Toppe Consulting – Your Source for Digital News & Trends in the Legal Industry
Law firms investing in legal AI technology face a critical challenge: determining which platforms actually deliver measurable returns versus marketing hype. The legal AI market has exploded past $1.45 billion with dozens of vendors claiming superior capabilities, yet independent performance data remains scarce. Most firms rely on vendor demonstrations, peer recommendations, or trial-and-error experimentation—approaches that often lead to costly misalignments between tool capabilities and actual practice needs.
This evaluation vacuum ended in February 2025 when Vals AI published the first independent benchmark study comparing legal AI tools against human lawyer performance across seven common legal tasks. The study evaluated Harvey AI, Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, vLex Vincent AI, and Vecflow Oliver using real legal questions from major law firms including Reed Smith and Fisher Phillips. The results revealed dramatic performance differences between platforms and identified specific tasks where AI already surpasses human lawyers in both accuracy and speed.
The benchmark findings challenge several widespread assumptions about legal AI capabilities. Document question-and-answer tasks saw AI tools achieve accuracy rates up to 94.8%, significantly exceeding the 70.1% lawyer baseline. Conversely, tasks like contract redlining showed human lawyers outperforming AI at 79.7% versus lower AI scores. These patterns demonstrate that successful AI implementation requires matching specific tools to appropriate tasks rather than expecting generalized AI superiority across all legal work.
Harvey AI Dominates Document Analysis Tasks
Harvey AI emerged as the benchmark’s top overall performer, according to independent analysis published by Vals AI, achieving the highest scores in five of six tasks entered. The platform’s standout result came in document question-and-answer work, where it scored 94.8%—exceeding both the 70.1% lawyer baseline and all competing AI tools by substantial margins. This performance demonstrates Harvey’s sophisticated document ingestion, chunking, and retrieval systems that enable precise answers to specific questions about lengthy legal documents.
Document extraction represented another Harvey strength, where the platform accurately pulled specific data points, clauses, and provisions from complex agreements. Chronology generation showed Harvey matching the 80.2% lawyer baseline exactly—neither exceeding nor falling short of human performance. For litigation practices requiring detailed timelines from depositions, emails, and documents, this parity indicates AI can complete the work at human quality levels while delivering results exponentially faster.
Transcript analysis yielded another strong Harvey result, with accuracy exceeding lawyer baselines substantially. Litigators spending hours reviewing deposition transcripts to identify key admissions, contradictions, and themes can delegate this analysis to Harvey with confidence that important details won’t be missed. However, redlining presented Harvey’s relative weakness, where the platform underperformed the 79.7% lawyer baseline, suggesting firms should maintain human oversight for contract negotiation.
The speed advantage Harvey demonstrated across all tasks proved as impressive as accuracy results. The platform consistently delivered responses in under one minute—orders of magnitude faster than human lawyers requiring hours for equivalent work. This speed differential means firms can complete same-day analyses that previously required days or weeks, fundamentally changing client service capabilities.
CoCounsel Delivers Specialized Excellence
CoCounsel participated in four task categories, achieving an impressive 79.5% average score—the highest average among all platforms tested. This focused excellence demonstrates CoCounsel’s strategic emphasis on doing fewer things exceptionally well rather than attempting comprehensive capabilities across all legal tasks. The platform’s integration with Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw and Practical Law content provides unique advantages leveraging decades of legal research infrastructure.
Document question-and-answer represented CoCounsel’s strongest performance at 89.6% accuracy—the third-highest score overall in the study. While trailing Harvey’s 94.8%, CoCounsel still substantially exceeded the 70.1% lawyer baseline. Document summarization saw CoCounsel achieve the study’s top score at 77.2%, outperforming both competing AI tools and the 50.3% lawyer baseline. This result proves particularly significant given how frequently lawyers need concise summaries of lengthy documents.
CoCounsel’s speed matched Harvey’s exceptional performance, delivering responses in under one minute consistently. The platform’s consistent above-baseline performance across all four entered tasks demonstrates reliable quality suitable for professional legal work. Unlike experimental AI tools producing erratic results, CoCounsel delivers predictable accuracy meeting law firm standards.
Vincent AI and Oliver Target Specialized Applications
VLex Vincent AI participated in six tasks with scores ranging from 53.6% to 72.7%, demonstrating solid performance without matching Harvey or CoCounsel’s top-tier results. Vincent AI’s design emphasizes global legal research capabilities spanning multiple jurisdictions—a differentiator for firms handling cross-border matters. The platform’s document question-and-answer performance at 72.7% exceeded the lawyer baseline, confirming capability for this common task.
Notably, Vincent AI’s approach includes refusing to answer questions when insufficient data exists for confident responses. This conservative design philosophy reduces hallucination risks but also negatively affected benchmark scores compared to tools attempting answers despite uncertainty. For risk-averse firms prioritizing accuracy over completeness, Vincent AI’s cautious approach may prove advantageous.
Vecflow Oliver focused participation on complex research tasks, particularly EDGAR database analysis where it scored 55.2%—the only AI tool entering this challenging category. Oliver’s agentic workflow breaks complex tasks into sequential steps, producing thorough analyses at the cost of substantially longer processing times often exceeding five minutes per query. This speed-thoroughness tradeoff positions Oliver for different use cases than Harvey or CoCounsel.
