Standardize client restrictions across drafting exports
Confidentiality expectations often weaken when work moves between legal tools.
Matter-specific instructions need to remain usable without making every document flow exceptional.
“Our instructions aren’t decorative. If they disappear in a draft, someone has to catch it late.”
Naveen Mehta · Deputy General Counsel
Oversees outside-counsel collaboration on confidential transaction and investigation matters.
What pulls against what
- client specificity vs. standardized controls
- confidentiality continuity vs. drafting speed
- visible cues vs. alert fatigue
- surface consistency vs. local workflow constraints
What is at stake
Restriction cues that disappear between surfaces create confidentiality risk precisely when legal teams begin sharing work. A consistent policy can reduce exceptions without freezing collaboration
Why Harvey
At Harvey, legal work often spans connected surfaces where handling context needs to remain legible through the workflow.
Written for
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.