Inside Garfield AI: the City lawyer behind the first AI law firm
Philip Young on building the UK's first AI law firm - and how he managed to get SRA approval.
Contents
When Philip Young, a former City litigator and co-founder of litigation boutique Cooke, Young & Keidan, announced the launch of Garfield AI, it triggered something rare in the legal profession: genuine excitement.
Headlines (including our own) dubbed it the UK’s "first AI law firm", but that undersells the regulatory and technical milestone. Garfield AI is more than a novel tech startup. It’s the first SRA-regulated entity in England and Wales to be built from the ground up around AI.
The premise is pretty simple: automate the lifecycle of small debt claims using large language models and an "expert system" baked in with decades of legal expertise. What makes it revolutionary is that it is a law firm - regulated, insured, with a solicitor on the hook for everything - but with technology driving almost every part of its operation.
"Garfield does everything except the oral advocacy", says Young. From document review to skeleton arguments and court bundles, it automates the entire process end-to-end.
In an interview for The Non-Billable Podcast, Young told us about how the idea for Garfield AI came about, how it works, and why securing approval from the SRA marks a watershed moment for the UK legal profession, with implications for everything from access to justice to the future role of lawyers in an AI-powered world.
Listen to the full-length interview on the podcast. Episode page with links here.
Get the free email for UK lawyers with the legal industry and business stories you need to know about to stay ahead. In your inbox, three times a week.
From City partner to legal technologist
Before founding Garfield, Young was best known for co-founding Cooke, Young & Keidan (CYK), the litigation boutique that made its name punching above its weight against banks and financial institutions, often facing off against Magic Circle firms. At CYK, he cut his teeth on high-profile cases - including Graiseley v Barclays, the first claim to address the legal implications of the LIBOR manipulation scandal.
Young thought he was due some well-earned time off after he retired from CYK in 2022, but things took a different turn.
"It started with my brother-in-law", he says.
"He’s a heating engineer, and from time to time over many years he'll have the odd customer that doesn't pay him. I used to help him collect debts from customers. I kept thinking: this process is supposed to be simplified. It's supposed to be easy, but actually it's harder than it should be. And there needs to be a better solution."
That better solution arrived when Young, recently retired and road-tripping across the US, discovered GPT-3.5 and, soon after, GPT-4. "It was a quantum jump", he says. "And I thought, we should build something now."
He teamed up with Daniel Young, a quantum physicist-turned-developer, and started prototyping Garfield. "It started out as a hobby. But quickly, it became clear it could be much more."
I kept thinking: this process is supposed to be simplified. It's supposed to be easy, but actually it's harder than it should be. And there needs to be a better solution.
How Garfield works
The user experience for Garfield is straightforward.
A customer uploads an invoice or contract, and Garfield’s backend - a mix of enterprise-grade LLMs and a bespoke expert-based system - assesses the validity of the claim. If it qualifies (under £10,000, not time-barred, no arbitration clause, etc), Garfield begins generating and sending out the relevant documents: a polite reminder, a letter before action, a claim form, particulars of claim.
Each document is editable by the user, and each is reviewed, for now, by Young himself.
"I’m checking all of the documents that Garfield generates", he says. "Over time I've agreed with the SRA that as we establish to a very high degree of certainty that particular classes of documents are totally safe, I will move to more of a risk-based sampling approach and so I'll focus on the areas where the risk is greatest."
Garfield then manages the process through to court, preparing trial bundles, skeleton arguments and even “speaking notes” for clients representing themselves.
"We tell them what time to be at court, where it is. We even advise them to wear a suit."
Garfield isn’t just aimed at consumers. Young has quietly been onboarding small law firms as well. For them, the product operates on a white-label basis: Garfield generates the documents, but law firms send them out under their own name and branding.
We tell clients what time to be at court, where it is. We even advise them to wear a suit.
Not just AI
Despite the headlines, Garfield AI isn’t just a wrapper around ChatGPT. The system’s strength lies in combining LLMs with rule-based logic built from Young’s own legal expertise.
"It’s AI plus an expert system built in - that's the magic of it", Young explains. "As my sister likes to say, basically it's 25 years of Philip's experience bolted onto all this clever technology."
