Can AI close the justice gap?

LLM grad Sakshi Sahoo examines whether AI-powered legal services could put justice within reach for more people across the UK

Garfield AI, an AI-assisted law firm, recently gained attention after helping a freelance HR consultant recover approximately £7,000 in unpaid fees. AI was reportedly used to prepare pre-trial material, while a human barrister conducted the advocacy in court.

The development is significant, but it should not be overstated. The case was not an example of AI replacing lawyers entirely. It was an example of AI being used within a regulated legal process, where human lawyers still played a central role. The outcome therefore marks progress, but not a complete transformation of legal practice.

The central issue is whether AI can improve access to justice without undermining the standards expected of legal professionals. For many individuals and small businesses, litigation is often commercially irrational. A claim may be valid, but the cost of legal advice can exceed the amount in dispute. In that context, AI-assisted legal services may offer a practical solution. They can reduce administrative time, assist with document preparation and make lower-value claims more viable.

However, the legal profession cannot treat efficiency as the only measure of progress. Solicitors and law firms remain bound by duties of competence, confidentiality, independence and candour to the court. AI may generate text, identify arguments and produce draft documents, but it cannot assume professional responsibility. That responsibility remains with the regulated individual or firm using the tool.

The principal risk arises from the fact that AI systems can generate inaccurate or misleading legal material in a manner that appears authoritative and coherent. An incorrect citation, a non-existent authority or a misstated procedural rule may not be immediately obvious unless the material is independently verified against reliable legal sources. Recent examples of AI misuse in legal practice demonstrate that the concern is not merely technological, but supervisory. The real issue arises when lawyers treat AI-generated material as a final answer, rather than as a preliminary draft that requires careful review, legal analysis and professional judgment before it is relied upon.

For UK law firms, the commercial implications are substantial. Larger firms may use AI to reduce time spent on routine research, disclosure, due diligence and first-draft document production. This could improve margins, but it may also weaken the traditional billing justification for junior-level work. Clients are likely to question why they should pay hourly rates for tasks that technology can complete more quickly.

Smaller firms may benefit in a different way. AI could allow them to deliver services more efficiently and compete in areas where cost has historically prevented client access. Yet smaller practices may also face greater compliance challenges if they lack the internal systems to monitor AI use properly.

The relevance for trainees and junior solicitors is equally clear. AI will not remove the need for legal reasoning. If anything, it raises the standard. Junior lawyers will need to understand how to test AI-generated material, verify authorities, assess relevance and identify what the tool has missed. The skill will not be typing prompts alone. It will be knowing when the answer is incomplete, unsafe or legally wrong.

The proper conclusion is neither alarmist nor complacent. AI is likely to become a permanent feature of UK legal practice. Used carefully, it can improve access to justice and make legal services more efficient. Used carelessly, it can expose firms to negligence claims, regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage.

The future advantage will therefore belong not to firms that adopt AI fastest, but to those that govern it best. Technology may assist the work. Responsibility, however, remains human.

Sakshi Sahoo is a legal assistant and founder of The Lawsplain. She holds an LLM in International Law from the University of Edinburgh. Her work focuses on the intersection of ESG, climate governance , access to justice, just transition and regulatory compliance, with a particular interest in how emerging technologies are reshaping legal practice.