Garfield Project created a artificial intelligence-based litigation services for small claims. But how far can technology reach the legal sector?
According to the industry, the approval of a AI-based legal firm that can complete a claim process virtually without human involvement is a “landmark”.
Solicitors Regulation Authority ()
Garfield AIwas founded by a lawyer and a technologist with the aim of helping small businesses claim billions of pounds of unpaid invoices.
Last month, the SRA approved the AI litigation assistant which initiates and manages the small claims litigation. The organisation hailed the arrival of the “first law firm to provide legal services using AI”.
Claimants or their lawyers can upload relevant information using Garfield and authorize each step of the process. The AI platform, for example, can create letters before actions, draft claims, and particulars of the claim forms, apply to default judgments and handle settlements. It can also prepare for trial.
The company claims that it “uses best practices to ensure that all claims are prepared correctly, and the claims processes is followed (and monitored) precisely” – significantly reducing mistakes and delays.
For the company, this is only the beginning.
Garfield AI cofounder Daniel Longtold Computer Weekly that, as a technologist, he never considered this use case on an AI platform. However, his business partner Philip Young was determined to provide a service to small businesses who are struggling to recover money they owe.
Long stated: “Although small claims court exists for them, it’s not economical to hire an attorney.”
According to him, the service is “a sensible place for a AI-only firm to start.” Long said that these are not complex cases, and they do not require a detailed understanding of case law or arguments. “It is largely extracting information such as what is owed and what work was performed, filling in some forms, and possibly some letters with this information,” said Long. The service isn’t fully autonomous. It only moves on to the next stage when the customer is satisfied. A legal expert will then check the claim.
Just a beginning
While law firms use AI to perform tasks like document reviews, Garfield AI’s approval allows people and businesses to receive legal services directly. Paul Philip, CEO of the SRA, called the regulatory approval a “landmark for legal services in the UK”.
Long was surprised at how open the judiciary was to tech development. “Senior judges are banging on the drum saying that the legal sector must embrace AI,” he said.
SRA calls for the development of AI-based services. “We encourage the development of new models and approaches due to the potential benefits for consumers,” it said. AI-driven legal services can deliver better, faster and more affordable legal service.
According to Long, regulatory approval takes about eight months. He said that the co-founders were already talking about the concept to senior members of the judiciary in order to “gauge” their views and “there was excitement from them”.
Long said that they could see a compelling case for this, in terms of improving the access to justice. “But they don’t want to introduce anything that could harm individuals,” said he. “We also presented this model to the department for Justice select committee and their first question was, “How much further can you imagine this model going?”
Long said to Computer Weekly that his company plans to use AI in more legal services and that it could expand initially by taking on bigger cases.
Risk Assessment
Philip at the SRA said: “With so many people and small businesses struggling to access legal services, we cannot afford to pull up the drawbridge on innovations that could have big public benefits.” Philip said that as this is likely to the first of many AI driven law firms, the regulator will be closely monitoring the progress of this model to manage the risks while realizing the benefits for consumers. David Enright, a partner at Howe & Co Solicitors is concerned that mistakes, also known as hallucinations in the legal context, could occur. “If you rely on AI instead of a lawyer, to whom do you complain when things go wrong?” said Enright.
Enright said that lawyers would have to do thorough checks as AI cannot “think outside of the box”, and can’t spot other possible claims. He welcomed improved accessibility to justice, because for many the alternative is “no justice”. Mark Lewis, an attorney at Stephenson Harwood said that the senior judiciary is “acutely aware” of how difficult it can be for people to access justice these days. “I think that anything like Garfield, which addresses the small end and improves access justice, would be welcomed,” said Lewis. Lewis said that some in the legal field advocate for AI to perform judicial tasks. “In other words decide the merits in cases,” he said. “I think it’s a long way off, but I believe that this would be a logical next step.”
Read about Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Robotics
-
By Esther Shittu.
By: Makenzie Hodland
By: Makenzie Hollin
