Harvey's relationship status: It's complicated

Winston Weinberg said something revealing at Davos: law firms will build "technology arms" within two years. What he didn't say: who Harvey is actually dating in this scenario.

Harvey is friends with everyone (and we mean everyone)

Legal tech companies should partner with Harvey, not compete. In-house teams should evaluate law firms on their Harvey deployment. Law firms should build technology arms around Harvey's infrastructure.

Harvey's relationship status with the entire legal industry reads like a confusing Facebook page (sorry dating myself there...). They're the infrastructure provider. The vendor. The partner. The platform. The friendly neighbor who also happens to own all the land everyone's building on.

Harvey showed up to the party and somehow became everyone's plus-one simultaneously.

Legal tech companies: You're the steady friend who makes them look good

Harvey says you're partners. You build the workflow integrations, the audit layers, the governance middleware that makes Harvey actually work in law firm contexts.

You're solving Harvey's customer-specific problems while they keep the client relationship and the platform economics. You're making their infrastructure stickier, their moat deeper, their platform harder to displace.

Every integration you build is a love letter to Harvey's platform. You're not competing—you're committed. Just maybe more committed than they are to you.

The "we make Harvey work in your context" positioning is perfect. For Harvey. They get you solving their deployment problems while they maintain the option to build, buy, or replace you later.

Being told "it's not you, it's me" while actively making their life easier.

In-house teams: You're choosing which complicated relationship to inherit

Weinberg wants you to evaluate law firms on their technology infrastructure. Reasonable request. What you're actually evaluating might be different.

When you ask law firms "show me your stack," are they proudly displaying technology they built and control? Or are they showing you their Harvey deployment setup, like bringing their new partner to meet the parents?

The questions that make this relationship status complicated:

If Harvey's platform goes down, does your outside counsel's entire delivery model stop working? If Harvey raises prices, do your legal costs automatically increase? If Harvey decides to launch direct-to-client services (because $8 billion valuations create certain expectations), where does that leave the law firm you selected based on their Harvey sophistication?

You thought you were evaluating law firm technology capabilities. You're evaluating who has the healthiest dependency on Harvey's infrastructure. Choosing a vendor based on how well they've committed to someone else's platform.

The trojan horse is also the wedding planner

Law firms building technology arms sounds like independence. But if those technology arms are built on Harvey's platform, wrapped around Harvey's infrastructure, dependent on Harvey's continued cooperation—is that building capability or building dependency?

Harvey positions as the friendly infrastructure provider. They're Switzerland. They're just the platform. They're everyone's friend.

Platform companies have a pattern. They're friendly during the adoption phase because they need growth. They're "just infrastructure" while they need you to build lock-in. They're everyone's partner until network effects kick in and the calculation flips.

That "it's complicated" relationship status gets clearer. And you're not the one holding the cards.

The two-year window is the engagement period

Weinberg's prediction signals what's happening in deployment patterns now. Law firms are building technology arms. Legal tech companies are integrating. In-house teams are evaluating vendors.

By 2027, those technology arms will be built. The dependencies will be locked in. The relationship statuses will still be complicated, but with much clearer power arrangements.

Legal tech companies: are you building proprietary value, or building Harvey's moat while they keep the optionality to replace you?

In-house teams: are you evaluating law firms on capabilities they own, or Harvey deployment sophistication that concentrates your vendor risk in one well-funded platform?

Law firms: are you building technology arms that create competitive advantages, or Harvey dependencies that make you hope this relationship works out long-term?

Harvey isn't your competition. They're not exactly your partner either. They're the infrastructure everyone's building on, which is a comfortable position when everyone else is making commitments and you're keeping your options open.

The firms building this infrastructure now will have compounding advantages by 2027. Just make sure you understand whose relationship is actually exclusive, and whose relationship status is still "it's complicated" with everyone.