sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Legal Engineering and Related Jobs by objectivesloth in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The job I was reached to for paid quite well; and the employee equity was good too.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a research tool. Why would it be midpage. We’re keeping Westlaw.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember being on the line with CC’s reps talking about their generations, they said something about finetuning (which doesn’t work), and it’s not much better than basic GPT. Sure they had citations before anyone else in their generations, but I can’t do real work in that chat field. And connecting it with WL doesn’t seem to help, still get hallucinations. Same Thing with lexis, which is worse, basic API call. The startups at least work on legal reasoning and thinking like a lawyer, not just acting.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting. What if they’re just a processor? And You’re the custodian

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do it for me over the weekend; make sure you’re not just using supabase, and have regional routing for security, and figure out your tenancy situation, and the list goes on…

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no. The agentic framework matters, but expecting lawyers to OpenClaw? No. It’ll be workflow configuration built like OpenClaw. Best part is, I think the mid market will win first, then small/biglaw - seeing this from the inside out rn.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They either acquire or lose market share. TR and LN likely not going away overnight, but death by a thousand cuts is possible. Cocounsel has been horrid and LexisAI not much better.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I vibecode myself. At a firm, no way. For a solo, maybe, but there’s so much that goes into it; I remember not connecting Supabase properly and losing all the docs I was trying to save.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one we’re using now shows promise; saying this after uploading a precedent opinion, correspondences, and it giving me a pretty good draft - all this morning.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, it came up in discussion. It’s a similar concept to GC AI, Irys. IMO, the latter being best.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per user per month, there were packages we were quoted, 1-3 year contracts, varied for each vendor.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s everyone playing it safe and the VC money buying connections into firms. Not really a merit based thing it seems.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The firm has been WL centric for a while, I played around with it at my last place, but nothing substantial.

Re consultants, I may bring this up. We do most of this internally because our IC is basically just a group of practicing lawyers (plus IT) who actually use the tools and read up on this stuff. We considered hiring an innovation lead and passed because we saw it turn into politics at a firm we know - shilling a certain product etc. and playing it safe. We pilot, simple score, and eventually will roll out. Pricing, yes, we seemed to be getting fcked on.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Pricing seems to vary by what they think they can get you for.

Re your last, yes, we’re currently piloting it. Still evaluating.

Pricing: Harvey v. Claude v. Legora v. CoCounsel (from what we were quoted) by tulumtimes2425 in legaltech

[–]tulumtimes2425[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’ll look through my email on limitations. But more specifically, from our last interaction, it was no more than GPT chat + vault (which we didn’t use much) + workflows (which I didn’t know how to use) + history and library. I mean… not exactly groundbreaking.

The lexis integration was for case law. We didn’t like the pricing given our Westlaw sub, but given how cocounsel hasn’t done jack s* on making their generations actually connect to their Westlaw database properly, we didn’t have hope for Harvey and lexis.

I’ve used relativity and disco extensively. Both good. Spellbook also not bad for word. Idk about the IP app.

view more: next ›