Harvey Release Notes

Law firms and professional service networks have been using Harvey to build new service models and add value collaboratively.

Our customers have been using Harvey to push the boundaries of legal innovation long before Shared Spaces existed. Law firms built custom workflows to deliver new service models. Professional service networks created bespoke solutions to add value collaboratively with clients. These went beyond mere productivity gains and into new ways of working that had the potential to reshape business models.

But these early innovators also showed us what was missing: a secure way to collaborate across organizational boundaries. Portals like document repositories and virtual data rooms store and organize files. Collaboration tools enable communication. But AI-powered legal and professional services work has one missing link to be their most effective: bringing their clients, advisors, and cross-functional teams into the same intelligent workspace without compromising security or confidentiality of their most sensitive matters. As long-time Harvey users, they already understood the value of shared bulk analysis in Vault, streamlined document review with Playbooks, and the one-click drafting that can come by deploying custom workflows. They wanted to extend that power across organizational boundaries.

That insight led us to develop Shared Spaces in partnership with forward-thinking organizations willing to help us get it right. The organizations featured here are those design partners — the innovators who've helped shape what secure, multiplayer collaboration can look like in practice.

Enabling the New Way to Collaborate, Securely

Shared Spaces enables organizations to unlock best-in-class service delivery and greater transparency with secure, shared AI-native environments where internal teams and external partners — whether they are Harvey customers or not — work from the same intelligence. Cross-functional teams can collaborate internally: legal working alongside finance, risk, and business units. Externally, clients bring together their law firms, professional service advisors, and internal teams on the same complex matters.

Teams can use it for many internal and external collaboration use cases including:

• Cross-border M&A transactions where deal teams across time zones collaboratively build due diligence analysis in Vault
• Ongoing regulatory compliance matters that leverage shared Vaults for existing policies and have shared Workflows to draft update faster
• Self-serve NDA review for clients or cross-functional partners through custom Workflows

We've designed Shared Spaces knowing we're handling the most sensitive matters organizations face — from confidential M&A deals to privileged attorney-client communications. Harvey is built with security at its core, and our collaboration capabilities are no exception. Strict permissions and access controls ensure that only the right people across organizations have access to the right information, with full auditability and governance that meet the standards these relationships demand.

Innovating Together: What Our Design Partners Say

Gleiss Lutz and Deutsche Telekom: Moving a Proven Partnership to the Next Stage of Innovation

Deutsche Telekom and Gleiss Lutz are exploring how Harvey transforms collaboration on complex regulatory matters, moving from parallel workstreams to integrated teamwork.

“In our rapidly evolving regulatory environment, seamless collaboration isn't optional—it's essential. Harvey empowers our legal team – nationally and internationally – and external counsel including Gleiss Lutz to work more efficiently as one integrated unit in the future, tackling intricate challenges together while maintaining the rigor and security our global operations demand.”

Dr. Claudia Junker
Senior Managing Director, Head of Law & Integrity, General Counsel, Deutsche Telekom

“Our clients like Deutsche Telekom expect us to be strategic partners, working alongside them efficiently and transparently. Harvey allows us to collaborate more effectively — whether we're jointly working on due diligence or refining complex contracts — so we can focus our expertise where it truly matters: high-end strategic advice and negotiation.”

Dr. Ralf Morshäuser
Partner, Gleiss Lutz

PwC and IFS: Transforming Professional Services

PwC and IFS, the leading provider of industrial AI, see shared spaces enabling transparent collaboration throughout engagements—real-time visibility across corporate development, advisors, and legal teams.

“Harvey is a powerful tool, as part of our broader suite of collaboration technology, that brings a new dimension to the value we can deliver for clients. With clients like IFS, we're not just providing analysis, we're working in the same intelligent workspace, sharing insights in real-time, and enabling them to see the impact of deal issues as we find them. This transparency and shared capability means our clients benefit from our advice immediately, not weeks later in a final report. It's a new model for professional services.”

