Expert Opinion: Why AI does not replace the expertise of a litigation solicitor

Anna Sharp, partner in the dispute resolution and litigation team at SAS Daniels, discusses the risks of using AI in place of a solicitor.

The recent Channel 4 Dispatches episode, Will AI Take My Job?, offered a compelling glimpse into the future of legal services. In a head-to-head challenge, the UK’s first regulated AI law firm, Garfield AI, was tasked with drafting a legal claim against a trainee solicitor. The results were illuminating.

While the AI-produced draft was impressively fast and cost-effective—taking just 10 minutes and costing £100—it missed a key legal point: the precedent that a WhatsApp message can form a binding contract. The human solicitor, Charlotte Jaques, included this crucial detail, which her supervisor deemed essential to strengthening the claim.

This raises an important question: what happens when AI misses a point that turns out to be pivotal?

In litigation, precision matters. A missed precedent, an overlooked clause, or a misinterpreted fact can derail a case, leading to costly delays or even adverse outcomes. Once a claim is filed, correcting errors later in the process can be far more complex—and expensive—than getting it right from the start.

Litigation teams combine legal knowledge with practical experience to ensure your case is built on solid ground from day one. We know what to look for, what to include, and—crucially—what not to miss.

Before you rely on AI alone, ask yourself: can it truly understand the nuances of your case?

This article was produced by AI, but, crucially, checked over for accuracy by Anna Sharp, partner SAS Daniels’ dispute resolution and litigation team.