Citation review needs measurable workflow evidence without exposing the legal work behind it.
Product needs to see where verification stops, while legal customers need matter content kept out of analytics.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I checked the cases yesterday, and today I’m reopening everything because I can’t tell what changed.”
Wendy Hamilton · Litigation Associate
Uses source-linked research and drafting workflows while preparing filings that require personal citation verification.
What is at stake
Product cannot tell where lawyers abandon citation review without collecting sensitive matter content. You must weigh useful workflow evidence against the confidentiality boundaries enterprise legal teams expect.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- workflow visibility vs. matter confidentiality
- fast dashboard delivery vs. durable event definitions
- product insight vs. legal judgment boundaries
- self-serve reporting vs. governed access
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded drafting depends on showing how lawyers verify authorities while keeping enterprise matter data governed.
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.