Russell Taylor
TMT Deals Partner, PwC

“Harvey gives us real-time visibility into what our advisors and firms are doing, which is hugely valuable. With Shared Spaces, we can see analysis as it develops, understand reasoning, and collaborate on the outputs together. And when we need to bring our legal counsel into the conversation, they can join the same workspace. It's transformed external partnerships from stove pipes and black boxes into true transparency. We're all working from the same intelligence, whether it's our corporate development team, advisors like PwC, or our law firms.”

Andrew Binstead
SVP Corporate Development, IFS

KWM and IAG: Creating Connected Experiences

KWM envisions shared spaces where teams build collective intelligence on complex matters, with clients like Insurance Australia Group Limited (IAG), collaborating across risk, legal, and business teams alongside external counsel.

“At KWM, we're focused on how technology and legal expertise combine to enhance performance and client impact. Harvey is evolving from a legal productivity tool to a collaborative platform with our clients. When you create opportunities for lawyers to learn from each other and share experiences in open, accessible forums, you fundamentally change how legal work gets done which delivers better outcomes for clients.”

Michelle Mahoney
Chief Innovation Officer at King & Wood Mallesons

“A key priority for IAG is to harness innovation to re-imagine a scalable and resilient business. Our legal team is focused on creating value through digital solutions and working closely with our providers to drive efficiency, enhance value, and evolve the way legal services are delivered. We see Harvey's collaborative platform as the future of how we'll work with our legal partners, including KWM. Our teams will be able to collaborate alongside external counsel in real-time, analysing data together, building insights collectively and harnessing external expertise more efficiently. This connected, AI-powered collaboration will help create genuine value for our business.”

Anna Golovsky
Executive Manager for Legal and Company Secretariat Operations, IAG

Thompson Hine and Flex: Reimagining Client Services

Thompson Hine sees shared spaces transforming client service, working alongside clients in real-time rather than in sequential deliverables. For their clients like global manufacturer, Flex, it's a way to unify internal teams and external counsel at scale.

“At Thompson Hine, innovation means seeking fresh, creative approaches to client service and employing state-of-the-art technology to enhance the sound legal judgment we bring to solving our clients' most complex problems. Harvey's collaborative capabilities represent the future we're building: a platform where we and our clients work together in real-time, where AI accelerates document analysis and insight generation, and where our attorneys apply seasoned expertise to deliver strategic counsel. Our clients expect us to streamline how they buy and use legal services without sacrificing the rigorous legal thinking they depend on. Collaborative AI workspaces, guided by experienced practitioners, are how we deliver on that expectation.”

Bill Garcia
Chief Practice Innovation Officer, Thompson Hine

“Operating across 30 countries, we're exploring how Harvey's collaborative workspaces could fundamentally change how we handle legal complexity, moving from siloed work streams to shared environments where our internal teams and external counsel collaborate from the same intelligence. The potential to enhance our legal capabilities while maintaining the transparency and control we need at global scale is exactly the kind of innovation that aligns with who we are as a company.”

Melissa Zujkowski
VP, Litigation and Disputes, FLEX

Where Collaboration is Heading

The impact our design partners are seeing reflects broader trends. According to our recent RSGI report, more than 50% of law firms say Harvey improves client service through faster delivery and better quality work. On the in-house side, 82% of legal teams report increased capacity without adding headcount. And 55% of in-house teams say Harvey is helping them reimagine collaboration with their law firms, opening new conversations about how legal work is delivered and shared.

Since opening access in December, we've continued to refine Shared Spaces based on this feedback. We've strengthened governance controls with granular permissions that let you control access at the resource level. We've enhanced audit capabilities with comprehensive logs that track every security-critical action — from granting access to publishing content within a space. And we've made it seamless to bring multiple external partners into shared environments, all while maintaining full governance and control.

We're continuing to invest in the capabilities that enable even deeper, multiplayer collaboration: advanced analytics that surface insights about how teams are working together, intelligent notifications that keep everyone aligned without overwhelming them, and richer customization that lets organizations tailor spaces to their specific workflows and needs.