The firm has five core team members and around 15 people in total. Most of the early coding was done by Young and co-founder Dan, but as the system has matured, professional developers have taken over.
"My code has been generally accepted to an extent by the professionals", Young says. "And they only change bits of it from time to time. And sometimes they flatter me by saying, thanks, Philip. Good effort. Now we'll take it from here."
SRA approval
Perhaps the most striking part of Garfield’s story is that it’s a fully authorised law firm, regulated by the SRA. That’s a world first.
Getting that approval wasn’t easy.
"The first question they had to answer was whether they even had jurisdiction", Young says. "The Legal Services Act doesn’t clearly define 'conducting litigation', and the relevant case law is messy. So the first thing I had to do was persuade the SRA that we were going to be conducting a reserved legal activity."
Then came the deeper questions: are these appropriate people to be regulated? Do they have the ability to build this product? Is this product something that is going to be safe for the user? How do you deal with hallucinations?
The SRA themselves were understandably keen to highlight the level of human oversight being applied at Garfield. Asked what that looks like in practice, Young says "It looks like me in a nutshell."
£2 letters and media frenzy
Much of the media attention has focused on Garfield’s entry-level pricing - £2 for a polite chasing letter - but Young is quick to downplay that.
"I don't even think that's a particularly useful part of the functionality", he says. "I think the really useful part of the functionality is the letters before action, the claim form, the particulars and handling the court process through to trial."
Judges, he says, have been extremely positive.
"They've seen that they're going to get properly prepared bundles and skeleton arguments. They say that one of their big problems is litigants in person, and anything that can help to reduce the incidence of those in the court system is going to be a big plus for them."
Ignoring the floodgates argument
One obvious concern around Garfield AI is whether it could overwhelm the small claims courts with a surge of AI-driven claims. Before launching, Young went directly to senior figures at the MoJ and the judiciary to gauge their reaction.
"If this kind of thing wasn’t going to be welcomed, I figured I should just go and build something else", he says. The response he got was simple: "They don’t care about the floodgates argument."
That’s partly because the data says around 70% of debt claims aren’t even defended - they're either paid or end in default judgment. Only 2-5% actually go to trial.
"They were really interested in the ability of normal people to get access to the court system, to have a quality uniform experience and, to the extent new claims do go in front of judges, they were hoping and believed that the increase in quality from products like Garfield will more than mitigate the increase in volume."
Judges were really interested in the ability of normal people to get access to the court system - they hope Garfield will more than mitigate the increase in volume.
A reluctant startup
Unlike most tech founders, Young didn’t start Garfield to chase a unicorn exit. In fact, he’s deliberately avoided venture capital.
"As you can imagine, the last week my email inbox and my LinkedIn seems to have filled up with VCs all of who want to be my friend", he says. "I'm not ruling it out but I'm sceptical about whether this sort of product should even be backed by that sort of money."
Instead, early-stage funding has come from private individuals, including a serial founder in tech. The product is live, being used, and the pipeline is growing. But Young refuses to make financial forecasts.
"Looking at the amount of interest we've had, I'm certainly hoping it does well. And then I'll be able to use that to build additional products and help even more people."
