Research platform268 voices on recordlatest Oct 15, 2026106 like · 59 mixed · 91 dislike
Last signal: Oct 15, 2026, a voice. newest voice Oct 15, 2026; newest release on record Oct 14, 2025; newest official statement read Nov 15, 2023. No vendor price is published here.
The most named complaint is accuracy (112 of 268 voices); the most valued thing is time saved (61). The band crosses zero: the record does not say yet whether lawyers lean for or against it. 2 voices come from Hacker News, 255 from Reddit and 11 from Bluesky, Mastodon, Lemmy and Stack Exchange.
What they’re saying · verbatim, newest first
r/biglaw
“I use co counsel for litigation and i find it is much more accurate for litigation research than claude, chatgpt, or gemini.”
r/biglaw · Oct 19, 2026CriticizesLegal SaaS platforms like Harvey and Legora are just wrappers around LLMs, and the author's firm built its own in-house platform and sees their valuations as unjustified. (summary, not a quote)open
r/biglaw · Oct 18, 2026HarveyValues“Boomer here, but I think Harvey is incredible.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 18, 2026HarveyValues“When you know what you are doing and what you want, Harvey is great IMO.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 17, 2026CoCounselNeutral“CoCounsel allows you to build workflows and combine with other sources too, though.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 17, 2026HarveyValues“The US caselaw search is better because you can combine it with other sources so you can have it look through a set of litigation documents and run caselaw research to help figure out their significance at the same time.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 17, 2026ClaudeValues“To be very clear, in my experience having these systems finely tuned to your individual work vs the level of tuning you can get out of harvey/cocounsel/co-pilot can represent 2-3x productivity increases.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 17, 2026HarveyValues“Harvey vault is amazing for working with discovery productions.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026HarveyNeutral“Harvey also has a US Caselaw database where whichever model you pick will directly search for cases in the database.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026CriticizesSays lawyers will not use raw coding or chat tools and need a wrapper around the model to make it usable. (summary, not a quote)open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026HarveyNeutral“Harvey can be used with Astra 6 or Fable, your firm just has to agree to API pricing.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026HarveyNeutral“Harvey uses the Chat GPT and Claude models and you can actually pick which model.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026ChatGPTValues“What pisses me off is that our clients ARE using Claude and ChatGPT themselves and we’re stuck using these inferior models.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026HarveyNeutral“Alls I know is that I can’t keep track of all the platforms so I stick to my mans Harvey even though the other mans might be better.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 16, 2026HarveyNeutral“You do realize that Harvey was literally just an interface to access Claude since day 1.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Harvey and Legora are inferior products, by magnitudes, and any firm that exclusively relies on these tools is falling behind in productivity and associate satisfaction.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026ClaudeValues“If you are using Fable and you give it enough project data, it can function like your associate on that case who has a mastery of facts and super fast turnaround.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Harvey sucks because it's just an API built on top of open-source AI models, which are way behind the models currently available through openAI or Claude.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizesYounger lawyers who grew up with general AI tools would be disadvantaged by using Harvey, while older lawyers can be forgiven for adopting it. (summary, not a quote)open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“This is basically a fine tuned version of the Kimi K3 model which they claim is better but is clearly worse”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyNeutral“Harvey does have its own propriety model. And yes, if you select a specific model, only the output is generated by that model, not all of the intervening tasks.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyNeutral“There is no “Harvey” model. Harvey just picks one of the models based on your prompt.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyMixed“I like to think of Harvey as an energetic junior, does their best, a fine starting point, but doesn’t produce a product I’d be willing to send a client without a deeeep review”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyValues“Harvey's been killing it for me on the transaction side with the rote drafting and title work.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026CoCounselValues“I’ve been really impressed and don’t see how a tool could be much better”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026CoCounselValues“I’ve been really impressed and don’t see how a tool could be much better”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyValues“I use Harvey daily and think it’s a fantastic product (as long as you use it to supplement, not replace your work product)”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026CoCounselValues“I use co counsel for litigation and i find it is much more accurate for litigation research than claude, chatgpt, or gemini.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Even when I add docs to a vault and ask for a review table, getting Harvey to actually “read” the docs is like pulling teeth.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026ClaudeValues“Claude code with a syfert.com MCP (or a courtlistener MCP, or ding duff) is 500% better than Harvey and Legora.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyMixed“It’s usually right but the times it isn’t it’s REALLY wrong.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“I also do not think I’m getting real Opus 5 when I select it in Harvey. And it’s hella slow.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Harvey profits by arbitrating token costs, so they use the cheapest models they think can get away with for the bulk of response.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“They came out years later than Harvey, when firms already adopted Harvey, but yeah, firms should abandon Harveyw”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026CoCounselValues“My firm has Harvey and CoCounsel, and I just use CC bc it has access to Westlaw.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“It routinely gives me genuinely “lazy” answers that fail to address what are obviously critical aspects of the issue, in a way that is not true of Fable or Astra”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“The only reason firms choose Harvey is it doesn’t use our data to train its AI due to confidentiality, or else they are trash”open
r/biglaw · Oct 15, 2026HarveyCriticizes“All other tasks, such as the actual research, review, etc, are handled by whatever model Harvey wants, including their own shitty “proprietary” models.”open
r/LawFirm
“These companies move too slowly and, since they are subscription based, they have an incentive to use cheap (aka bad) AI models to save on costs.”
