For $500, an AI Beat 2 Lawyers in UK Court

When Tamires Camal Taquidir took a hospitality company to court over 7,000 pounds (about $9,271) in unpaid fees, she brought artificial intelligence (AI) help.

In May, a judge at Wandsworth County Court ruled in her favor, the Financial Times (FT) reported Monday (June 22).

Camal Taquidir, who provides freelance HR services, had tried to resolve the matter directly before turning to Garfield AI. She paid the company roughly 400 pounds (about $529) in fees, the FT reported.

The AI handled the pretrial work traditionally performed by a solicitor, including drafting witness statements, preparing court filings and managing correspondence. Under Garfield’s instructions, a human barrister then argued the case in the three-hour hearing, per the report. Garfield Founder Philip Young, a former London litigator, told the FT that the outcome was the first trial won by an AI law firm anywhere in the world.

Garfield received regulatory approval from the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2025, becoming the first AI law firm in the United Kingdom, the FT said.

“For too long, businesses have been forced to write off debts because the cost, time and stress of litigation made pursuing them uneconomic,” Young said in a Monday post about the case on Garfield’s website. “AI did not replace the judge, the barrister or the legal system. What it did was make the process more accessible, more efficient and more affordable.”

Advertisement: Scroll to Continue

In the same post, Camal Taquidir said she was “delighted by the result.”

“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,” Camal Taquidir said. “Garfield made it possible for me to pursue the claim and keep going.”

Until now, most AI legal tools have functioned as research and drafting aids for human lawyers. Garfield’s model goes further.

As PYMNTS reported in October, AI has moved from pilot-scale experimentation into embedded infrastructure across law firms, with funding to legal technology startups surpassing $2.4 billion in 2025.

Garfield’s AI acts as a solicitor in routine debt recovery and small claims disputes.

According to the FT, the firm said it has processed more than 600 claims and recovered approximately 500,000 pounds (about $662,000) for clients. Most cases settled before reaching a court ruling. Claim values have ranged from £30 to £10,000 (about $40 to $13,241). Garfield offers debt-chaser letters starting at 2 pounds (about $2.65) and claim form filings from 50 pounds (about $66).

The Wandsworth case pushed past the settlement stage only after the defendant filed a counterclaim, forcing the matter to trial.

Hallucinations Cloud Legal Industry’s Push Into AI

The legal industry has been slower than other professional services sectors to absorb AI disruption. Confidentiality concerns and jurisdictional variation in court procedures have complicated adoption.

That is changing as more legal firms invest in the technology. Kirkland & Ellis said in May it was committing $500 million to build its own AI platform. As PYMNTS reported in April, Manifest OS raised $60 million at a $750 million valuation in what it called the largest Series A for a legal tech company. Harvey has raised more than $800 million and now serves eight of the ten highest-grossing U.S. law firms.

However, AI hallucinations continue to present a risk.

According to a June 11 report from Business Insider, U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned and removed all four lawyers on both sides of a contract dispute case when filings from both parties contained AI-fabricated legal citations. Aycock also fined the lawyers were also fined a total of $8,000 and barred two of them from practicing before the court for two years.

The issue isn’t contained to the U.S. More than 1,600 court decisions worldwide have involved AI hallucinations in legal filings, according to a database maintained by legal researcher Damien Charlotin.

The Garfield outcome illustrates both the potential and the limits of the technology. The case involved a straightforward debt dispute, the type of routine, well-defined matter for which AI document preparation may be well suited. However, complex litigation and areas requiring interpretive legal judgment remain largely outside the scope of current AI law tools.

For all PYMNTS AI and digital transformation coverage, subscribe to the daily AI and Digital Transformation Newsletters.