Strategy question
How should Harvey price for law firms vs. in-house legal teams?
- Harvey
- Strategy
- Hard
Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.
Start a mock interview on this question · Mock interview from a job description
What this question tests
Tests pricing strategy across two buyer segments with different budgets, usage patterns, and willingness to pay.
How to approach it
- Identify how the two segments differ: law firms bill hours to clients and think in terms of associate leverage, in house teams have a fixed budget and think in terms of headcount avoided.
- Consider pricing models: per seat, per matter, usage based on queries or documents processed, or a hybrid.
- Match the model to each segment's economics: firms may prefer per seat pricing tied to associate headcount, since it maps to how they already staff matters.
- In house teams may prefer a flat or tiered subscription, since they lack the billable hour structure to absorb usage based costs easily.
- Address the elephant in the room: firms may resist tools that reduce billable hours, so pricing should also reward firms for efficiency gains, not just charge for them.
- Confirm with the interviewer whether Harvey wants to maximize firm adoption or in house adoption first, since that shapes which pricing model to lead with.
What a strong answer includes
- Explicitly addresses the billable hour conflict: a firm has a business model incentive against tools that cut hours, so pricing or packaging needs to align Harvey's success with the firm's.
- Proposes different structures per segment, for example per seat for firms and flat subscription tiers for in house teams, rather than one price for both.
- Suggests a usage based add on for high volume matters like document review, letting heavy users pay for the capacity they actually consume.
- Notes that in house teams likely have a harder budget ceiling and smaller deal sizes, which affects both price point and sales motion.
Common mistakes
- Applying one pricing model to both segments despite very different budget structures and incentives.
- Ignoring the billable hour conflict, which is the central strategic tension in legal AI pricing.
- No mention of how pricing should evolve as usage patterns mature past initial adoption.
Likely follow-up questions
- How would you price to avoid conflicting with a firm's billable hour incentives?
- What would you do if a large firm demanded a steep enterprise discount?
- How would pricing change for a solo practitioner versus a firm with a thousand lawyers?
More strategy questions
- How would you grow Harvey adoption among conservative, risk-averse law firms?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- You inherit Vault with strong customer interest but limited engineering capacity. How would you set Vault’s product vision and a 12-month roadmap across file management, AI search/Q&A, document extraction, secure sharing, and platform investments like permissions, indexing, and integrations? Walk through your prioritization framework, major bets, and what you would explicitly defer.Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- Harvey can fund only one major integration track next: deeper iManage support, broader SharePoint coverage, or cross-platform capabilities like sync, permissions mapping, and admin controls. How would you decide what to build first, and what tradeoffs would you make across customer demand, implementation effort, security risk, and strategic leverage?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- Harvey’s Command Center needs to serve three jobs for enterprise admins: understanding adoption, managing users and access, and enforcing governance. How would you define the product strategy and first 12-month roadmap for Command Center, and what framework would you use to make trade-offs across those three areas for Harvey’s largest legal customers?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- You inherit a platform where teams lack visibility into request failures, latency regressions, customer-impacting incidents, and model-quality degradation. How would you define the product scope for observability, decide what to ship first, and ensure the work improves customer outcomes rather than just adding internal tooling?Harvey · Strategy · Hard
- Harvey is being pushed to ship new platform capabilities faster, while enterprise customers are escalating concerns about uptime, latency, and trust. As the PM for Core Platform, how would you build a 12-month infrastructure roadmap that balances reliability, performance, security, and feature velocity? Walk through your prioritization framework, the inputs you would use, and how you would handle tradeoffs when these goals conflict.Harvey · Strategy · Hard
More questions from Harvey
Learn the skill behind it
Chapters of the AI PM course that teach what this question tests.
- Chapter 4: Discovery and strategy for AI products
- Chapter 9: Prove it paid off: outcomes, economics, and pricing
- Chapter 14: Get the job: the AI PM interview loop