New Delhi: After a freelancer, Tamiris, stood her ground against a traditional law firm and won her case earlier this month in a three-hour hearing at Wandsworth County Court in London, eyes turned to Garfield AI. The “AI-native” law firm founded in 2023 by Philip Young and Daniel Long successfully managed the case, marking a milestone in the integration of technology into the British judicial system.
The dispute centered on work Tamiris had performed under an oral agreement, which her client eventually stopped paying for. While the opposing side was represented by a professional law firm, Tamiris utilised Garfield AI to handle the complex “heavy lifting” of the legal process.
While the £7,000 dispute over an oral contract for unpaid work might seem like a standard small claims matter, the architect behind Tamiris’s victory was anything but traditional, Garfield AI co-founder Daniel Long told ThePrint in an interview.
Long explained that the AI handled the preparation of the statement of case and all necessary court correspondence.
However, the firm maintains a “human-in-the-loop” approach for high-stakes moments, for example, when the case finally reached the hearing, Tamiris engaged a human barrister to do the advocacy. The result was a total victory: the judge found in favor of the freelancer on all points and dismissed the counterclaim brought by the other side.
For Long, a former physics student and software engineer, the motivation behind Garfield AI was to fill a massive void in the legal market. He noted that while the small claims process is meant to be simple enough for individuals to navigate alone, “the law is never fully simple”. Many people with valid claims are deterred by the time-consuming nature of the paperwork or the lack of professional guidance.
Long described this as an “underserved legal need”. “There are a lot of people… who don’t have a friend who is a city partner who can jump in and help them”, he said. By focusing on high-volume, low-risk categories like debt recovery, the firm aims to provide an affordable alternative for those who would otherwise be priced out of justice.
Also Read: AI has learnt a new trick—finding loopholes in laws
A new economic model for justice
Long said there is “strong incentive” for the highest levels of the judiciary to support the rise of AI-native firms like Garfield AI as an access-to-justice tool that would make the entire system more economically viable.
He pointed out that the UK court system often runs at a deficit in areas like family law. By utilising AI to expand the number of successful money claims, the system generates more court fees, which can then be used to fund other essential legal services.
India’s judicial ecosystem, however, is still in an early expansive stage and has not yet formally entered the legal assistance space like Garfield AI has in the UK.
The Supreme Court of India has introduced AI-based tools such as SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) to assist judges with legal research and case preparation, while tools like SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) use AI for translation of judicial documents into regional languages. Yet, courts are increasingly cautioning lawyers against using AI for drafting and case research.
Expert system with rules
Addressing common fears regarding AI “hallucinations” or incorrect case citations, Long clarified that Garfield AI is not a simple chatbot. Instead, it functions as an “expert system”, operating in accordance with a strict set of rules to hand-hold users through the labyrinth of court forms and deadlines.
The system uses Large Language Models (LLMs) primarily for information extraction, such as pulling line items from an invoice or contract, rather than for complex legal reasoning or strategy. It files forms automatically and sends daily reminders to users about upcoming deadlines. By scoping the problem to systematic tasks, the firm avoids the pitfalls of generative AI while ensuring the “paperwork” side of law is handled with mechanical precision.
Asked about the global debate regarding AI replacing human lawyers, Long remained grounded. He said he views the current technological shift as an “evolution” rather than a total replacement of the profession. He compared the rise of AI in law to the invention of the combine harvester in agriculture: while the machine took over the manual labor of plowing the fields, it didn’t eliminate the need for human management and strategy.
“The tasks that you can do without thinking are going to be more and more now in the domain of AI,” Long said, arguing that by automating the “day-to-day” tasks a lawyer might do while listening to a podcast, humans are freed to focus on the “huge swathe of activity” that requires empathy and nuance.
Sitting down with a client to understand the specific complexities of their situation is a task, Long believes, will remain a human necessity for the foreseeable future.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
FAlso Read: Supreme Court releases draft regulations on AI use in courts, invites public feedback