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addleshaw Goddard | £52,000 | £56,000 | £100,000 |
| Akin Gump | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Baker McKenzie | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Bird & Bird | £47,000 | £52,000 | £98,000 |
| Bristows | £46,000 | £50,000 | £88,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Burges Salmon | £47,000 | £49,000 | £72,000 |
| Charles Russell Speechlys | £50,000 | £53,000 | £88,000 |
| Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton | £57,500 | £62,500 | £164,500 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clyde & Co | £47,000 | £49,500 | £85,000 |
| CMS | £50,000 | £55,000 | £110,000 |
| Cooley | £55,000 | £60,000 | £157,000 |
| Davis Polk | £65,000 | £70,000 | £170,000 |
| Debevoise | £55,000 | £60,000 | £173,000 |
| Dechert | £55,000 | £61,000 | £165,000 |
| Dentons | £50,000 | £54,000 | £100,000 |
| DLA Piper | £50,000 | £55,000 | £110,000 |
| Eversheds Sutherland | £46,000 | £50,000 | £100,000 |
| Farrer & Co | £47,000 | £49,000 | £88,000 |
| Fieldfisher | £48,500 | £52,000 | £95,000 |
| Freshfields | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Fried Frank | £55,000 | £60,000 | £175,000 |
| Gibson Dunn | £60,000 | £65,000 | £180,000 |
| Goodwin Procter | £55,000 | £60,000 | £175,000 |
| Gowling WLG | £48,500 | £53,500 | £98,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| HFW | £50,000 | £54,000 | £100,000 |
| Hill Dickinson | £43,000 | £45,000 | £80,000 |
| Hogan Lovells | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Irwin Mitchell | £43,000 | £45,000 | £76,000 |
| Jones Day | £56,000 | £65,000 | £160,000 |
| K&L Gates | £50,000 | £55,000 | £115,000 |
| Kennedys | £43,000 | £46,000 | £85,000 |
| King & Spalding | £55,000 | £60,000 | £165,000 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| Latham & Watkins | £60,000 | £65,000 | £174,418 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Mayer Brown | £55,000 | £60,000 | £135,000 |
| McDermott Will & Emery | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Milbank | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Mills & Reeve | £45,000 | £47,000 | £82,000 |
| Mischon de Reya | £47,500 | £52,500 | £95,000 |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | £50,000 | £55,000 | £135,000 |
| Orrick | £55,000 | £60,000 | £160,000 |
| Osborne Clarke | £54,500 | £56,000 | £94,000 |
| Paul Hastings | £60,000 | £68,000 | £173,000 |
| Paul Weiss | £55,000 | £60,000 | £180,000 |
| Penningtons Manches Cooper | £48,000 | £50,000 | £83,000 |
| Pinsent Masons | £49,500 | £54,000 | £97,000 |
| Quinn Emanuel | n/a | n/a | £180,000 |
| Reed Smith | £50,000 | £55,000 | £125,000 |
| Ropes & Gray | £60,000 | £65,000 | £165,000 |
| RPC | £46,000 | £50,000 | £90,000 |
| Shoosmiths | £43,000 | £45,000 | £97,000 |
| Sidley Austin | £60,000 | £65,000 | £175,000 |
| Simmons & Simmons | £52,000 | £57,000 | £120,000 |
| Skadden | £58,000 | £63,000 | £173,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Squire Patton Boggs | £47,000 | £50,000 | £110,000 |
| Stephenson Harwood | £50,000 | £55,000 | £100,000 |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | £65,000 | £70,000 | £174,418 |
| Taylor Wessing | £50,000 | £55,000 | £115,000 |
| TLT | £44,000 | £47,500 | £85,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
| Trowers & Hamlins | £45,000 | £49,000 | £80,000 |
| Vinson & Elkins | £60,000 | £65,000 | £173,077 |
| Watson Farley & Williams | £50,000 | £55,000 | £102,000 |
| Weightmans | £34,000 | £36,000 | £70,000 |
| Weil Gotshal & Manges | £60,000 | £65,000 | £170,000 |
| White & Case | £62,000 | £67,000 | £175,000 |
| Willkie Farr & Gallagher | £60,000 | £65,000 | £170,000 |
| Withers | £47,000 | £52,000 | £95,000 |
| Womble Bond Dickinson | £43,000 | £45,000 | £80,000 |
Rank | Law Firm | Revenue | Profit per Equity Partner (PEP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DLA Piper* | £3,010,000,000 | £2,400,000 |
| 2 | Clifford Chance | £2,300,000,000 | £2,040,000 |
| 3 | A&O Shearman | £2,200,000,000 | £2,200,000 |
| 4 | Hogan Lovells | £2,150,000,000 | £2,200,000 |
| 5 | Freshfields | £2,120,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 6 | Linklaters | £2,100,000,000 | £1,900,000 |
| 7 | Norton Rose Fulbright* | £1,800,000,000 | £1,100,000 |
| 8 | CMS** | £1,620,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 9 | Herbert Smith Freehills | £1,300,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 10 | Ashurst | £961,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 11 | Clyde & Co | £844,000,000 | £739,000 |
| 12 | Eversheds Sutherland | £749,000,000 | £1,300,000 |
| 13 | BCLP* | £661,000,000 | £748,000 |
| 14 | Pinsent Masons | £649,000,000 | £793,000 |
| 15 | Slaughter and May*** | £625,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 16 | Simmons & Simmons | £574,000,000 | £1,076,000 |
| 17 | Bird & Bird** | £545,000,000 | £696,000 |
| 18 | Addleshaw Goddard | £495,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 19 | Taylor Wessing | £480,000,000 | £915,000*** |
| 20 | Osborne Clarke** | £456,000,000 | £771,000 |
| 21 | Womble Bond Dickinson | £448,000,000 | £556,000 |
| 22 | DWF | £435,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 23 | Fieldfisher | £407,000,000 | £966,000 |
| 24 | Kennedys | £384,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| 25 | DAC Beachcroft | £325,000,000 | £700,000 |
What do City lawyers actually do each day?
