Harvey released a Motion to Dismiss workflow built with LexisNexis. A planning agent reads the uploaded complaint and proposes up to eight grounds for dismissal rated by strength, the lawyer approves or edits the plan, and parallel agents research each ground in LexisNexis by jurisdiction, producing a memo of three to five cases validated through Shepard's. The draft motion includes tables of contents and authorities and follows the forum, such as Rule 12(b)(6) in federal court, a California demurrer or a New York CPLR 3211 motion.
H
Harvey
Harvey is an AI platform for legal and professional work, sold to large and mid sized law firms, in house legal departments and professional services firms. Agents plan multistep tasks, show the plan for approval, run in parallel or on a schedule and return cited output. Vault holds up to 100,000 documents per vault for tabular review and reports. Knowledge answers research questions from more than 500 legal sources, including LexisNexis content through Ask LexisNexis.
Spaces gives firms and their clients a shared, governed workspace, and Contract Intelligence reviews incoming contracts against playbooks. Intake routes requests from email, Slack, Jira and ServiceNow to an approved agent or a lawyer. Command Center reports adoption with peer benchmarks, Memory keeps each user's preferences, and Horizon Scanning tracks regulatory change. More than 200,000 lawyers at over 3,500 organizations in more than 85 countries use the platform.
Harvey, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
- CHarvey vs CoCounsel LegalGeneral Legal Assistants
- EHarvey vs EudiaGeneral Legal Assistants
- GHarvey vs GC AIGeneral Legal Assistants
- HHarvey vs HAQQGeneral Legal Assistants
- LHarvey vs LegoraGeneral Legal Assistants
- LHarvey vs LiteraGeneral Legal Assistants
- LHarvey vs LucioGeneral Legal Assistants
- MHarvey vs MagnarGeneral Legal Assistants
- NHarvey vs NexLawGeneral Legal Assistants
- PHarvey vs ParachuteGeneral Legal Assistants
- QHarvey vs QanooniGeneral Legal Assistants
- SHarvey vs SagaGeneral Legal Assistants
Alternatives to Harvey
Vendors in the same categories as Harvey whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- AAugustAugust is a legal AI workspace for law firms.
- LLegoraLegora is an agentic operating system for law firms and in house legal teams, built so lawyers, agents and clients work in one place.
- GGC AIGC AI is an AI platform for in house legal teams, made by General Counsel AI, Inc. in San Francisco.
- MMagnarMagnar is a legal AI agent for lawyers in Latin America, built by Magnar SpA in Santiago, Chile.
- PParachuteParachute is a legal AI workspace for small and mid sized law firms from Veraty Tech Pty Ltd in Sydney, sold in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
- RRuliRuli is an AI legal platform from Ruli, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for in house legal teams.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Which AI model does Harvey use?
Harvey publishes its model supply chain as a set of providers. Its subprocessor list names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Cloud, AWS and Microsoft among the model and infrastructure providers behind the product, and its security documentation shows model access running through Amazon Bedrock and Google Vertex AI, with zero data retention and ephemeral processing at the model providers.
The AI Legal Index grades Harvey B on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, verified 29 August 2026 from Harvey's own published materials. The record notes one gap: no published commitment to notify customers before that supply chain changes, as distinct from an FAQ describing a change that has already happened.
The architecture on top of those models is moving. On 2 September 2026 Harvey rebuilt Playbook Review as a multi agent system, and its 9 September Memory release states that individual memories are never used to train models. Both are dated and sourced in the Harvey changelog.
Harvey changelog · Which legal AI vendors disclose their models
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Agents, Vault review tables, Knowledge research, Contract Intelligence review, Intake triage and Horizon Scanning all produce their output with language models. No document management or workflow system sits underneath that a firm would buy on its own. Vault stores matter documents, and its purpose is extraction, comparison and reporting across them.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
In the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, a third party benchmark set against a lawyer baseline, Harvey Assistant was tested on six tasks. Its results ranged from 65.0 to 94.8 percent, and it beat the lawyer baseline on five. Document question answering reached 94.8 percent, 24.7 points above the baseline, with responses under a minute. Answers on scanned and badly formatted court transcripts reached 77.8 percent, 24.1 points above it.
