We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
It was a very simple case that was primarily prepared for and conducted by the (very human, very expensive) barrister who actually argued the case.
A barrister like this is massive overkill for a case like this and it is almost unheard of as his fees would have been hugely disproportionate to the case (like hiring Harish Salve to argue for you at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal). He was only hired because the AI firm paid his fees, because they wanted to make sure the case was won, so that they could publicise it (and their strategy worked, because they have got free publicity far outstripping what they paid the barrister).
Keeping the limitations of AI aside, I fail to see why this incident is newsworthy. Pedestrian generative AI such as ChatGPT has for a long time had the ability to do the things which Garfield AI has done in this case. The only reason that the news of the victory in this case is being spread far and wide is that Garfield AI is branded as a 'law firm'. Nomenclature cannot change substance. To be astounded by this piece of news is the same as announcing yourself as bereft of any capacity for critical thinking. I don't like being abrasive, but the sheer number of idiots who consider AI to be the greatest thing for law since language was invented (like you for instance) gets on my nerves.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7475191352117514240/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADbobP8BYXYimSxP3fuldWAbtZ_1ddV7Saw
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/22/artificial-intelligence-law-firm-wins-court-case-in-england-for-first-time
Though this is in UK, I guess its time human law firms pack their bags!?