Shared Spaces is live in early access with organizations around the world, with general availability expected in March. If you're interested in exploring how it can transform collaboration at your organization, contact your account team for access. If you're not a Harvey customer yet, we'd love to hear from you:

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 19, 2026

Categories

Workflows

Release Type

Admin opt-out

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What’s New

Deep Analysis is now available within custom workflows, enabling teams to design tailored, repeatable processes that take advantage of Harvey’s advanced reasoning capabilities. Deep Analysis can search and synthesize across:

• Vault
• Web
• File uploads
• Public regional knowledge sources

Why It Matters

Previously, Deep Analysis was only accessible in Assistant and Vault. With this update, admins will be able to embed deeper, analytical steps directly into workflows so that every output reflects consistent, high-quality reasoning at scale.

How to Use

• Open a custom workflow in Workflow Builder.
• Add or select a Prompt block.
• Clear instructions improve synthesis quality and citation accuracy. Check that the following elements are included in your prompt:
  • What you’re looking for
  • Which knowledge sources to use
  • How Harvey should use each source
• Under the Prompt block, select up to two knowledge sources.
  • Note: To include content from iManage, you must upload files using the Upload from iManage option, or store the documents in a vault first.
• In the Prompt panel, turn on the Deep Analysis toggle.
• Click Save.
• Run the workflow. Harvey will generate a structured output based on your prompt and selected sources.
• Review the output. Deep Analysis responses include:
  • Citations: Every finding includes direct links or source identifiers so you can verify information quickly.
  • Structured Sections: Results are organized by topic or question, making them easier to scan and review.
  • Follow-ups: You can ask follow-up questions to:
    • Clarify findings
    • Expand on specific sections
    • Refine the scope of the analysis

Tips for Success

For more detail on how multiple sources work together, see Query Across Multiple Knowledge Sources.

Notes and Limitations

• Ask LexisNexis® and other private databases are not yet supported.

FAQs

Q: What is Deep Analysis?
Deep Analysis is a Harvey capability that performs more complex reasoning, enabling deeper understanding, analysis, and drafting quality in responses.

Q: How will this change existing workflows?
Teams will be able to incorporate Deep Analysis into workflow steps, ensuring that in-depth reasoning is automatically applied wherever needed—no longer limited to the Assistant or Vault.

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 18, 2026

Categories

Knowledge

Release Type

Admin configuration required

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What's New

We’ve expanded our global legal knowledge network with 60 new sources across several jurisdictions.

Note: If you already have access to a listed Knowledge Source (for example, Chile), any additional data sources included in this release will be available to you automatically.

Why It Matters

Answers will be grounded in authoritative, jurisdiction-specific materials and returned with precise citations.

How to Use

Follow our steps for applying sources in Regional Knowledge Sources Overview.

List of New Data Sources

This list reflects source names as they appear in Harvey.

Tip: Quickly search for a source by pressing Ctrl + F (or Command + F on Mac) to pull up a search bar on the page.

Australia Extended

• Takeovers Panel - Guidance Notes

Chile

• Poder Judicial

France

• Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)

India

• Telangana High Court
• Punjab and Haryana High Court
• Allahabad High Court
• Orissa High Court
• Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Patna High Court
• Delhi High Court
• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)

Italy

• Corte Suprema di Cassazione
• Regione Umbria
• Interpello Ambientale
• Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta
• Regione Siciliana
• Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia - Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale (VIA)
• Regione Emilia-Romagna
• Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica (MASE)
• Ministero della Giustizia
• Regione Calabria
• Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy
• Consiglio Regionale della Basilicata
• Regione Autonoma della Sardegna
• Regione Puglia
• Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Emilia-Romagna (BURERT)
• Consiglio Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia
• Italia Domani - Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR)
• Regione Basilicata
• Regione Abruzzo
• Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol
• Regione Lazio
• Consiglio regionale del Lazio
• Regione Marche
• Regione del Veneto
• Assemblea Regionale Siciliana
• Regione Campania
• Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
• Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Abruzzo (BURAT)
• Regione Liguria
• L'Assemblea legislativa della Regione Umbria – leggi e regolamenti
• Regione Lombardia
• Ministero dell'Interno
• Regione Piemonte
• Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione del Veneto (BURVET)
• Banca d'Italia
• Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
• Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM)

