Most solo and small firms pick a practice management platform based on price, workflow, and how quickly staff can learn it. Security usually gets a glance at the vendor’s marketing page and nothing more. That is a problem, because PracticePanther and Clio take genuinely different approaches to protecting client data, and the gap between them matters more than either company’s homepage lets on.

This is not a general “which software is better” comparison. It is a look at what each platform actually publishes about encryption, authentication, and independent audits, and what a firm should do about the gaps either way.

What each platform actually claims about security

Clio publishes a detailed, specific security page. Data at rest is protected with AES-256 encryption, data in transit uses TLS 1.2 or higher, and the company completes annual SOC 2 Type II and SOC 1 Type II audits, with reports available on request. Clio also states compliance with HIPAA security standards, GDPR, and PIPEDA, and says its payment processing is PCI DSS compliant. Firms can choose where their data is hosted, including the United States, Canada, Europe, or Australia.

PracticePanther’s security page describes “256-bit military grade encryption” and notes that login sessions run over an SSL connection, which it compares to online banking. The page does not name an encryption standard like AES, does not mention an independent audit, and does not list a compliance certification. Two-factor authentication exists and is PracticePanther’s own top recommendation for account security, but it works by emailing a one-time code rather than using an authenticator app.

Side-by-side: what is published and what is not

This table reflects only what each vendor states publicly. A feature marked “not published” may still exist; the point is that a firm evaluating either tool, or a cyber insurance underwriter asking for proof, cannot currently verify it.

Why this gap matters more than it used to

Small firms are no longer an afterthought for attackers. Nearly 4 in 10 law firms reported a breach in the past year, and over half of the firms that were breached lost client data, not just downtime. Smaller firms accounted for the majority of reported legal sector breaches in 2025, reversing the old assumption that size made a firm less of a target.

Cyber insurance applications and corporate client due diligence questionnaires increasingly ask which practice management platform a firm uses and whether that vendor has a current SOC 2 report. A firm running PracticePanther cannot currently produce one, because the vendor does not publish one. That does not mean the platform is unsafe, but it does mean the burden of proof shifts entirely onto the firm’s own managed IT and cybersecurity controls to fill the gap.

The honest version: what to actually do about it

If your firm already runs PracticePanther and switching is not realistic right now, enable two-factor authentication today and treat your email account as the single most important thing to protect, since it is now effectively your second factor too. Add compensating controls Intelecis builds for law firms regardless of which practice management tool they use: device encryption, email filtering, staff phishing training, and a written incident response plan your state bar’s breach notification rules will eventually ask you to produce.

If you are evaluating a switch, Clio’s published SOC 2 Type II report is worth more than it sounds. It is the document a cyber insurance carrier or a corporate client’s security questionnaire will actually ask for, and it is evidence you can hand over instead of a promise you have to make.

Related reading:
Cybersecurity services ·
Managed IT services ·
Get a free assessment

Sources: Clio, security and trust documentation (clio.com/security). PracticePanther, data security and account security support articles (support.practicepanther.com). Arctic Wolf, legal industry cybersecurity survey. Law360 Pulse analysis of 2025 law firm breach disclosures, via MLex.