The setting
is an AI platform for legal work, used by law firms and the legal teams of companies. is its software that uses AI agents to draft, negotiate, review, and manage contracts.
The final onboarding session must serve unfinished learners without consuming more supervising counsel time.
Individual practice protects readiness, while a shared demonstration protects scarce lawyer availability.
Who you’d be doing this for
“The example made sense. Then I opened my supplier agreement and spent twenty minutes wondering which instructions I was supposed to reuse.”
Kerem Aksoy · Commercial Counsel · a character in this brief
One of the eight lawyers who attended training but has not completed a supervised supplier-agreement review.
What is at stake
Eight of 20 lawyers have attended training without completing their own contract review. You have to weigh individual coaching against a shared demonstration within the customer's last two-hour session.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- individual practice vs shared instruction
- readiness evidence vs lawyer availability
- consistent samples vs real agreement variation
Why Harvey
Playbook-based review depends on lawyers applying and checking agent output on their own agreements, beyond watching a successful demonstration.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 56 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
Where the organization context comes fromThe postings this brief was written from, and the reporting read before it.
The organization context comes from public information. The situation and characters are written for the brief.
Job postings it was written from
Public descriptions of the work at Harvey. They are listed as sources, not as openings. The lines under a posting are its own words, where it meets this brief.
- Legal Engineer (Law Firm, Corporate) (opens in a new tab)
- Legal Engineer, Mexico (opens in a new tab)
- Engage with lawyers at existing and prospective customers to understand and address their workflow challenges, and then explain and demonstrate the value of Harvey’s AI solutions to address them.
- Legal Engineer (Law Firm, Litigation/Regulatory) (opens in a new tab)
- Legal Engineer Manager, Germany (opens in a new tab)
- Qualified lawyer with 7+ PQE, with experience in a law firm or in-house legal environment
- Harvey’s Legal Engineers are skilled lawyers from top-tier law firms who apply their legal experience to ensure that current and prospective customers understand how Harvey’s solutions enhance specific day-to-day workflows, working alongside Harvey’s Account Executives to support all aspects of our sales strategy.
- Customer Success Manager, Enterprise, EMEA (opens in a new tab)
- An opportunity to contribute to the growth and direction of our rapidly-evolving Customer Success program, building out best-in-class playbooks and processes.
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.
Where similar work appears
Other live briefs connected to this one, and what connects them.
Similar problems at other organizations
Like this one, each of these turns on easing someone in at the cost of understanding.
Only six of eighteen designer-developer pairs finished an asset handoff independently.
You must weigh keeping the intended workflow against giving everyone enough time to practice a narrower one.
Four of six researchers still need a developer to finish their first task.
You must weigh tailored guidance for Friday against a reusable walkthrough that reaches future users.
Eight of twelve consulting analysts rebuild their generated briefings despite acceptable content.
You must weigh a tailored skill against teaching flexible inputs in the only working session available.
The same setting, from another role
Each is set around Harvey’s Contracts, written for a different role. They’re separate briefs, not the same scenario.
Fewer lawyers keep coming back to contract review in Word each week, even as more of them try it for the first time.
You decide whether the AI may rank a release as the leading explanation when release exposure and user tenure point in different directions.
Business owners needed another explanation for 11 of 18 contract decisions in discovery.
You must choose what a new decision experience preserves, what it simplifies, and whether customers will return to it.
Lawyers could lose usable histories for 1,200 active contract reviews in 48 hours.
You must weigh continuity in live negotiations against carrying uncertain verification claims past an irreversible cutover.
Other problems with a similar purpose
In each of these, as in this one, the aim is to make strict, complex requirements operational so people doing careful work can move quickly and safely.
A regulator found a closed retailer account in an operational record after a deletion request.
You must weigh a firm deletion commitment against the records marketplace operations still rely on.
Pilot firms are sending too many unclear inquiries to attorneys because the handoff lacks a usable qualification rationale.
You must weigh quicker intake decisions against the evidence attorneys need to trust a decline.
EDD preparation takes about 90 minutes per matter because prior evidence is scattered across review records.
You decide how much of what changed since the last review the AI draws out of KYC Refresh records and escalation notes, and what the investigator must confirm before writing the rationale.
