A filing record must show attorney review without confusing source access with legal judgment.
Lawyers need evidence that citations were checked, while the record must not imply that generated text was approved automatically.
Who you’d be doing this for
“The partner asked which cases I checked, and I had to dig through comments and tabs to answer.”
Signe Laine · Litigation Associate
Prepares court filings from AI-assisted research and must show the supervising partner what was personally verified.
What is at stake
Filing lawyers cannot reliably show which authorities they personally checked after a draft changes. You have to weigh a fast Word workflow against an audit trail that does not overclaim legal approval.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- fast drafting flow vs defensible review evidence
- Word-native simplicity vs source-level traceability
- attorney judgment vs automated records
- cross-platform support vs richer document anchoring
Why Harvey
Harvey in Word places citation-grounded drafting inside the document where filing lawyers must verify every authority.
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.