in “Why does my mid-sized firm continuously shove our “AI tools” down my throat?” · 4 voices
r/LawFirm · Oct 15, 2026ClaudeMixed“I've found that Haiku and Sonnet do not do as good a job and correcting errors that result from them makes me waste time.”open
r/LawFirm · Oct 13, 2026ChatGPTValues“There are some other minor details but that research workflow has proven to be exponentially better than I could ever do and still significantly better than lexis or westlaw AI were ever able to do for me.”open
r/LawFirm · Oct 13, 2026CoCounselMixed“Westlaw's CoCounsel will get you in the right zip code but its descriptions of the cases it finds for me are often still incorrect and need to be verified personally.”open
r/biglaw
“It produces some great work product if you don't mind that how confidently wrong it is 50% of the time.”
in “AT&T is cutting its spending on law firms. AI is a big reason why.” · 6 voices
r/biglaw · Oct 11, 2026CoCounselCriticizes“It’s CoCounsel that is downright alarming to me with how much it hallucinates.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 10, 2026ClaudeValues“I’ve seen the numbers and the AI tooling has paid for itself many times over vs legacy legal spend.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 9, 2026ClaudeValuesAs in-house counsel, finds that tailoring projects in Claude has removed most need to send business-specific legal work to large outside firms, whose results were weaker. (summary, not a quote)open
r/biglaw · Oct 9, 2026ClaudeValues“Claude is better than a junior associate at all non-human interaction legal tasks now.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 9, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Hard to see how that is really worth the cost savings of just having us do it right form the start.”open
Bl
Bluesky · bsky.app
“Re: ethics, Westlaw for better or worse owns more high-quality legal information than just about any publisher on the planet. So compared to a lot of tech companies, they don't need to steal work to train their AI.”
“Stuff I would give a 1-3 year associate and expect them to spend 6-8 hours on, I give to westlaw and it gives me a better work product than an associate would in 10 minutes.”
in “How good is harvey / legora for research heavy tasks?” · 7 voices
r/biglaw · Oct 2, 2026ClaudeValues“If you use Claude, running Opus 5.5 or Fable on Extra Effort, it genuinely could replace a lot of attorneys.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 2, 2026CoCounselMixed“Westlaw CoCounsel is really good when there’s a clear answer to a question.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 2, 2026HarveyMixed“Harvey and WestLaw’s AI (and parallel search) are the most useful imo but like I said that doesn’t mean they are good.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 2, 2026LegoraCriticizes“Legora is great if you want to feel really confident about something (but get it wrong anyways).”open
r/biglaw · Oct 2, 2026HarveyCriticizes“Harvey should *never* be used for research.”open
r/biglaw · Oct 1, 2026HarveyMixed“I say Harvey gets the first 20% of the work done.”open
r/Lawyertalk
“I find it gives you a good jumping off point to then go keycite forward and follow citations backward.”
in “Is AI still awful for research or am I doing something wrong?”
“Using Westlaw AI (for research) and Claude (for organization and drafting) a fair amount both in my schoolwork and my current law clerkship job and I have to admit…they’re smart (as far as I can tell).”
r/legaltech · Sep 18, 2026HarveyCriticizes“The benchmarks are unfortunately rigged, where GPT models are put in low thinking mode with the results, so that TR & Harvey's proprietary LLMs look better.”open
r/legaltech
“It uses Cocounsel, but has more options.”
