Legal AI tools UK: compare Harvey, Legora and alternatives
Compare Harvey, Legora, CoCounsel UK, Lexis+, Clio and LEAP by task, legal sources, permissions, review effort and the full cost of completing the work.
Choose a legal AI product by the work your firm needs to complete and the sources that work depends on. A research assistant, a document-review platform and AI inside a case-management system can all be useful. They may solve different problems, require different licences and create different review work.
The comparison below is a starting shortlist as of 28 September 2026. It summarises provider descriptions, not an independent performance test. Availability, source coverage, prices and contract terms need confirmation for the specific subscription.
Match the product to a task
| Product | Provider-described fit to investigate | Question for the demonstration |
|---|---|---|
| Harvey | Legal document analysis, research and workflows; its FromCounsel partnership covers corporate and employment content | Which licensed sources cover our actual practice, and can we inspect them? |
| Legora | Legal research, document review, workflows and collaboration | Can the reviewer check a result in the original document and control its next use? |
| Lexis+ UK with Protégé | AI assistance connected to UK legal research and Practical Guidance | Which content and functions are included in our proposed licence? |
| CoCounsel Legal UK | Research, drafting and analysis using Westlaw and Practical Law content | Is this the UK product, and which sources and integrations are in scope? |
| Clio Manage AI | Matter administration, including proposed events, draft client updates and billing approvals | Can the native workflow complete our task with the right permissions and review? |
| LEAP LawY | Legal research and drafting assistance, with a workflow for submitting responses to solicitors for verification | Which responses qualify for verification, and what jurisdiction and client-information restrictions apply? |
Sources: Harvey/FromCounsel, Legora, Lexis+ UK, CoCounsel Legal UK, Clio UK, LEAP LawY.
Harvey's FromCounsel announcement is specific about corporate and employment content. It does not establish complete coverage for criminal defence, immigration or every UK jurisdiction. Clio Manage AI is distinct from Clio Work; the UK product page describes both. Ask which product is being demonstrated rather than treating the supplier's entire catalogue as one subscription.
Harvey vs Legora: what should decide the shortlist?
Both providers describe research, document work and reusable workflows. Their names alone do not settle which product fits a small UK firm. Request the same permitted document task, relevant legal-source demonstration and permission-change exercise from each shortlisted provider.
Write the decision against four questions: did it complete the task, could a solicitor check the sources, what review effort remained, and what does the proposed contract include? Keep an unanswered question marked as unanswered. This guide has not independently benchmarked either product and does not declare a winner.
If the need is ordinary matter administration, first check the existing practice system. If it is current legal authority, check the relevant research content and licence. An impressive document summary does not prove either capability.
For disputes, use the civil and commercial document-review workflow to define the source collection, review roles and permitted output before comparing products.
Ask every supplier to complete the same work
- 01Same permitted sample
- 02Same expected output
- 03Inspect sources and permissions
- 04Measure review and correction
- 05Compare total operating cost
- 06Record a reasoned decision
LEAP describes asking a question, evaluating the generated response, submitting it for verification and receiving a notification when a UK solicitor has verified it. Distinguish an initial generated answer from a response that has completed that process. Confirm eligibility, turnaround and permitted information in the current terms; a verification feature does not establish that every answer is already reviewed or suitable for the firm's matter.
Prepare a permitted sample with a known expected result. For document work, include an unreadable page, conflicting dates and a duplicated source. For research, have a qualified lawyer choose the questions, applicable jurisdiction and reference material. For administrative tasks, include an unavailable recipient or incomplete record.
Record what happens from input to reviewed output. Count the time spent preparing the input, checking the answer and correcting it. Keep failed and incomplete attempts in the results. A fast answer that needs extensive checking may offer little operational benefit.
The synthetic disclosure example shows how to make a small document evaluation inspectable. It is not a benchmark of any product listed here.
Check the information behind an answer
Ask the supplier to open a cited source, identify its version and explain the coverage boundary. A source link helps the lawyer verify the work; its presence does not establish that the interpretation is correct.
Check whether the product retrieves firm documents using the same access restrictions as the source system. Demonstrate what happens after a user loses permission or a document is withdrawn. Ask how exports, logs and support access are treated too.
A provider's security statement is a useful starting document. Procurement still needs the applicable contract, technical configuration, processing arrangements, retention and deletion terms. The SRA's warning makes clear that both paid and free AI tools require appropriate safeguards for client confidentiality. SRA: misuse of AI.
Compare the cost of the completed workflow
Request a written quote for the actual users, source content, features and expected volume. Include implementation, training, review effort, support, storage or processing charges and exit costs where they apply.
Check the products already licensed by the firm before building another workflow. A supported native feature may be sufficient. Bespoke work becomes a candidate when there is a clear remaining task, a supported integration and a measurable reason to own and maintain it.
Make a decision the firm can explain
Record three things separately: what the provider markets, what the firm observed in its evaluation, and what the contract confirms. A critical permission or source-coverage gap should remain visible even if other features perform well.
The useful result is a reasoned choice for one workflow, with an owner, review procedure and conditions for continuing. The first-workflow guide helps define that task; the legal services hub connects it with the wider intake and operations journey.