Artificial intelligence law firm wins court case in England for first time | AI (artificial intelligence)

An artificial intelligence law firm has won a case in an English court, in what is believed to be the first time a trial has been won using an AI lawyer.

A freelance HR consultant, Tamires Camal Taquidir, paid the firm, called Garfield AI, about £400 to send a legal letter and then issue court proceedings over an unpaid debt of £7,000.

The co-founder of Garfield, Philip Young, called it a “landmark moment” for access to justice and said many small businesses have had to write off debts because the cost of litigation outweighed the money they could hope to win.

Garfield – which was authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in April last year and can be used to make claims from £30 to up to £10,000 – prepared the case and then hired a human barrister to advocate for the client in court.

The AI conducted all the legal work preceding the trial, which involved disputing a counterclaim launched by the defendant, who instructed solicitors.

It prepared four witness statements and a bundle of documents for the three-hour trial at Wandsworth county court on 14 May. The court found in favour of Taquidir and awarded her the money owed.

Taquidir said: “I was owed money for work I had done, but it felt like the process of recovering it could be too stressful, expensive and time-consuming. Garfield made it possible for me to pursue the claim and keep going.

“When the counterclaim was brought, it was intended to intimidate me, but I knew I had accessible, cost-effective and competent support. I’m delighted by the result.”

Dominic Li, the barrister who represented Taquidir in court, said Garfield presented the client’s case “clearly and efficiently”, but added: “The advocacy at trial remained essential and a fundamentally human exercise.”

The British legal profession has been shaken by a number of high-profile AI blunders. Last month, an international law firm, Pinsent Masons, referred itself to the SRA after twice misleading a court based on…

Source