in “Had a chance to try Westlaw Advantage. It sucks.” · 8 voices
r/legaltech · May 19, 2026ClaudeValues“Definitely cost effective up to a point compared, say, to a minimum 5-seat Claude Teams plan or GC.ai.”open
r/legaltech · May 19, 2026Westlaw AICriticizes“The lack of factual nuance is a dealbreaker for actual legal work.”open
r/legaltech · May 18, 2026CoCounselCriticizes“Cocounsel has been unusable for any real work since inception; they just have an easy in into the market through westlaw.”open
r/legaltech · May 17, 2026Westlaw AICriticizes“It's absolutely horrible. No nuance to understanding filings.”open
r/legaltech · May 17, 2026ClaudeNeutral“I had Claude write me a Python script that starts from cases that I've downloaded from Westlaw into DOCX format and converts them into TXT format.”open
r/legaltech · May 17, 2026ClaudeNeutral“When I want to add cases, I usually Ctrl-A,Ctrl-C the whole page, save it to txt file, and have Claude parse it into my database.”open
r/legaltech · May 17, 2026Westlaw AIMixed“Westlaw AI is only good for the research AI having access to cases. Co-counsel model is trash imo for the reasons you stated.”open
Hacker News
“What legal professionals actually pay for [...] is to give the AI access to a legal database of case law.”
Hacker News · May 5, 2026ChatGPTValuesPro se litigant ran two years of federal litigation on a $20 ChatGPT plan for research, drafting and discovery, and forced a settlement. (summary, not a quote)open
Hacker News · May 2, 2026ChatGPTCriticizes“With ChatGPT and Claude, the risk is much higher, because you're basically uploading entire documents with potentially privileged material to a third party, as part of your prompt.”open
Hacker News · May 2, 2026HarveyMixed“LLMs are absolutely abysmal at legal research and analysis, and every week we are seeing reports of some lawyer being called out publicly for submitting a brief to a court with hallucinated case citations.”open
Hacker News · May 2, 2026MixedOpen-source legal AI is better and fine for general work, but insufficient for full research without near-complete case law coverage. (summary, not a quote)open
Hacker News · Apr 30, 2026CriticizesLegal professional says generic LLM wrapper is no replacement for Westlaw; cannot rely on it without recourse if wrong. (summary, not a quote)open
Hacker News · Apr 30, 2026ValuesLawyer uses AI extensively but manually reads every cited case and checks on Westlaw it is still good law. (summary, not a quote)open
Every voice on record, one line each
One-line summaries are written by our classifier, not quotes. Follow “open” for the original.
Date
Source
Stance
Task
Summary
Oct 15, 2026
r/biglaw
Values
Legal research
CoCounsel is more accurate for litigation research than general AI models because it relies on Westlaw headnotes, though cases still need checking and linked cases make that easy.
Westlaw's AI research gives better work product in minutes than an associate would in hours, though Harvey drafted better and Legora had its own case law database, and junior hiring will likely shrink.
Westlaw AI search is serviceable for finding cases, but its memo should not be trusted and AI cannot yet write a research memo better than a weak junior; ChatGPT is not worth trying for research.
Argues Thomson Reuters LLM trained on Westlaw data beats general models on legal factuality (0.83 vs 0.65-0.68) and could outcompete Harvey and Legora.
A skeptical experienced attorney tried ChatGPT and Westlaw AI for a legal memo, was shocked at how good both were, and needed only a few edits that her expertise let her make.
The author finds combining a Westlaw search with AI an incredible time saver, reaching the next step of case analysis in 20 minutes instead of 4 or 5 hours.
AI subtly alters quotations even from supplied cases, and a Westlaw cite check is not enough, so an attorney must check each citation against the original source.
The author calls the lower-tier Westlaw AI plain terrible, saying it will not even return statutory text when searching for a statute, and has heard the higher tier is workable but unaffordable for government.
The author finds Westlaw's AI pretty decent at finding caselaw when given a scenario and jurisdiction, but says it sometimes misses issues, returns unhelpful cases, or misses a holding's logic.
The author likes Westlaw AI search as a starting point that handles several related issues and surfaces cases and secondary sources, while insisting its analysis be checked against the cited cases.
A paralegal says Westlaw's sales claims about avoiding hallucinated references are unproven, and its AI sometimes analyzes a citation opposite to its holding.
The author criticizes Indiana for approving a legal research AI tool that, per a Stanford study, fabricated case law and citations over a third of the time.
The firm moved staff from ChatGPT to Westlaw's AI for client information, and the author finds the update good but dislikes the lack of pinpoint citations and the summaries in place of direct quotes, which makes checking every citation slow.
Westlaw's AI helps find hyper-specific cases and persuasive authority, though lawyers should still do their own research; other legal writing tools are no better than general chatbots.
Westlaw AI is a good starting point for nuanced research and has saved the author a lot of time, though it can get things wrong and cites must be confirmed; the author rates it above Harvey and the Lexis tool.
