The Reddit Debacle – A Response

Someone going by the name of ‘Amazing-Dance9429’ set social media alight this week by posting on Reddit a series of personal attacks on the management of Harvey and making several truly misinformed statements about not just that company, but in effect most of legal tech.

Harvey is packed with very smart people and are growing at a rapid rate globally. Their incredible success speaks for itself. They can and have already defended themselves. What does need to be addressed by AL however are some of the completely wrong assessments of what value legal tech companies bring when founded on LLMs – which, let’s face it, is a large part of the market now.  

The posts and comments that got attention are not so much an attack on one company, but an attack on an entire industry, filled with startups, scaleups and giant companies, CEOs, CTOs, GTM heads, thousands of staff globally, founders, investors, and most importantly of all: tens of thousands of lawyers who use this technology.

Here’s some of the worst ideas shared by the poster – and AL’s responses.

• That a startup created by people with only a short time in the legal world is a ‘bad thing’. This really is daft. Why? Because legal expertise can be hired in (and in many legal tech companies they hire plenty of experienced lawyers – Harvey has many, for example); expertise can be gained from close feedback from customers (which all good legal tech companies do); and if they’re expecting all startups to be created by only senior equity partners (and there are a few) then the legal tech market would be tiny and not achieve what it has.
• That a startup that relies on foundation models to power it, is a bad thing. This is such a total misunderstanding of how legal tech works – or any other vertical. The application layer is indeed super-valuable. Just sticking prompts into ChatGPT is nowhere near the experience you will get from a well-designed legal tech tool. Then add in workflows that have been designed with feedback from lawyers (see point above). Then add in data stores and curated data that may be available. Then add in security layers. Then add in APIs to other legal tech tools. Then add in a great UI/UX. Then add in the team that looks after the clients. Then add in the ability to work with a vendor to customise a solution (which several offer). Then add in the stability you get from working with a vendor that you can actually meet and see, and is not some far away faceless LLM. Then add in the fact that this legal tech company will keep improving and expanding what’s on offer based on what users specifically want. And the fact that most legal tech tools that use AI now rely upon multiple models. How many lawyers want to build their own tools that tap half a dozen models and manage that product on their own….? Very few (some do….but they are a specialist group). Plus, quite simply, there is nothing wrong in relying on a product that fits neatly into how you work so you don’t have to make everything yourself, (anyone use Microsoft Word…?). Does the poster expect every lawyer in the world to build dozens of tools for themselves or just get stuck with using a ‘raw’ LLM?
• Very few people use the tool.….Wow. The reality is that uptake of genAI-based tools has been faster than any other legal tech application in history. Are there plenty of lawyers who are reticent about using these AI tools? Of course. But, we have a very low bar in the legal sector for really making use of productivity tools beyond those provided by the legal data giants, i.e. legal research, which is basically mandatory. That Harvey and peers have had so much impact and got so deep into so many firms (and inhouse teams) so quickly is an incredible change from the status quo. AL is guessing that the poster is fairly young and has not spent a decade watching as startup after startup has tried to make an impact on ‘the means of legal production’ and often not succeeded. This new wave of companies has done a formidable job and totally revitalised a legal tech sector that this site in mid-2022 considered had reached a plateau and was not moving forwards any longer. The new wave of genAI companies breathed new life into legal tech, scored almost immediate buy-in, and completely changed the discourse around what tech can do for lawyers. But, I guess if you have no historical context, then bitching is easy. But, of all the comments, this one really undermines their credibility. They seem to not know much about the legal tech market at all, it would appear.
• And beyond that most of the other comments are just unpleasant personal attacks, or statistical claims that are not backed up with any evidence.

Overall, what is this? It’s an anonymous person, who ‘left’ a legal tech company and said some under-informed things. Why did anyone care? Perhaps it’s only natural that after a period of great enthusiasm (which see above, has been well deserved), there then comes a few moments of reflection and scepticism.

When I started AL in 2016 there were certainly a number of loud sceptics even back then. There are some today. There always will be. But, as AL has said before, they are a necessary part of the ecosystem, even if unpleasant sometimes. They are like fungi in the forest, eating up the deadwood. But, that which is not hype is impervious and grows and continues. It’s all ‘nature’s way’, one might say.

So, overall, an ugly episode, but perhaps inevitable. AL is sure that AI-based legal tech companies will continue to thrive and grow and succeed. Why? Because what they offer is truly compelling and valuable – and such things tend to do well.

—

( And here is the Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaltech/comments/1npna9o/i_worked_at_harvey_and_left_recently_i_think_its/ – read it and make your own judgment.)