For a closer look at the day-to-day of some of the most common types of lawyers working in corporate law firms, explore our lawyer job profiles:
This is a condensed version of our full length interview with Philip Young on The Non-Billable Podcast. View the episode page here.
| Firm | London office since | Known for in London |
|---|---|---|
| Baker McKenzie | 1961 | Finance, capital markets, TMT |
| Davis Polk | 1972 | Leveraged finance, corporate/M&A |
| Gibson Dunn | 1979 | Private equity, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Goodwin | 2008 | Private equity, funds, life sciences |
| Kirkland & Ellis | 1994 | Private equity, funds, restructuring |
| Latham & Watkins | 1990 | Finance, private equity, capital markets |
| Milbank | 1979 | Finance, capital markets, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Paul Hastings | 1997 | Leveraged finance, structured finance, infrastructure |
| Paul Weiss | 2001 | Private equity, leveraged finance |
| Quinn Emanuel | 2008 | Litigation |
| Sidley Austin | 1974 | Leveraged finance, capital markets, corporate/M&A |
| Simpson Thacher | 1978 | Leveraged finance, private equity, funds |
| Skadden | 1988 | Finance, corporate/M&A, arbitration |
| Weil | 1996 | Restructuring, private equity, leverage finance |
| White & Case | 1971 | Capital markets, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Law firm | Type | First-year salary |
|---|---|---|
| White & Case | US firm | £32,000 |
| Stephenson Harwood | International | £30,000 |
| A&O Shearman | Magic Circle | £28,000 |
| Charles Russell Speechlys | International | £28,000 |
| Freshfields | Magic Circle | £28,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | Silver Circle | £28,000 |
| Hogan Lovells | International | £28,000 |
| Linklaters | Magic Circle | £28,000 |
| Mishcon de Reya | International | £28,000 |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | International | £28,000 |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A&O Shearman | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Clifford Chance | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Linklaters | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
| Slaughter and May | £56,000 | £61,000 | £150,000 |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
| Firm | Merger year | Known for in London |
|---|---|---|
| BCLP | 2018 | Real estate, corporate/M&A, litigation |
| DLA Piper | 2005 | Corporate/M&A, real estate, energy, resources and infrastructure |
| Eversheds Sutherland | 2017 | Corporate/M&A, finance |
| Hogan Lovells | 2011 | Litigation, regulation, finance |
| Mayer Brown | 2002 | Finance, capital markets, real estate |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | 2013 | Energy, resources and infrastructure, insurance, finance |
| Reed Smith | 2007 | Shipping, finance, TMT |
| Squire Patton Boggs | 2011 | Corporate/M&A, pensions, TMT |
Law Firm | Trainee First Year | Trainee Second Year | Newly Qualified (NQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashurst | £52,000 | £57,000 | £125,000 |
| Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner | £50,000 | £55,000 | £105,000 |
| Herbert Smith Freehills | £56,000 | £61,000 | £135,000 |
| Macfarlanes | £56,000 | £61,000 | £140,000 |
| Travers Smith | £54,000 | £59,000 | £120,000 |
Our newsletter is the best
Get the free email that keeps UK lawyers ahead on the stories that matter.
We send a short summary of the biggest legal industry and business stories you need to know about three times a week. Free to join. Unsubscribe at any time.
