The evaluation must make verification work visible without turning it into another procurement burden.
Legal operations leaders need evidence for a constrained budget, while legal reviewers need claims that do not overstate what citation grounding proves.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My GC asked what we’d stop paying for, and I had nothing solid to put in the deck.”
Markus Moreau · Director of Legal Operations
Runs technology evaluation and budget justification for an enterprise corporate legal department.
What is at stake
Legal operations leaders are declining AI evaluations because citation verification still looks like added work without a new budget. You have to weigh a sharper commercial narrative against claims that legal buyers can actually defend.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- budget pressure vs. evaluation depth
- commercial urgency vs. claim credibility
- account focus vs. repeatable learning
- citation grounding vs. unverifiable savings claims
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded research and drafting reaches enterprise legal buyers who must justify AI spend while retaining attorney verification of final work product.
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.