It was always inevitable considering the pace of development in AI. If built and monitored responsibly as you alluded to, it could improve access to legal services with efficiency.
Yes Wanderlust. The path ahead will involve close regulatory scrutiny, technical challenges, and public trust issues, especially since no human lawyers involved.
Thank you for your article. Still I find it hard to believe that an AI firm has implemented secure coding and data masking and minimisation. I would not "trust" for an AI to process whatever privacy PII and legal problems.
That's certainly a valid concern Digital-Mark. Of course, it is not unreasonable to question how an AI-driven firm (the first of its kind btw) handles privacy, security and personal data. Garfield AI has been authorised by the SRA, which required it to demonstrate compliance with data protection laws, client confidentiality, secure system design, etc. This would have surely includes data minimisation and encryption protocols. That said, caution is always valid when dealing with sensitive information. We don't directly advocate for using AI to resolve legal issues by itself, but it is worth considering that this is a direction people are willing to take, more so because of its private law focus on debt recovery. Transparency, ongoing oversight, and user understanding will be essential. Over time, trust in these systems should grow with evidence, not assumptions, and regulatory scrutiny still remains key to ensuring accountability in AI-led legal services.
Hey! I saw your post pop up on my homepage and wanted to show some support. If you get a chance, I’d really appreciate a little love on my latest newsletter too always happy to boost each other!
Actually bound to happen if u think about it. If handled properly, can't see any negative.
It was always inevitable considering the pace of development in AI. If built and monitored responsibly as you alluded to, it could improve access to legal services with efficiency.
It'll be a long and winding road for them that's for sure. But theyve really done well for themselves .
Yes Wanderlust. The path ahead will involve close regulatory scrutiny, technical challenges, and public trust issues, especially since no human lawyers involved.
Thank you for your article. Still I find it hard to believe that an AI firm has implemented secure coding and data masking and minimisation. I would not "trust" for an AI to process whatever privacy PII and legal problems.
That's certainly a valid concern Digital-Mark. Of course, it is not unreasonable to question how an AI-driven firm (the first of its kind btw) handles privacy, security and personal data. Garfield AI has been authorised by the SRA, which required it to demonstrate compliance with data protection laws, client confidentiality, secure system design, etc. This would have surely includes data minimisation and encryption protocols. That said, caution is always valid when dealing with sensitive information. We don't directly advocate for using AI to resolve legal issues by itself, but it is worth considering that this is a direction people are willing to take, more so because of its private law focus on debt recovery. Transparency, ongoing oversight, and user understanding will be essential. Over time, trust in these systems should grow with evidence, not assumptions, and regulatory scrutiny still remains key to ensuring accountability in AI-led legal services.
Hey! I saw your post pop up on my homepage and wanted to show some support. If you get a chance, I’d really appreciate a little love on my latest newsletter too always happy to boost each other!