Westlaw AI may misread a case, but it quickly surfaces relevant cases on nuanced issues that once took hours, which the author says less experienced users may not appreciate.
Based on others' reports, says Westlaw's AI lacks factual nuance, so only its case law archive has value and a self-built Claude database is preferable.
The firm pays about $1,152 per attorney for a tailored Westlaw package with deep research and CoCounsel, and finds it affordable and worth keeping for its decision notes.
The author says Westlaw AI does not invent cases but misstates what real cases hold, and sees opposing counsel briefs citing cases that are not on point.
Live search, ideally on Westlaw or Lexis, is useful for supplying citations during hearings, but every case must be read and vetted before citing it to the court.
Attorneys are being sanctioned for relying on Lexis or Westlaw AI, and a study cited in a sanctions decision found a 16% hallucination rate for Westlaw.
A 16% hallucination rate is unacceptable because Westlaw could verify cases against its own database and should give direct links so attorneys can check each authority.
Finds OpenJuris gives slightly better answers than Westlaw most of the time, blaming Westlaw's flawed retrieval process that forces citations to poorly retrieved sources.
The author finds AI useful for document review, legal research and prior art searches under time pressure, but says it is not great and is used only sparingly for drafting.
Finds Westlaw Deep Research very helpful as a starting point when given ample context and all cited cases are read, though it pulls unhelpful cases for novel questions.
Lawyers should use AI rather than avoid it, but must never rely on its case citations without reading the cited cases to confirm they exist and support the point.
Westlaw and Lexis AI draw on curated legal databases unlike stock ChatGPT or Gemini, and Westlaw's tool was useful in trial, but whether it is worth the cost is undecided.
Westlaw's AI research tool is modestly helpful for finding relevant case law, but the interface is poor and overall disappointing, so the author often uses general chatbots instead.
Westlaw Precision and CoCounsel cost about $2,000/month for four lawyers; Precision cites a juvenile code as a case, CoCounsel only beats GPT Pro on uploads.
Westlaw AI turns a partner's poorly worded question into useful case law starting points and saves time, while ChatGPT is not trusted for legal research.
The author finds Westlaw's deep research AI and Vincent AI helpful for unfamiliar issues and outlines, as launching points, while double-checking everything.
Good for areas with heavy case law and for first-step or wide-net research finding comparable authority, but worse and nearly useless for niche issues and administrative decisions.
Westlaw AI works as a starting point for legal research, and ChatGPT deep research is better for policy issues but still not great, so key cites need to be followed up.
Westlaw AI is acceptable where a state has ample caselaw but is not helpful in smaller states, and the author finds KeyCite headnotes, Terms and Connectors and A.L.R. quicker and more thorough.
Westlaw AI has not invented cases for the author but misreads them and invents holdings, so it should only be used for research leads that the lawyer reads personally.
Westlaw AI is no better than paid ChatGPT Team at analysis and often worse, its only advantage being hyperlinks that let you verify authorities exist and check what they say.
Westlaw's AI saves research time by pointing to relevant authorities, but it often misreads cases and needs thorough review, while ChatGPT still invents cases and is not useful for filings.
Uses Westlaw's AI as a preliminary research starting point but does not trust it because it misapplies caselaw and statutes, and the attorney stays liable.
The author finds Westlaw's AI-assisted search good at surfacing cases they might have missed, while ChatGPT is only okay on general principles and cannot help with specific caselaw beyond famous cases.
Is impressed by Westlaw's AI search as a starting point into a line of case law when the exact terminology is unknown, though would not rely on it alone.
Legal AI has real impact: Westlaw AI is solid for research but expensive, and Spellbook is great for fast contract drafts, saving hours once in the workflow.
The author finds Westlaw Precision AI and CoCounsel quite useful for research, document review, contract review and deposition outlines, and considers Lexis AI far worse.
The author finds Westlaw AI has gotten worse and is poor at accurate finding and summarizing, though useful as a starting point, and likes CoCounsel's timeline feature without having needed it yet.
Harvey is not yet suited to case law research, and Westlaw AI is acceptable only as a starting point with cite-checking, with no AI drafting of briefs and no ChatGPT because of confidentiality.
The author sees Westlaw's AI as more trustworthy than ChatGPT because it relies on its own database, but is not impressed and would use it only for administrative and document review tasks.
Would listen to a pitch from Westlaw because they already trust its data set, and expects no more unreliable answers from Westlaw AI than from their own queries, but more from uncurated data.
Westlaw AI generally pulls up relevant cases but not always the right ones, so results must always be read, and the author wonders whether AI-assisted research must be disclosed.