That study measured task accuracy rather than citation validity, and Harvey did not enter the later Vals study of citation authority. BigLaw Bench, Harvey's own benchmark, publishes its task categories and judging criteria on a public repository, with hallucination and source results by model. It defines a hallucination as a factual claim that a source of truth can disprove and tracks reasoning errors apart. Harvey reports that its systems hallucinate less often than the foundation models on legal tasks while giving longer answers. Every agent claim links to the source passage behind it, and the full BigLaw Bench dataset is available on request.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Agents show their plan before they run, so a lawyer can adjust the scope and approve the work before Harvey begins. While an agent works, Harvey brings the lawyer back in when a judgment call is needed, logs every step and cites a source for every claim. Intake applies routing rules the legal team defines to send each request to an approved agent, to Contract Intelligence or to a lawyer. Reports and reviews can run on a schedule, and admins govern access through roles and workspace permissions. The point at which an agent stops on its own, and what Harvey commits to when an agent's work is wrong, are not stated.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Customer stories name the firm and give figures. Reed Smith, with about 1,800 lawyers in 34 offices, reports 700 Harvey users a day, 1,400 a month and AI certification for every associate. Repsol's legal division started a pilot in January 2024 with 50 lawyers in 12 jurisdictions and reports cutting the time on one process by more than 90%. CMS reports 95% adoption. Other named customers include A&O Shearman, Gleiss Lutz, Cuatrecasas, Macfarlanes, KKR, PwC and Deutsche Telekom.
The figures are usage counts and time savings as each customer reports them, with no stated method for how they were measured.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Neither Harvey nor its subprocessors may train any AI model on customer content or data, and model providers work under zero data retention. A firm can ask for a bespoke model trained on its own data and used only for that firm. Harvey syncs and enforces the firm's existing ethical wall policies and never creates, modifies or deletes walls, so the walls provider stays the system of record. Workspaces are logically separated, access follows roles, and data is deleted within 30 days of termination.
If the law or a court compels disclosure, Harvey gives advance written notice where it is legally permitted. Attorney client privilege and work product are not addressed as such.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Output is not legal advice and may contain errors, misstatements or gaps, and the Platform Agreement calls the service a research tool. Harvey sells to lawyers, legal departments and professional services firms, and its agent pages leave the judgment on every task with the lawyer. Access credentials belong to one named user and may not be shared. Nothing addresses competence and supervision duties under professional rules, or the jurisdictions where the product may be used.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification covers Harvey's AI management system, and the Statement of Applicability published with it sets out the controls in scope. Its AIUC-1 certification, an AI security and safety standard, was conducted by Schellman and, in Harvey's account, validates its adversarial testing and AI security program. The trust center adds IRAP attestation, an EU AI Act item and AI Governance, AI Monitoring and AI Overview documents, with an AI Acceptable Use Policy among its policies.
An AI Policy dated 26 December 2025 commits to testing the accuracy, reliability and suitability of the AI in the service and to change management for continuing legal compliance. No accountable owner is named, and nothing is published about uneven output across matter types or populations.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Customers choose what to upload, set their own retention policies and can delete data at any time. Within 30 days of termination, Harvey deletes remaining customer data and content unless told otherwise, and the DPA extends return or deletion to every subprocessor. Access runs on role based controls, logical workspace separation, SAML SSO, audit logs and IP allow listing. The Subprocessor List, updated 21 September 2026, names each provider with its purpose and location, and subscribers receive at least 30 days' notice of an addition with a right to object.
Under the Security Addendum, Harvey notifies the customer of a security incident without undue delay and within 48 hours. It then reports the incident's nature, the investigation and the mitigation, and keeps relevant logs for at least a year.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The Platform Agreement, last updated 9 January 2026, sets out what Harvey stands behind. Section 8 indemnifies the customer against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property. If a claim arises, Harvey may substitute the service, secure a license to continue, or terminate and refund prepaid fees. The indemnity excludes materials Harvey did not provide and output from input the customer knew was likely to infringe.
Harvey warrants that the service conforms to its documentation, is delivered in a professional manner and complies with applicable law. It also commits to carry industry standard insurance with insurers rated A- or better by A.M. Best. Total liability is capped at the greater of 12 months of fees or $250,000. Payment, indemnity and claims the law will not let a contract limit, such as gross negligence, sit outside that cap.