Where AI Exceeds Human Performance
Document question-and-answer emerged as the task category where AI most conclusively surpassed human lawyers. Average AI scores reached 80.2% compared to the 70.1% lawyer baseline, with top performers like Harvey achieving 94.8%. This substantial advantage reflects AI’s strength in rapid information retrieval from large document sets—precisely the type of work consuming disproportionate associate time during discovery and due diligence.
Document summarization represented AI’s second-strongest performance area, with all tested tools exceeding the 50.3% lawyer baseline. The 77.2% top score from CoCounsel demonstrates AI’s capability to identify key information and present concise summaries reliably. Transcript analysis showed similar AI advantages, with tools surpassing the 53.7% lawyer baseline consistently.
The consistent AI advantages in information-intensive tasks reveal a clear pattern: AI excels where work involves searching, extracting, comparing, and synthesizing information from documents. Firms generating substantial revenue from these tasks face the greatest disruption and opportunity from AI adoption.
Comparing these results against broader market dynamics reveals important context for purchasing decisions, as examined in Legal AI Market Explodes to $1.45 Billion as 79% of Attorneys Adopt Technology in 2025.
Tasks Requiring Human Oversight
Contract redlining proved the clearest example of human superiority, with lawyers achieving 79.7% accuracy compared to lower AI scores across all tested platforms. Redlining requires understanding deal context, recognizing acceptable versus problematic deviations from standard language, and applying judgment about negotiating priorities. These inherently contextual decisions prove more challenging for current AI capabilities.
EDGAR research represented another area where human performance at 70.1% exceeded the sole AI entrant at 55.2%. SEC filing analysis requires multi-step reasoning, understanding regulatory frameworks, and synthesizing information across multiple related filings. The division between AI-suitable and human-required tasks creates clear guidance for implementation strategies.
Understanding where AI creates efficiency versus where it introduces new risks helps firms develop appropriate governance policies, as detailed in 53% of Law Firms Use AI Without Policies: The Compliance Crisis Threatening Legal Practice.
ROI Calculation Framework
Calculating return on investment for legal AI tools requires comparing subscription costs against measurable time savings. A mid-size firm paying $50,000 annually for platform access must identify sufficient time savings to justify this expense. Document review represents the highest-volume use case for most firms. An associate spending 800 hours annually on document review at a $300 billing rate generates $240,000 in fees. If AI tools reduce review time by 40% while maintaining quality, the firm saves 320 hours.
Speed advantages prove equally important as accuracy improvements for ROI calculations. AI tools delivering results in minutes versus hours enable same-day client responses that were previously impossible, according to research from the American Bar Association. This responsiveness creates competitive differentiation beyond pure cost savings.
Firms should calculate ROI based on their specific practice mix and volume patterns rather than generic industry averages. A litigation-focused practice handling document-intensive discovery will realize different value from AI tools than a transactional practice focused on contract negotiation. Matching platform strengths to actual work types maximizes returns while avoiding capabilities mismatch.
Toppe Consulting: Your Partner in Legal Digital Transformation
At Toppe Consulting, we specialize in helping law firms navigate the complex intersection of technology adoption and marketing strategy. Our expertise combines deep legal industry knowledge with digital marketing execution to help attorneys leverage AI tools while communicating their value proposition effectively to clients.
Our Services Include:
- Law Firm Website Development – Modern, mobile-responsive websites that showcase your technology capabilities and attract ideal clients
- Digital Marketing Strategy – Comprehensive campaigns that position your firm as a technology-forward legal practice
Ready to Position Your Firm for the AI Era? Contact Toppe Consulting to discuss how we can help you communicate your technology capabilities while attracting clients who value innovation and efficiency.
About the Author
Jim Toppe is the founder of Toppe Consulting, a digital marketing agency specializing in law firms. He holds a Master of Science in Management from Clemson University and teaches Business Law and Marketing at Greenville Technical College. Jim also serves as publisher and editor for South Carolina Manufacturing, a digital magazine. His unique background combines legal knowledge with digital marketing expertise to help attorneys grow their practices through compliant, results-driven strategies.
Disclaimer
Important Notice: Toppe Consulting is a digital marketing agency and is NOT a law firm. We do not provide legal advice, legal services, or legal representation of any kind. The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship.
For legal advice regarding AI policy compliance, professional responsibility obligations, or any other legal matter, please consult with a qualified attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. The ethical and regulatory requirements discussed in this article may vary by state and jurisdiction, and laws and regulations are subject to change.
Toppe Consulting provides digital marketing services, website development, and business consulting exclusively. We help law firms communicate their expertise and services to potential clients but do not engage in the practice of law.
Works Cited
“AI Legal Issues and Concerns For Legal Practitioners.” American Bar Association, www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-technology-today/2025/ai-legal-issues-and-concerns-for-legal-practitioners/. Accessed 21 Nov. 2025.
“Legal AI Tools Show Promise in First-of-its-Kind Benchmark Study, with Harvey and CoCounsel Leading the Pack.” LawSites, 28 Feb. 2025, www.lawnext.com/2025/02/legal-ai-tools-show-promise-in-first-of-its-kind-benchmark-study-with-harvey-and-cocounsel-leading-the-pack.html. Accessed 21 Nov. 2025.
“VLAIR Benchmark Study.” Vals AI, www.vals.ai/vlair. Accessed 21 Nov. 2025.