Mexico

• Comisión Nacional de Seguros y Fianzas (CNSF)
• Comisión Nacional del Sistema de Ahorro para el Retiro
• Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores (CNBV)

Portugal

• Tribunal de Contas
• Conselho das Finanças Públicas (CFP)
• Portal do Governo dos Açores
• AICEP Portugal Global, Agência para o Investimento e Comércio Externo de Portugal, E.P.E. (AICEP)
• Direção-Geral do Orçamento (DGO)
• Fundos de Compensação (FCT/FGCT)
• JULGAR
• Segurança Social Direta
• IAPMEI, I.P. - Agência para a Competitividade e Inovação

Original source Report a problem

IP and patent litigation teams can ensure precision with these recommended custom workflows in Harvey.

Patent and IP litigation teams spend years refining how they work: how they analyze claims, structure arguments, and apply judgment to complex technical facts. That expertise shouldn’t be lost to one-off documents or recreated from scratch every time a familiar task comes up.

With Harvey’s Workflow Builder, teams can turn their preferred way of working into reusable workflows that anyone in the organization can run. Instead of choosing between speed and rigor, lawyers can embed their standards directly into the tools they use every day — helping teams produce consistent, high-quality work at scale.

Below are five examples of how IP and patent litigation teams can incorporate Workflows across routine tasks, and how you can adapt them to fit your own approach.

1. Drafting Infringement Claim Charts

Claim charts are foundational to any patent infringement case, and they’re also one of the most time-intensive parts of early case development. Associates often spend hours manually comparing claims against dense technical documentation, even when much of the analysis follows familiar patterns.

This workflow helps teams get to a strong first draft faster, while preserving the level of detail and rigor required for claim-by-claim analysis.

Workflow blocks:

• Ask the user to upload the patent-in-suit, including all relevant claims that will be asserted.
• Ask the user to upload technical documentation for the accused product. This can include product specifications, user manuals, marketing materials, technical diagrams, or any combination of documentation that describes how the product works.
• Use a prompt to identify each claim element from the asserted claims and extract the corresponding technical features from the accused product documentation. This step creates the foundation for the element-by-element comparison.
• Use a prompt to generate a detailed claim chart that maps each claim element to specific features of the accused product. The prompt should instruct Harvey to cite specific page numbers and sections from the product documentation, provide technical explanations for how each element is met, and flag any elements where the mapping is uncertain or requires further investigation.
• Display the completed claim chart to the user in a structured table format with columns for claim elements, accused product features, supporting documentation, and analysis.

This workflow gives teams a consistent, reviewable starting point for infringement analysis. Instead of spending time assembling the first draft, lawyers can focus on validating the analysis, identifying gaps, and refining arguments.

2. Analyzing Patent Office Actions

Reviewing patent office actions is a critical step in prosecution, but it usually involves pulling together information scattered across dense examiner reasoning, prior art references, and claim language. While the analysis itself requires judgment, much of the initial work is about organizing the issues so teams can quickly decide how to respond.

This workflow helps teams surface what matters most in an office action, giving them a clearer starting point for developing response strategies.

Workflow blocks:

• Ask the user to upload the relevant office action that needs to be addressed.
• Use a prompt to analyze the office action and extract key information including the type of rejections, the prior art references cited, the specific claims rejected, and the examiner's reasoning for each rejection.
• Use one or more prompts to generate potential response strategies for each rejection. This can include asking Harvey to suggest claim amendments that would overcome the rejection, clarify definiteness, find support for claim limitations, or propose arguments based on differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. You can customize this prompt to align with your firm's preferred response strategies or to incorporate specific technical expertise.
• Display the analysis and response strategies to the user, organized by rejection type and claim number.

Once the analysis is organized, lawyers can focus on choosing and refining the right response strategy. Teams can further customize the workflow by asking Harvey to use that analysis to draft responses to the client, adapting tone, structure, and detail to fit their preferred approach.