Data breach and confidentiality claims carry a separate cap of twice 12 months of fees or $500,000. After a security incident, the Security Addendum commits Harvey to an independent forensic investigation at its own cost. The agreement states that output is AI generated and may contain errors.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Word, Outlook, Teams and SharePoint all run Harvey inside them, and Vault syncs documents from iManage, SharePoint and Google Drive. The iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration with an embedded web extension, and NetDocuments access follows the firm's existing permissions. Intake takes requests from email, Jira, Slack, ServiceNow, iManage, Google Drive and SharePoint and sends updates back to the source channel.
Command Center syncs employee profiles through SCIM. Aderant and Ansarada integrations are documented in the trust center, and customers can build their own integrations, including through an MCP connector library. LexisNexis content reaches research through Ask LexisNexis.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Microsoft Azure hosts Harvey's cloud environment, with each customer's data logically separated and access set by role. Customers can keep data in region in the EU or Switzerland, the United States or Australia. Customers with localization needs can also have processing in the EU and Switzerland or in Australia, and that commitment extends to Harvey's subprocessors. The Subprocessor List gives each model provider's processing locations.
Where Anthropic or Mistral models are not offered in a chosen region, Harvey reaches them through hosting platforms such as AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex. What changes between plans or tiers is not stated.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Schellman audits Harvey for SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 every year, and the 2026 audit and certification renewal are complete. The trust center also lists ISO 27701, ISO/IEC 42001, AIUC-1, IRAP, TX-RAMP, GDPR, CCPA and an EU AI Act item. It publishes Statements of Applicability for ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001. Schellman, NCC Group and Bishop Fox perform external audits, and third party penetration tests run every year.
Reports, the CAIQ v4.0.3, SIG Core and SIG Lite questionnaires and the data flow and network diagrams are released through a self serve access request, with bulk download.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The Subprocessor List names ten AI providers with their processing locations, among them Microsoft, OpenAI, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, Anthropic and Mistral. ElevenLabs supplies voice services, DeepL machine translation, and Baseten and Fireworks.ai further model hosting. Claude and Gemini models run through Amazon Bedrock and Google Vertex AI, as Harvey's subprocessor FAQ explains. Model providers work under zero data retention, with no human review and no training on customer data.
Under the DPA, customers who subscribe to the list receive notice at least 30 days before a new subprocessor is added and may object. Which model serves which feature is not stated.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Fees are set in each customer's order form and invoiced under the Platform Agreement. If an order form is terminated early under the agreement, Harvey refunds a pro rata share of prepaid unused fees. Undisputed late amounts carry a finance charge at the Federal Funds Rate plus 1.5% a year. No rate, plan, tier or unit of charge appears on Harvey's site, and buying starts with a contact sales form.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Large law firms, mid sized firms, in house legal departments and professional services firms are the stated buyers. Industry pages cover healthcare and life sciences, technology, energy and utilities, and media, entertainment and telecom. More than 200,000 lawyers at over 3,500 organizations in more than 85 countries use Harvey, including 80% of Am Law 100 firms and five of the Fortune 10. Solutions pages address litigation, transactional work and innovation teams, and research spans legal, regulatory and tax questions across jurisdictions. Firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for are not stated.
9 public documents
The public pages on file for Harvey, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
harvey.ai/legal/platform-agreement3 signals
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
harvey.ai/security2 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Court Disclosure Support
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Aug 29, 2026
-
trust.harvey.ai1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
harvey.ai1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
harvey.ai/platform/knowledge1 signal
Good Law Verification
Read Oct 13, 2026
Tracked changes at Harvey
Harvey's release notes list Agentic Search for DMS covering SharePoint, OneDrive and Google Drive. Harvey can now search a user's connected content in those repositories directly and find the relevant documents without the user first locating and selecting files. It extends the agentic iManage Search released on 2 Sep to Microsoft and Google document stores.
