utilization rate will reach 42.2% this year, or about 3.4 billable hours in an eight-hour day. If that holds, it’ll be the largest one-year jump in the report’s history, but it still leaves most of the day unbilled. The report also notes that when work happens in one system and timekeeping in another, recording that work takes an extra step, and billable time can go unrecorded.

Integrations let those systems share information, so the matter in Clio stays a complete and current record of the work. With more than 300 Clio integrations, covering intake, document management, and AI, there’s a good chance the tools you already use can connect. Every app also passes a security review before it’s listed in the Clio App Directory, so you can browse Clio’s legal software integrations knowing each one has been vetted.

For most firms, the payoff is a more complete picture. Whether someone is answering a client’s question, preparing a bill, or asking an AI tool to draft something, they’re working with the full context of the matter. That matters even more as firms adopt AI, since the technology can only work with the information it can see.

How Clio Integration Award winners are chosen

Clio Integration Award winners are chosen by a panel of legal tech professionals, who review apps listed in the Clio App Directory across the three categories: Best New App, Best Practice of Law App, and Best Business of Law App.

Any app listed in the Clio App Directory can apply. Best Practice of Law App recognizes apps that help lawyers with legal work, such as document creation, legal research, and client collaboration. Best Business of Law App covers tools that help firms run the business, from invoicing and accounting to HR and marketing. Best New App is open to all apps added to the directory in the past 12 months.

Judges evaluate every entry against five criteria:

• Integration depth: How deeply does the app use Clio data and APIs? Judges look for integrations that are real-time and meaningful to how firms work.
• User impact: Does it solve a real problem? The strongest entries can point to measurable results, such as AltFee’s average pricing increase or the half-day production task one RedactifyAI customer cut to about 20 minutes.
• Innovation: Does the app solve a problem in a new way, or in a meaningfully better way than existing solutions?
• Adoption and traction: Are lawyers actually using it? Judges look for evidence that Clio customers actively use the app and that adoption is strong or growing. More than 12,000 legal projects, representing over $30 million in fees, have been priced through AltFee. Lawyers Mutual of North Carolina and Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual both offer Querious to their policyholders at a discount.
• Quality of submission: How strong is the evidence behind the entry? A detailed case study, a customer testimonial, or a reference customer makes the case stronger.

We celebrated this year’s winners at ClioCon 2026 in Boston on October 26 and 27. If you’re building legal software and want to join them next year, the Clio Developer Program offers API access, documentation, and a listing in the Clio App Directory, putting your app in front of more than 400,000 legal professionals. Applications for next year’s awards will open on the Clio Integration Awards page, and we’d love to see what you build.

Build your connected tech stack

Each of this year’s winners started with a task lawyers had more or less accepted as part of the job, whether that was redacting documents in a separate program, guessing at a flat fee, or rebuilding a client call from memory. All three moved that work into the matter in Clio.

They’re also a good reason to look at your own setup. If your team still downloads, copies, or re-enters information to get a task done, chances are one of the best Clio integrations can handle it. Start with these three, then browse the 300-plus Clio app integrations in the directory.