CompuLaw Pricing: What Aderant Charges for Docketing, and What You Can Buy Today

Everything below was read off Aderant's own pages and Deadlines.com's own pages in September 2026. Where a vendor publishes no number, this says so rather than repeating a figure from an aggregator. In rules based calendaring that distinction does a lot of work, because the category is mostly quote only and the gap gets filled with confident guesses.

How much does CompuLaw cost?

Aderant publishes no price for CompuLaw. There is no rate card, no tier list and no per user figure on any Aderant page, so every number you find on a review or aggregator site is an estimate somebody produced without the vendor. Pricing comes from a quote scoped to your firm size, jurisdictions and integrations.

That is worth stating plainly because the search results for this question are almost entirely directory pages that rank on the word "pricing" while carrying no price. Several present a "custom pricing" badge next to a demo request form. At least one publishes a total cost of ownership breakdown for a product whose licence cost it does not know. If you are building a budget, none of that is usable input.

What actually drives the quote is legible enough: how many people need access, how many jurisdictions you need rules maintained for, and which systems it has to talk to. Docketing quotes in this tier also tend to carry a separate implementation and rules provisioning fee, because somebody has to configure your courts before a single date is calculated.

Is CompuLaw being discontinued?

Aderant has not announced an end of life for CompuLaw. What it does publish is a direct migration pitch. A block on the Milana product page, headed with a question addressed to existing CompuLaw users, says Milana takes what you love about CompuLaw and delivers it in a modern, secure cloud environment. That block appears twice on the page, alongside a video and a contact link.

Read that as what it is: a vendor steering an installed base toward a newer platform, which is ordinary and often good for customers. But it changes the question you should be asking on the call. You are not just pricing CompuLaw. You are pricing a product whose vendor is actively marketing its successor to you, and the commercial risk sits in the term length. A three year CompuLaw agreement signed without a written migration path is how firms end up paying twice.

Which docketing products does Aderant own?

Four sit under Aderant's docketing and calendaring heading. Knowing the shape of the family is the single most useful thing when you are negotiating, because the same rules content is sold at very different prices and commitment levels depending on which door you walk through.

Can you get CompuLaw court rules without a CompuLaw quote?

Yes, and Aderant says so itself. Deadlines.com's about page states that Deadlines.com uses CompuLaw's date calculation engine and extensive court rules library, that CompuLaw has been in rules based calendaring since 1978, and that the same reliable technology is now available to smaller law firms and solo practitioners at a fraction of the cost. The same page describes the product as powered by CompuLaw, with technology trusted by over 70% of the nation's largest law firms.

For a small firm that came looking for a CompuLaw price, that is the practical answer. You do not need the enterprise contract to get the rules content. You need the per case product, and it publishes its numbers.

One quirk worth knowing before you scope a subscription: the published ladder has a cliff in it. Twenty nine cases at $25 is $725 a month, while thirty cases at $20 is $600. Adding a thirtieth matter makes the bill $125 cheaper. Five and six cases both come to $150. If you sit just under a band edge, ask how the tiers are actually applied.

What does the alternative cost per user?

The other product in this category that publishes a rate card is LawToolBox, and it bills on the opposite axis. Per user per month on a minimum one year commitment, it is $35 per user at 2 to 9 users on annual billing, $33 at 10 to 19, $23 at 20 to 79 and $19 at 80 or more. Monthly billing costs more at every level. Its pricing is based on a licence for every Microsoft 365 licensed mailbox in the firm, so you cannot buy three seats for the three people who touch the docket, and activating the NetDocuments, iManage, ECFX or InfoTrack integrations adds $4 per user.

Which axis is cheaper has nothing to do with how big your firm is. Comparing the two published rate cards, per user overtakes per case at roughly 1.5 active cases per licensed mailbox: a three person firm pays less per case until it carries four active matters, a ten person firm until fourteen, a fifty person firm until fifty eight. The full crossover table is in our Deadlines.com vs LawToolBox pricing comparison.

Both models share a budgeting problem that a headline rate hides. An annual commitment is not a monthly expense, it is a term contract with a renewal date, a seat count that drifts as people join and leave, and a true up conversation nobody diarizes. Firms that treat it like software spend rather than a procurement obligation get surprised. If your practice raises a purchase order for every annual vendor commitment, the renewal at least has an owner and a paper trail.

What should you ask on a CompuLaw quote call?

Ask which product the quote is actually for, whether the term covers a migration to Milana, which jurisdictions are included rather than available, what integrations cost on top, who maintains the rules for your courts, and what happens to your calculated dates if you leave. Get the jurisdiction list in writing.

Two of those deserve expanding. "Included rather than available" matters because a nationwide rules library is a marketing claim about coverage, not a statement about your contract: the courts you practice in either are or are not provisioned for you, and that is a line item. And the exit question matters because rules based calendaring generates dependent dates that live inside the vendor's system. If you leave, you want to know whether you get an export of the computed chain or just the trigger dates you keyed in yourself.

One more: ask what happens when a court changes a rule mid matter. Every vendor in this category promises rule updates. The difference between them is whether an update silently recalculates deadlines already on your calendar, flags them for review, or leaves them alone. All three behaviors are defensible. Only one of them matches what your docketing team assumes is happening.

Where a calculator ends and calendaring begins

Firms often arrive at a CompuLaw quote after outgrowing a free date calculator, and it is worth being clear about what the upgrade is actually buying. A calculator answers one date at a time and asks you to know which rule applies, how many days it gives you, and whether the count is in calendar days or court days. Rules based calendaring carries the rules themselves, so one trigger date generates the whole dependent chain.

If you are somewhere in between, the free tools still have their place for a single count, provided you know what they leave out. Most of them stop before the service extension: our breakdown of the Todd Olivas deadline calculator walks through the count, the roll and the service days in order, and the legal calendaring and docketing software overview covers what the paid tier adds. For the underlying closure dates, the court holidays calendar lists them per jurisdiction.

The short answer for a budget line

If you need a number today and cannot wait for a quote cycle, use the published one. A solo or small firm carrying ten active matters can price CompuLaw's rules library at $250 a month through Deadlines.com, with unlimited users, and know that figure is real because the vendor prints it. A firm of twenty with a heavier caseload per head should model the per user side too. And any firm about to sign a multi year CompuLaw term should ask about Milana before it signs, not after.