A government lawyer trialing Westlaw's AI finds the interface great for small research tasks but says it confidently states incorrect things and invents citations.
Westlaw's built-in research AI is pretty good for new technology, and the author expects it to eventually take over most research and brief writing, leaving fewer lawyers.
The author says Westlaw AI returns several unrelated cases and loads slowly, while Parallel Search worked well for finding other jurisdictions' authority.
The author prefers Westlaw AI as a closed system using vetted content over ChatGPT, which can invent material and raises confidentiality concerns, and says training on prompting improved results.
Westlaw AI gives a quick overview and finds cases, but it is often wrong on specific facts, so everything must be double-checked like an intern's work.
Author found more on-point cases through Casetext or a Google search than through Westlaw, even with its AI assistance, and is frustrated by the shutdown.
Says Westlaw Practical Law beats even CoCounsel for research, finds Lexis underwhelming, and complains that big vendors like Harvey and CoCounsel overcharge.
Westlaw's AI assistant helps narrow research but its case summaries can miss the holding, so the author still checks cases and edits ChatGPT-generated deposition templates.
In a Westlaw AI demo the case results were pretty good but the AI summary of the law was often the opposite of what the cases said; uses ChatGPT only to get started or draft simple things.
Westlaw's AI speeds up research and points the author in the right direction, while ChatGPT is not trusted to write a pleading but gives a useful outline.
Westlaw AI is useful for research and finding information, but everything must be double-checked because it can make incorrect assumptions or unsupported leaps.
Says closed-universe legal AI like Westlaw's is far better than ChatGPT, which hallucinates cases, and useful for issue-spotting, but needs better usability and solid data privacy contracts.
Westlaw AI is much faster at finding factually analogous cases but its analysis is garbage, it can't be billed for, it reduces learning, and it is weak for the small state.
AI summaries of large documents are sometimes inaccurate and too thin to rely on, so the author reads every page anyway and worries clients will expect less review time.
Westlaw AI is too expensive and saves no time because its errors, such as the right case with the opposite ruling, require double-checking, and ChatGPT was unreliable and verbose.
Author says Westlaw's AI is pretty good because it pulls only from Westlaw's database so citations can be trusted, saving time though results still need checking, while ChatGPT has led to sanctions.
Author has been pleased with Westlaw's AI for finding rules, statutes and cases, while double-checking results, and would not use ChatGPT for research.
The author might try Westlaw's generative AI as a starting point because they trust it not to invent material, but distrusts ChatGPT for fabricating facts and for client confidentiality.
Westlaw rushed AI into an existing product before it was ready, which has damaged user confidence, though generative AI can work without hallucinations.
ChatGPT is useless and Westlaw's AI is only slightly better, useful just to start research and still missing so much that everything must be looked up anyway.
Westlaw Precision speeds up initial research on unfamiliar topics but is beaten by terms-and-connectors searching and a skilled researcher on specific sub-issues.
Legal research vendors already offer AI and have harvested users' uploaded motions and briefs to train their models, so the author wants no part of it.
Dislikes Westlaw Precision AI because its obvious errors make it feel like a waste of time, though it might save time with consistent use, and worries about the lack of validation and oversight of legal AI.
Westlaw Precision AI benefits from Westlaw's databases but gives unhelpful, generic case descriptions, so author treats it as a list of maybe-relevant cases.
Westlaw Precision AI rarely gives the right answer outright but can trim preliminary research and help craft terms-and-connectors searches when used well.
Westlaw's AI research assistant has been pretty useful and cites its sources within Westlaw, but the author expects it will eventually get someone into trouble.
Other tools filed under Research platform, ordered by net score (like minus dislike per 100 voices), each with its 90% band and how many voices it rests on. A tool under 10 voices is listed, not rated. No one pays for a place here.
Only what the vendor or the model provider says on its own pages, read on Oct 22, 2026. “Not disclosed” means we found no official statement.
Tool
Model
Status
Period
What the official page says
Westlaw AI
not named (a large language model)
Not disclosed
as of 2023-11-15
TR's launch blog for Westlaw AI-Assisted Research says it uses an LLM but does not name the model. Later official CoCounsel pages name Claude, GPT, Gemini generally, not Westlaw specifically. Source Legal research meets generative AI, Nov 15, 2023
What lawyers asked Westlaw AI to add, and what shipped
12 distinct asks from 13 voices; 2 followed by an official release note we could verify. An ask with no match means we found no official page, not that nothing shipped. Official pages re-read: Oct 22, 2026.
HarveyValues
ChatGPTValues
