Usage is visible, while the value that justifies renewal remains hard to name.
Legal operations needs a defensible ROI narrative, and attorneys will not endorse savings claims they cannot verify.
Who you’d be doing this for
“Finance asked what changed after the licenses landed, and I had screenshots instead of an answer.”
Adwoa Eze · Director of Legal Operations
Owns the technology budget and must explain whether legal AI is improving work without weakening attorney review.
What is at stake
Eight pilot legal departments need evidence beyond usage before their next value reviews. You must weigh a repeatable ROI story against claims attorneys are willing to verify.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- usage growth vs. verified value
- attorney credibility vs. reporting effort
- bespoke proof vs. scalable programme
- renewal urgency vs. evidence quality
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded research and drafting only earns durable adoption when legal departments can show how verified work changed.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 43 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.