As a lawyer with over a decade of experience in BigLaw, in-house, and policy, I’ve had the chance to try out Harvey, the legal AI that’s been making waves in the industry. And let me tell you, I’m underwhelmed. After spending time with the platform, I’ve come to realize that it’s not the revolutionary tool I thought it would be.
First of all, the CEO of Harvey has only a year of experience at Paul Weiss, which is hardly enough to understand the intricacies of legal work. And the tech co-founder, while having a good AI background, lacks legal experience. It’s like trying to build a car without knowing how to drive.
The UI is thin and overpriced, with features that can be replicated by using GPT and other existing tools. The fine-tuning stunt they pulled off was a flop, and the pricing is exorbitant – around $1k/seat/month plus onboarding costs and minimum seats. It’s no wonder my firm is considering an exit.
But what’s even more disturbing is the hype surrounding Harvey. It’s like a well-orchestrated PR campaign, with VCs, consultants, and ‘thought leaders’ chanting ‘Harvey = revolution’ without ever having used the product. It’s a classic case of Silicon Valley bubble, where hype trumps substance.
Real lawyers aren’t impressed, either. I’ve spoken to partners at large firms who regret their Harvey contracts and associates who only use it because they can’t use GPT due to firm policy. The demos are forced, and the product doesn’t mirror real practice.
In my opinion, Harvey is a bubble that needs to burst. AI will reshape the legal profession, but it needs to be built by people who have lived through the hell of practice, not just parsing PDFs.