How Garfield AI won its first court case

Background

Garfield was founded in 2023 and received SRA authorisation in April 2025. It is the first purely AI based firm to be regulated by the SRA. Garfield is authorised to file claims up to £10,000 in the small claims court as their main role is to help small and medium sized businesses recover unpaid debts. 

The SRA are encouraging the development of new AI-driven approaches and models due to the potential consumer benefits as the SRA recognise that AI-driven legal services could deliver better, quicker and more affordable legal services. The founder has claimed that Garfield has processed more than 600 claims and has recovered around £500,000 for its clients.

Following this successful outcome, it is likely that Garfield will be instructed more in the future as following the ruling, visitors to its website have increased by over 1,100%. In this case, the claimant was a freelancer and had completed work for the defendant which was not paid. The debt originally was around £5,000, however, with interest added, the claim amounted to approximately £7,000.

Costs 

Usually when you balance the value of the debt with the cost of litigation, most of the time the claim is not worth pursuing and the debt is consequently written off. It should be noted, that if a debt case is successful, the defendant will pay the ordered debt and can be made to pay the court fees and the legal costs incurred by the claimant.

Typically if you used a traditional lawyer, a debt claim around the same value in this case would cost:

• £50-250 for a letter before claim which notifies the defendant of the breach;
• £175 – £500 to issue a letter of claim to the defendant;
• Any negotiations with the debtor will incur legal fees, mainly incurred via correspondence with the other side;
• Around £750 for a claim form and particulars of claim (this sets out the breach and the value of the claim) where the debt is undisputed and around £2,500 where the debt is disputed;
• If the defendant does not engage, the claimant can file for a default judgment which would cost around £125 in lawyer fees.

In this case, the claimant paid Garfield around £400 plus disbursements.

There are other set fees such as the £455 court fee for claims worth £5,000.01 to £10,000 and if the case goes to a hearing, a £345 fee must be paid (for debts ranging from 3,000 to £10,000). These are always included as disbursements and would be incurred whether a traditional lawyer was used or not; AI cannot override certain fees involved with pursuing / filing a claim.

The role of Garfield

For approximately £400 (plus disbursements), Garfield:

• Prepared the initial pre-action correspondence and dealing with responses from the other side;
•  Drafted the official court proceedings and statements of case;
•  Managed allocation and document production
•  Drafted and analysed witness statements; and
• Organised a watertight evidence bundle so the case could be seamlessly handed off to a barrister for trial.

It should be noted that usually debt cases do not go to trial, however, in this particular case the defendant issued a counterclaim of £1,500, and the case was made slightly more complex with the witness statements produced by both parties.

The role of the barrister

Whilst AI can prepare legal documentation, it is not yet sophisticated enough to represent a client in court. Therefore, Garfield hired Dominic Li to represent the case at Wandsworth County Court on 22 June 2026. Li said, “advocacy at trial remained essential and a fundamentally human exercise.” However, Mr Li praised Garfield for its statements of case, witness statements and bundle of documents produced. These documents gave him a solid foundation from which to prepare cross-examination and closing submissions. 

Therefore, while AI cannot currently reduce advocacy fees, it can save businesses money in the documentation production and correspondence stage as it can streamline routine legal work (debt claims are pretty routine).

Commercial awareness questions 

How will the availability of high-quality, low-cost legal alternatives impact the revenue models of traditional Magic Circle or regional law firms that typically rely on high-billable-hour models?

How should legal regulatory bodies, like the SRA, adapt to firms providing legal services entirely through AI platforms while still ensuring consumer protection?

How imperative do you think it is that AI produced legal documentation is always checked and verified by a human lawyer?