Verified research changes the economics of a matter before it changes a firm's pricing story.
Clients want a visible return from AI-assisted work, while firms must protect attorney judgment and their existing economics.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My CFO asked why the invoice went up when the firm says AI is doing more of the first pass.”
Hillevi Holmberg · Deputy General Counsel
She manages outside-counsel spend for a corporate legal department considering whether AI claims should change how it buys research work.
What is at stake
Clients are challenging AI-related fee increases while firms cannot show a reviewable service outcome. You must weigh a credible client value test against attorney verification and commercial exposure.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- client fee scrutiny vs firm economics
- visible value vs attorney judgment
- repeatable model vs bespoke client terms
- adoption activity vs accepted legal outcomes
Why Harvey
Citation-grounded research gives firms a concrete unit of legal work to test with documented attorney verification.
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.