Public-sector research needs a usable boundary without turning every matter into a policy exception.
Supervising counsel need discretion over sensitive work while procurement needs a clear answer it can rely on.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My lawyers need a straight answer before they put this near a live matter, not another caveat buried in a questionnaire.”
Katarzyna Nikolic · Supervising Attorney
Oversees attorneys evaluating whether citation-grounded research can be used on sensitive government matters.
What is at stake
Government legal departments are receiving conflicting answers about which sensitive research uses need extra review. You must weigh a usable pilot path against clear attorney accountability and defensible limits.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- public-sector access vs. sensitive-matter boundaries
- fast security answers vs. durable policy commitments
- supervising counsel discretion vs. consistent guidance
- technical controls vs. attorney accountability
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded research for government legal departments depends on trust that sensitive legal work has defined review boundaries.
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.