Harvey says its agent can now search the US Case Law source by publication status, date filed, court, citing references and cited by references, and can review Bluebook citations and isolate specific reporter page breaks. Harvey extracts citing and treatment relationships across the corpus so the agent follows citations between opinions before answering with inline citations. Runtime precedential treatment warnings and full brief cite checking are described as upcoming work, not shipped.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
Under the Platform Agreement, Harvey will not train any AI model on customer content or customer data, and its subprocessors will not either. The term covers both uploaded documents, which Harvey calls customer data, and the prompts and answers it calls customer content. A firm that asks for it can have a bespoke model trained on its own data and used only for that firm. Harvey may use usage data, such as feature and session statistics, to develop and improve the service, and usage data excludes customer data and content.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
Customers decide what to upload, how long it is kept and whether it can be shared inside the organization, and they can delete data at any time. No default retention period is published. Model providers work under zero data retention, and subprocessors other than cloud storage providers may not retain or log content for human review. After termination, Harvey deletes remaining customer data and content within 30 days unless the customer instructs otherwise.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Retrieval enforces the source system access model at query time, per user, and the vendor documents it.
NetDocuments permissions carry through, so a user sees only the cabinets, matters, folders and files they can already open, and Harvey does not change those permissions. The iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration that respects iManage permissions and ethical walls. Harvey also syncs the firm's own ethical walls provider and blocks walled users from reaching or sharing restricted content.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
If law or a court order compels Harvey to disclose a customer's confidential information, the Platform Agreement commits it to advance written notice where legally permitted and to help seek confidential treatment. The DPA makes the same commitment for law enforcement requests for personal data. Where the law forbids notice, Harvey seeks a waiver and tells the customer once the prohibition ends. Its Law Enforcement Requests policy sends agencies to the customer first, challenges requests its lawyers consider unlawful and answers foreign requests only through channels such as a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
Knowledge connects questions to legal databases, curated public sources and Harvey's data partners, more than 500 legal sources across jurisdictions. The Subprocessor List names RELX, doing business as LexisNexis, for Ask LexisNexis, and Parallel Web Systems and you.com for web browsing and knowledge sources. Harvey's AI Policy commits it to obtaining the rights and licenses its data sets require. No source list by jurisdiction, license basis per source or update schedule is published.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Knowledge answers from more than 500 legal sources and draws LexisNexis content through Ask LexisNexis. Harvey does not describe a treatment signal or a later history check on the authorities it returns.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
BigLaw Bench publishes hallucination rates and explains how Harvey defines and detects hallucinated claims, and agents cite a source for every claim. No setting or behavior is described for declining to answer when Harvey cannot ground a response.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database, maintained by Damien Charlotin, records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and names the tool involved where known. It lists one matter naming Harvey, Hill v. Foundation Media LLC (S.D.N.Y., No. 25-cv-5947). On 22 September 2026 the court directed defense counsel to say whether AI was used on a brief with two questioned quotations and a citation, and a week later it took no further action.
Harvey is named only in counsel's own letter to the court, which says the brief was prepared with Harvey. No order makes any finding about Harvey or its output. A Galicia High Court order of 7 July 2026 lists Harvey AI among verified legal AI tools while setting a €1,800 fine, again with no finding about the product. Harvey's agreement states that output is AI generated and may contain errors.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Harvey's terms call the service a research tool whose output is not legal advice, and the agent pages leave the judgment on each task with the lawyer. No named ethics opinion appears, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512 or a state bar opinion.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
ROI calculators for law firms and in house teams sit on Harvey's site, and customer stories report time saved, such as Repsol's. Command Center reports adoption by user, practice group and role. Nothing records AI assisted work per matter for billing, or addresses how a firm bills for that work or discloses it to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
The trust center offers a Data Processing Addendum, a Business Associate Addendum and a Data Subject Requests item. It adds the CAIQ v4.0.3, SIG Core and SIG Lite questionnaires, data flow and network diagrams, a HIPAA report and a Security Welcome Packet. Sensitive items are released through a self serve request with bulk download. Statements of Applicability for ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001 show what each certification covers.
The public Subprocessor List names every provider with its purpose and location, and subscribers hear of additions 30 days ahead.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Audit logs are a standard enterprise control, agents log every step, and every claim links to the source passage behind it. Command Center reports usage by user and feature. No export brings together the model used, the sources retrieved and the human review for one document.