3. Generating Invalidity Contentions From Prior Art

Preparing invalidity contentions often means working through large volumes of prior art and conducting detailed, limitation-by-limitation analysis across multiple asserted claims. Even for experienced teams, organizing that work in a clear and consistent way can be time-consuming.

This workflow helps streamline the early stages of invalidity analysis, giving teams a structured foundation they can build on and refine.

Workflow blocks:

• Ask the user to upload the patent document that needs to be analyzed for invalidity.
• Ask the user to upload prior art references that will form the basis of the invalidity contentions. This can include patents, publications, and product documentation.
• Ask the user to provide further relevant context, or specify which claims or limitations to focus on.
• Use a prompt to analyze each asserted claim element and compare it to the prior art references on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
• Display the invalidity contentions to the user in a clear, structured table chart for each claim analyzed.

By producing a consistent, claim-by-claim view of the prior art, teams can more easily validate their analysis and ensure comprehensive coverage across multiple patents. Rather than assembling contentions from scratch, lawyers can focus on pressure-testing arguments, identifying weaknesses, and shaping strategy based on the strongest available references.

4. Drafting Patent License Agreements

Drafting patent license agreements requires balancing technical scope, business objectives, and risk allocation. Even when strong precedents exist, adapting them to new deal terms can be a manual and repetitive process.

This workflow helps teams move more quickly from business terms to a usable first draft, while staying anchored in firm-approved language and structures.

Workflow blocks:

• Ask the user to upload the relevant patent license.
• Ask the user to upload or describe the key terms of the license they need to draft, including the exclusivity type, regional restrictions, royalty or financing structure, and any special provisions. Alternatively, embed a prior precedent example and prompt Harvey to extract those terms.
• Use a prompt to draft a complete license agreement that incorporates the business terms specified, following the structure and style of any embedded precedent agreements from the firm. You can customize this prompt to prioritize certain precedent clauses, incorporate firm-specific drafting preferences, or address particular client risk tolerances.
• Display the draft license agreement to the user for further refinement.

Grounding drafts in firm precedents and preferred language helps teams maintain consistency across agreements while reducing the time spent on initial drafting. The workflow is particularly valuable when handling multiple licenses simultaneously or when working with unfamiliar technology areas, as it maintains drafting consistency regardless of the attorney's experience level.

5. Preparing Filing Documents

Patent filings demand precision, from correctly identifying inventors to ensuring every required field is completed in the right format. Even when teams rely on proven templates, populating those documents correctly can be a repetitive and time-consuming process.

This workflow helps streamline filing preparation by adapting your firm’s established templates to new applications, while preserving the details that matter for accuracy and compliance.

Workflow blocks:

• Ask the user to upload key application information including inventor names and addresses, assignee information, application type, title of the invention, and any priority claims or related applications.
• Ask the user to upload precedent filing documents that Harvey should use as templates. Alternatively, embed a firm precedent document to ensure consistent formatting and inclusion of all necessary provisions.
• Use a prompt to extract the relevant information from the precedent documents and identify all fields that need to be populated with the new application information.
• Use a prompt to generate complete filing documents by populating the precedent templates with the new application information. The prompt should ensure all required fields are completed, formatting abides by filing requirements, and any firm-specific provisions or optional fields from the precedents are appropriately included or adapted. You can customize this prompt to automatically incorporate firm-specific preferences, such as particular correspondence address formats, standard fee payment methods, or preferred language for certain declarations.
• Display the completed filing documents to the user for review.

This workflow helps ensure the completed documents follow firm standards, while minimizing manual entry and repetitive checks. Practitioners can quickly review and validate the filings before submission, spending less time on administrative prep and more time ensuring accuracy and readiness for filing.

Patent litigation and prosecution involve unique technical and strategic challenges, but much of the work follows familiar patterns. These five workflow examples show how teams can use Harvey to embed their expertise into repeatable processes, speeding up routine analysis while maintaining the rigor their work demands. The goal is simple: spend less time on tedious tasks and more time on the strategic decisions that actually matter.

