This week, the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) announced it has granted authorisation to Garfield.Law Ltd as the first Alternative Business Structure permitted to deliver regulated legal services directly via artificial intelligence (AI).
Unlike traditional firms (a good portion of whom already harnessing AI for various tasks including the provision of legal services to clients through their practitioners), Garfield.Law has positioned itself as providing its legal service delivery through an AI-driven litigation assistant. The initial approval allows Garfield.Law to assist clients dealing with small claims debt-recovery matters (up to £10,000).
Garfield.Law’s AI platform proclaims to guide users through the debt recovery process by automating the generation of legal documents and correspondence. Users input relevant case information, and the system assists in drafting documents such as polite payment reminders, letters before action, and claim forms. The AI checks factual inputs, including limitation periods and company records, and prepares the necessary documents for client approval. It does not claim to be a solicitor nor barrister and clarifies that it does not give legal advice.
The platform is described as a hybrid AI/expert system aligned with the Civil Procedure Rules, to try to ensure accurate procedural adherence. The SRA’s approval followed eight months of consideration and review, focused on ensuring key regulatory protections remained intact, including, the SRA says:
- Robust quality checks to mitigate AI inaccuracies or ‘hallucinations’.
- Mandatory client approval at critical stages.
- Stringent confidentiality and conflict-of-interest measures mirroring traditional law firm standards.
- Registered solicitors remaining legally accountable for all work outputs.
- Adequate insurance to safeguard consumers against potential issues.
While this approval marks a significant regulatory milestone, its deliberately limited in scope. The product is deliberately targeted at small claims matters. The parties remain self-represented without the assistance of a legal practitioner, and so this product is more assisting with that process rather than being a legal representative. Both Garfield.Law and the SRA accept limitations of AI, and contend that, for higher-value or complex matters, human lawyers remain indispensable.
It is important to highlight that the SRA views this as the start rather than the culmination of AI-driven legal services, indicating keen interest in observing this test closely. The SRA’s primary concern remains managing potential risks surrounding data protection, nuanced legal reasoning, and maintaining consumer trust.
This development is undoubtedly an evolutionary step towards accessible and affordable legal services, but it certainly doesn’t signal the end of human lawyers anytime soon. It is a continuation of the ongoing shift towards hybrid models where technology complements, rather than replaces, human expertise.