A recent controversy on Reddit has ignited a broader debate about the real-world adoption of AI tools in the legal industry, centering on Harvey, an AI-powered legal tech startup valued at $5 billion. The drama began when a user claiming to be a former Harvey employee posted on Reddit alleging that lawyers weren’t actually using the platform, that adoption was limited to junior staff, and that low churn rates were artificially inflated by long-term contracts. The post quickly spread across LinkedIn and other platforms, drawing skepticism and strong pushback. The user later deleted their account, and there is no public evidence confirming their employment at Harvey. Business Insider was unable to verify the claims. Harvey’s CEO, Winston Weinberg, responded over the weekend with internal metrics aimed at countering the allegations. He shared that the company achieved a 98% gross revenue retention rate in the most recent quarter, seat utilization stood at 77%, and a “vast majority” of clients renewed early. These figures suggest strong customer satisfaction and retention, despite the claims of low usage. The company has also added high-profile clients in recent months, including Latham & Watkins, one of the world’s largest law firms, and Blue Owl Capital, a major asset manager. Additionally, Harvey has partnered with top law schools to integrate its tools into legal education, signaling long-term ambitions. Despite these developments, the broader reality of AI adoption in law remains mixed. A 2024 American Bar Association survey found that only 30% of lawyers reported using AI tools in their firms. Adoption is higher in large firms—nearly half of those at firms with 500+ attorneys use AI—compared to less than 20% of solo practitioners. Harvey’s rise has become a benchmark for the legal tech sector. Its success has inspired a wave of competitors like Legora, Supio, and Eudia, all of which have raised new funding rounds. Incumbents like LexisNexis have also partnered with Harvey to enhance their own AI offerings. Yet, as industry consultant Zach Abramowitz noted, the Reddit post would likely have drawn little attention if it had targeted a smaller player. The intense scrutiny reflects Harvey’s outsized presence in the market’s imagination—its very visibility underscores its influence, even as questions about actual usage persist. The debate highlights a paradox: critics dismiss Harvey as overhyped, while its metrics and high-profile partnerships suggest real traction. Whether the platform is truly transforming legal work or simply capturing attention remains to be seen. But one thing is clear—Harvey has become a defining case study in the struggle to prove that AI can deliver on its promises in a high-stakes, accuracy-driven profession.