To learn more about how Workflows can help your organization, contact our team:

Original source Report a problem

What's New

Now you can reuse data you’ve already pulled into a review table when starting new work in Harvey.
Instead of copying information into a new prompt, you can select the review table directly and use it to answer questions, draft documents, or complete workflows.
You can also combine a review table with other sources, like uploaded files or Web search, to stay in one continuous workflow.

How to Use

Learn how to select a review table as a source in Assistant or add sources to your review table queries in Using Review Tables.

Sample Use Case

Combine review table and additional knowledge sources to complete workflows, such as:

• Drafting Diligence Memo from Review Table: Create a review table extracting key data points from 50 contracts (termination clauses, governing law, etc.). Then select that review table as a source, upload your organization's memo template, and ask Harvey to draft the memo using the extracted data.

Notes and Limitations

• If you typically use multiple knowledge sources in a single prompt, please note that review tables do not count toward the two-source limit.

What's Coming

• In a future release, review tables will be available as a knowledge source in our Word add-in as well. Learn more: Review Tables as a Knowledge Source in Word.

FAQs

Q: How many review tables can you add as a KS?
You can only add a single review table as a KS. You cannot add more than one.

Q: When you add a review table KS, how many more KS’s are you allowed?
Two. Review tables are considered "free" KS's — they don't count towards the max 2 KS limit in multi-KS. When using a review table as a KS, you can include two additional sources besides the review table, for a total of three KS.

Q: Which review tables can I select?
You can select review tables that you own (private) and review tables that are explicitly shared with you (what appears under “Shared with you”) at the individual or user group level. Review tables that are shared to the entire workspace are not shown.

Q: Does the review table KS contain the files in the table? Is it synced to these files?
No to both questions. The review table KS only contains the table itself. It does not include any of the files in the review table. To include those files in your query, please select them as an additional KS.

Q: Am I able to share a thread containing a review table as a source?
At the moment, no, but we will be enabling this behavior soon.

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 18, 2026

Categories

Vault

Release Type

All users

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What’s New

Now you can click Improve in the prompt text box while asking Harvey about your review table.

Why It Matters

This feature helps you craft better prompts for column creation, searches over review tables, and tasks done alongside review tables and knowledge sources.

How to Use

• From within a review table, click Ask Harvey.
• Type your prompt.
• Click Improve to receive suggestions for a more targeted query.

Learn more about asking questions over review tables in Using Review Tables.

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 18, 2026

Categories

Vault

Release Type

Admin opt-in

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What's New

You can now upload and unlock password-protected files directly in Vault, enabling more seamless work with sensitive documents. With this update, you can:

• Upload password-protected files in Vault
• Enter individual passwords per file, or bulk-apply one password to all uploaded files
• Eliminate upload failures caused by password-protected documents

Why It Matters

Previously, encrypted files would fail to upload in Vault—creating workflow blockers, especially for teams working with sensitive financial, legal, or client-protected documents.
This enhancement ensures encrypted materials remain secure while still being accessible for authorized work.

• Quickly identify encrypted files + unlock them directly within Harvey
• Continue research, analysis, and drafting without interruption

How to Use

Learn about the steps to upload and data security in our help article, Upload Password Protected Files.

FAQs

• Q: What happens when I upload a password-protected file to Vault?
  Harvey will detect that the file is encrypted and prompt you to enter the password. Once entered, the file will be decrypted and available for use in Vault.

• Q: Does Harvey store my file passwords?
  No. Harvey will not store, remember, or retain file passwords. If you upload the same encrypted file again, you will need to re-enter the password.

• Q: Can I unlock multiple encrypted files at once?
  Yes. If you upload multiple password-protected files, you will be able to enter passwords individually for each file or use a single password to unlock all files when they share the same password.

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 17, 2026

Categories

Model Updates

Release Type

All users

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What’s New

We’ve added Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 to the model selector in Harvey to offer greater flexibility in how you approach complex work in Harvey:

• Select Opus 4.6 for deep research, nuanced legal reasoning, and high-stakes analytical tasks.
• Select Sonnet 4.6 for structured workflows, instruction-driven tasks, and efficient problem-solving.

