Correspondence controls become harder when legal meaning sits inside ordinary drafting conventions.
Teams often weigh a smooth drafting experience against the need to preserve language that changes legal position or recordkeeping duties.
Who you’d be doing this for
“A clean rewrite is useless if it quietly changes what we’ve reserved on the deal.”
Bilal Khoury · Deputy General Counsel, Commercial
Reviews high-volume deal correspondence and depends on reliable reservations and legal-position language in external emails.
What is at stake
In testing, 11 of the 60 rewrites dropped or reworded legal-advice disclaimers and negotiation reservations. The launch date is fixed, so you decide now what gets preserved, flagged, or sent for review.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- rollout commitment vs. legal-position preservation
- smooth drafting vs. required review
- machine-generated findings vs. lawyer-verified evidence
- broad warnings vs. precise controls
- record integrity vs. minimal retention
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this may matter where legal drafting is embedded in established work environments and final attorney judgment remains essential.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 17 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.