| ▲ | theturtletalks a day ago |
| These law firms all using Harvey don’t know that they are giving Harvey everything they need to integrate vertically and become the Amazon for law. Then you are at their whim for every client. Also, AI doesn’t give you an edge if everyone is using the same cookie cutter solution. |
|
| ▲ | bix6 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| We use Carta for work and that is my fear with them. |
| |
| ▲ | superfrank a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I know at least 3 people who’ve worked there. Your fears are correct | | |
| ▲ | bix6 a day ago | parent [-] | | What is their plan? They exited secondaries in 2024 after blowback from using everyone’s data. But I could see them trying again soon. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | And… what’s the lawyer for if the software can solve the issue? | | |
| ▲ | eptcyka 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Same as with programmers, you hire someone to be responsible, not to produce code or legal arguments. | |
| ▲ | jagged-chisel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You need someone willing to defend your argument in court. Someone who knows the process. Someone who knows the particular attitudes of the audience being addressed (judge, jury.) That’s what the lawyer is for. Most simple things, especially where the law and your case are clear, can be handled by someone without a lawyer. It’s the other stuff where you need the lawyer. | | |
| ▲ | theF00l 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Many Big Law firms do mostly transactions (eg M&A, restructuring, tax magic etc). Big part there is relationship management and knowing the system. Not sure how many lawyers they will need there, one partner + one associate + AI will be able to do much more. | |
| ▲ | nicce 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is kinda unique to the US were presentation, performance and using emotions matter a lot, instead of cold, neutral logic and arguments. | | |
| ▲ | thunderfork 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | One thing I think a lot of programmer-types fail to understand about law is that "rationality" and so on as we believe we understand it doesn't really exist. One of the most irrational human beliefs is in the existence of the rational human. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | lordnacho 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The issue isn't solved by the software, all the software does is to find the relevant information and present it in some form. You still need a lawyer to judge what to find, and what the likely response of the judicial system will be. | |
| ▲ | freejazz 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The software doesn't solve the issue, they sell services to lawyers. They don't sell legal services to the public. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | freejazz 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is no secret sauce in what is known the ex-big law attorneys they already hire. It's the same thing known by Harvey's customers. And it's always been the case that any of Big Law clients can go anywhere cheaper. Especially as the price goes up each year. |
|
| ▲ | tiahura a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.harvey.ai/legal/harvey-privacy-center Does Harvey train AI models on Customer Data and Content We understand and appreciate that Customers trust Harvey with highly confidential information. Harvey does not use Customer Data or Content to train AI models, or to improve our products and services. We also do not access Customer Data or Content except (i) to provide or support the Harvey Service or (ii) to comply with the law or a binding order of a governmental body. |
| |
| ▲ | nunez a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > What is Customer Data and Content? > Harvey defines Customer Data as documents uploaded to the Service by Harvey Customers. Content includes both the queries Customers input to the Service and the corresponding outputs from Harvey. In most cases, we talk about these terms together, as Customer Data and Content. Doesn't include thinking/reasoning blocks though. Nonetheless, I'd imagine that Amazon'ing law is unlikely given how much experience lawyers have with drafting contracts, but who knows. | | |
| ▲ | caminante a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you! I suspected it wasn't as broad. I wonder how much value you can get from just the middle layer and maybe reverse engineer the input/outputs based on success/failure from user interactions. | |
| ▲ | 306bobby 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Couldn't reasoning tokens be considered "output", since it doesn't specifically say user facing output? |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... at this time. Also if you give your lawyer a document, that's privileged. If you upload it to Harvey, who knows? | | |
| ▲ | stackskipton a day ago | parent [-] | | It would be considered privileged if your lawyer told you to and you had no reason to doubt it wouldn’t be. Your lawyer would be negligent if they didn’t have a contract with Harvey. Just like emailing your lawyer on Office365 doesn’t get rid of client attorney either. | | |
| ▲ | whatthejesus a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah but it’s the data breaches that’s worrying right? They obviously store people’s data. They’ll get breached eventually they all do. | | |
| ▲ | stackskipton a day ago | parent [-] | | Even during a data breach, leaked legal data can’t be used against you in most situations. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | alansaber a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is funny, but the amlaw100 law firms signing up to enterprise saas have probably thought about their data protection terms, edit: equally, this is the game, and Harvey will undoubtedly be trying to maximise their metadata/data capture. |
| |
| ▲ | DrewADesign a day ago | parent [-] | | > have probably thought about their data protection terms Maybe. In my experience working with legal tech, a) lawyers are not as resistant to the ToS click through reflex as you might think, b) data privacy is often 1 step too abstract for people without subject matter expertise to usefully reason about, so marketing phrases like “enterprise-grade encryption” or whatever are more influential than one would hope, and c) these things are often considered more technical problems than legal problems, so reliability, data preservation and lack of downtime during migration, server-level security, and more traditional concerns like that likely take center stage. I have no idea if that’s what normally happens here, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all. > equally, this is the game, and Harvey will undoubtedly be trying to maximise their metadata/data capture. Yeah, and even though these firms could probably tear any given startup to shreds in court, Harvey is probably pretty happy to make that “tomorrow me’s problem,” as most American tech startups are right now. |
|
|
| ▲ | MisterMunchkin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just like how openAI and Anthropic have suddenly started consulting firms, right after obtaining everyone’s IP and secret documents. |
| |
| ▲ | whattheheckheck a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Its the eb and flow of knowledge and the search for useful information with energy constraints. Decentralized until technology catches up to scoop it all back up to a tower of Babel and then it collapses and the chaff gets discarded, and it goes back to decentralized with more efficient artifacts to do the next cycle | |
| ▲ | tyrabound a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | gadders a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well at least you have Legora as well. |
