Channel 4’s dispatches pits a trainee solicitor against a regulated AI law firm in a legal duel
A Channel 4 experiment has thrown the future of junior legal work into sharp relief after an artificial intelligence system went head-to-head with a trainee solicitor in a legal drafting contest.
The showdown, aired in Dispatches: Will AI Take My Job?, featured the UK’s first regulated AI law firm, Garfield AI, competing directly with human trainee solicitor Charlotte Jaques from Summerfield Browne. The test aimed to determine how far technology has come in replicating the skills of junior lawyers — and which legal roles could soon face automation.
Both contestants were tasked with preparing a claim form for a real small-claims dispute between a builder and a client who had refused to pay a £4,500 bill. The challenge required each to draft a professional document ready to be filed before a court.
The results were judged blind by Jaques’ supervisor, Zainab Zaeem. She praised both submissions but identified a crucial distinction. Garfield AI’s draft, while competent and legally coherent, omitted an important detail: it failed to note that a WhatsApp exchange could constitute a binding contract. Even so, she confirmed the AI’s version was “good enough to be put before a judge”.
Embed from Getty Images
Ultimately, Zaeem concluded that Jaques’ submission demonstrated stronger reasoning and structure, earning her the technical victory. However, she admitted being “impressed by both documents”, acknowledging how close the AI system had come to human-level work.
What truly shocked viewers was the disparity in cost and speed. Garfield AI, co-founded by former Baker McKenzie associate Philip Young and quantum physicist Daniel Long, completed its draft in about ten minutes at a price of £100 plus VAT. Jaques, on the other hand, spent more than three hours crafting her version, billed at over £1,000.
The client whose case was used in the experiment offered a blunt verdict: based on price alone, he would choose the AI next time.
The outcome raises urgent questions for the legal industry about the future of training, efficiency and value. While human solicitors still display better contextual judgement and nuance, AI now demonstrates a capacity for reliable, low-cost drafting that threatens to reshape traditional workflows.
Garfield AI’s regulated status adds further weight to the result. It operates under the supervision of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, making it the first AI-driven law firm formally permitted to provide legal services in England and Wales. That regulatory approval suggests AI tools are no longer confined to experiments or startups but are entering the mainstream of professional practice.
Experts observing the programme have warned that the cost differential could accelerate the adoption of AI tools for basic legal work. Tasks such as claim forms, contracts, and small-claims filings—once essential learning exercises for trainees—may soon be automated entirely.
At the same time, the result indicates that human oversight remains vital. While the AI performed well on structure and formatting, its omission of a key legal principle could have weakened a client’s case if left unchecked. The conclusion drawn by many commentators is that the future of law may rest on hybrid collaboration: humans setting strategy, AI handling the groundwork.
For Charlotte Jaques, the experience demonstrated both the potential and the limits of technology in law. For the wider profession, it delivered a sobering reminder that automation is no longer a distant prospect but an immediate reality. As the client’s verdict suggested, the legal market may soon prioritise cost and speed over tradition — a change that could redefine the career path of every aspiring lawyer in Britain.