Learn more about our evaluation of these models in our blog posts for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6.

Why It Matters

Adding Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 expands the range of models available in Harvey, giving advanced users more flexibility when a specific task calls for deeper reasoning or highly structured outputs.

For most workflows, Auto mode continues to select the right model for you, but model selection is available if you want more direct control.

This update ensures Harvey adapts to different types of legal work without changing how you normally use it.

How to Use

Open Model Selector in Assistant, Vault, or Workflow Builder to select Opus 4.6 or Sonnet 4.6 from the list of models. Admins can manage access through Access Control & Permission Management.

Important: Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 are only available through the Model Selector, with Claude permissions enabled. If you don’t see the Model Selector, contact your workspace admin or Customer Success Manager.

Original source Report a problem

Announcing Claude Sonnet 4.6 in Harvey

Today, we are making Claude Sonnet 4.6 available in Harvey. Sonnet 4.6 is Anthropic's latest model in the Sonnet family, which bridges strong reasoning with a faster, more efficient architecture. Early access evaluations highlight strengths in instruction-following, practical problem solving, and ideation.

On our BigLaw Bench evaluation suite, Sonnet 4.6 scored 87.6%, with 35% of tasks receiving perfect scores. Model performance was balanced across practice areas, with Sonnet 4.6 receiving the same average score across litigation and transactional tasks.

Our Applied Legal Research team highlighted multiple strengths during early access testing. The model demonstrated strong numerical precision, delivering more accurate specific figures like dollar amounts compared to prior Claude models when explicitly instructed. On ideation-oriented tasks, including trial exhibit preparation and open-ended litigation strategy questions, evaluators noted that Sonnet 4.6's thoroughness was a clear advantage. In Claude Code, our Engineering and Research teams noted that the model excelled at root cause analysis, correctly tracing bugs through code history and integrating parallel tool calls to solve problems that even Opus 4.6 missed.

“Sonnet 4.6 is a strong addition to the Claude model family in Harvey. We see real potential in pairing it with tasks that require efficiency while maintaining thoroughness and structured problem-solving.”

Niko Grupen
Head of Applied Research, Harvey

Evaluators also observed an interesting pattern in how Sonnet 4.6 responds to explicit versus implicit instructions. When given specific direction (e.g. to retrieve exact figures, follow a defined rubric, or produce a structured comparison), the model is thorough and precise. When left to determine scope on its own, it tends to remain at too high a level, providing reasonable summaries, but missing fine-grained details. This gap was most visible on tasks requiring synthesis across multiple documents.

We'll be rolling out Sonnet 4.6 in the model selector to eligible clients in the US and EU in the coming days. AU availability will be announced shortly.

Original source Report a problem

Release Date

Feb 16, 2026

Categories

Vault

Release Type

All users

Regional Availability

US, EU, AU

What's New

If your files are already organized into folders within a review table, click Auto-group, and Harvey instantly converts each folder, along with the files inside it, into a file group in your review table.

Why It Matters

When you’re analyzing a large set of related files, grouping related files for simultaneous review helps organize the analysis process, but can be time-consuming. Auto-group reduces that friction so that you can begin meaningful analysis sooner.

How to Use

• Open a review table that contains folders, or upload folders to your review table.
• Click Auto-group in the top tool bar.
• To manage your grouped files, hover over the new group and click Manage grouped files.

FAQs

• Q: Are there any limits on which folders can be converted into groups?
  Yes. Due to the 25-file limit per group, only folders containing 25 or fewer files will be converted.

• Q: How does auto-grouping work with nested folders?
  Harvey groups from the deepest nested layer upward, ensuring each lowest-level folder becomes its own group. For instance, if you have Folder A with subfolders B and C, the platform creates two separate groups — one for Folder A > B and one for Folder A > C — rather than combining everything into a single group under Folder A.

• Q: How can I change the results of "Auto-group"?
  Hover over the row number to reveal a check box. Click the check box to select the group. Click Ungroup from the bottom black toolbar to revert it.

Original source Report a problem