The Numbers
Lawhive closed a $60M Series B (roughly £44-47M) led by Mitch Rales, co-founder of Danaher Corporation. The round brings total funding to over $100M following a $40M Series A in December 2024. The company reports $35M in annualized revenue, up 7x year-over-year.
Backers include TQ Ventures, GV (Google Ventures), Balderton, Jigsaw, and former Blackstone COO Anton Levy.
What They Actually Do
Lawhive operates an AI-native law firm targeting individuals and small businesses. Their system, which includes an AI paralegal called "Lawrence," handles document drafting, legal research, case management, and client onboarding. The platform supports 450 lawyers working on family law, employment disputes, tenant issues, and contract work.
This is not legal AI for lawyers - it's AI replacing parts of what lawyers do. The distinction matters when assessing market positioning.
The Market Context
Lawhive launched in the UK, acquired Woodstock Legal Services in 2025, and expanded to 35 US states last year with offices in Austin (NYC planned). They're targeting the fragmented small-firm market where automation economics work differently than in BigLaw.
For comparison: Harvey raised $160M at Series F focused on enterprise legal departments. Robin AI closed a $26M Series B for contract review in corporate settings. SpotDraft raised $54M for contract lifecycle management. Lawhive sits below both in complexity but potentially above in volume.
Why This Matters
The legal AI space is splitting into distinct tiers. Enterprise tools (Harvey, Robin) serve corporate legal teams and large firms. Consumer/SMB tools (Lawhive, plus free options like basic contract generators) serve a different buyer with different economics.
Lawhive's 7x revenue growth suggests the lower end of the market is ready to move. Whether that's sustainable depends on regulatory tolerance for AI-assisted legal work and whether the quality holds as volume scales.
The real test: Can they maintain lawyer oversight and quality at SMB price points while the AI does the heavy lifting? That's the trade-off that makes or breaks this model.
What to Watch
Regulatory scrutiny in US markets (35 states is aggressive expansion). Customer acquisition costs versus lifetime value in a space where trust takes time to build. And whether traditional small firms respond by adopting similar tools or lobbying against the model.