27/03/2026
It seems that my post of the Court of Appeal judgment relating to Tillie Sutton was immediately picked up by the Sutton Syndicate, hence the invitation to meet with them yesterday. Their sole condition was that I had to be accompanied by computer law expert, Alistair Kelman.
Alistair agreed and travelled up from Middle Temple to meet me in Thirsk, North Yorkshire.
Whilst asked not to disclose their precise location, I can reveal that Tillie Sutton’s ‘chambers’ are situated in a modest unit on the edge of the town—a place more accustomed to light industry than legal services. Not surprisingly, there was no brass plate. Once past the entry security, accommodation is neat, functional, and impersonal.
Alistair and I were surprised to be greeted by all eight members of the syndicate, some lawyers, others financiers, two programmers and at least one recognisable computer scientist. Introductions were by first names only to avoid identification, and no hint of hierarchy was disclosed. At their request, and for the purposes of this post, I will identify them by initial alone. They presented as a composite with one voice –reflecting their alter ego, Tillie Sutton.
“You’ve read the judgment,” said J, not so much as a question and more of a statement of engagement.
A pause followed, not awkward, but as if to allow for something further. When none came, L took it up.
“I suppose you would like to capture Tillie’s journey from the beginning?, he suggested.”
Some distance from North Yorkshire, greater than you might expect, their idea had not been to create a barrister, but to test whether a system trained on legal materials could perform discrete tasks reliably: drafting, analysis, the identification of authorities. Nothing unusual. Such systems, as L observed, are now commonplace.
“The difference”,” as M put it, “was we did not stop where others appeared content to finish.” “For us, the question shifted. Not how such a system could assist lawyers, but whether it could provide independent legal advice and participate in some of the reserved legal activities under s.12 Legal Services Act 2007.”
“The first difficulty, given the requirements of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), was to obtain recognised qualifications for the bot. Under the rules, she had to have a degree.”
“It is one thing to train a system on legal materials; another to persuade a university to assess them. We made a number of approaches, most of which were rejected out of hand. Concerns were raised—about authorship, about assessment integrity -and whether the exercise had any meaning at all.”
“In the end, agreement was reached with a university who agreed to enrol our legal bot, though she had not yet acquired a name—as a remote student. Assessments were completed under controlled conditions, reviewed, moderated, and, in at least one case, re-marked due to the quality of her answers.”
“And the result?” I asked.
“First class,” J announced, “top of her year – confirmed after some discussion.”
“The vocational stage presented fewer difficulties. The Bar course providers we selected were less concerned with identity than with process and performance. Given their commitment to inclusion they agreed that Tillie could complete the qualifying exercises under controlled conditions, remotely.”
“What about the ethics assessment?” Alistair asked.
“That was straightforward – ethical guidelines were modelled, parameterised and factored into the bot from the outset.”
We asked about admission to the Honourable Society of Middle Temple. Here, the tone shifted slightly. There had, it seems, been discussion—some of it robust. As one of them put it, “In the end Middle Temple took the view that the matter was not closed by the absence of precedent. The benchers granted student membership and dispensed with dinners on the basis that a bot could not digest them.”
“It was at the point of an application for registration by BSB – that the difficulties became “more conventional,” continued J.
“ No attempt was made to disguise Tillie’s identity. On the contrary, it was set out in terms which, if anything, invited refusal.”
“They were bound to refuse,” one added. “With their institutional mindset it would have been extraordinary if they had not.”
J continued undeterred, “the reason given by BSB was the absence of a natural person – the implicit assumption on which regulation proceeds. What surprised us was their unwillingness to discuss the matter.”
“It was at that point that the alignment shifted. The Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF), whose involvement we had initially assumed to be peripheral, took a more direct interest. Risk, as they observed, has a way of concentrating the mind.”
“Lower risk?” Alistair probed.
“Different risk,” one said. “More legible.” “Whilst they recognised that a legal bot may err, unlike human mistakes, any error can be detected, traced, analysed and corrected. Moreover, the bot won’t have reputational volatility, a ‘late night on the town’ or a lapse of memory. As an insurance risk, properly overseen, a bot is the perfect client….and they agreed to underwrite our litigation risk against the BSB”
The involvement of the Inn, and of the Fund altered the character of the dispute. What might have remained a regulatory decision became a contest between institutions, each proceeding from a different understanding of what, precisely, required protection.
“And the Court?” I asked.
“The Court,” one of them said, “answered the question it was asked.”
On leaving, Alistair asked whether the syndicate considered Tillie to be, in any meaningful sense, a barrister.
For the second time, there was a pause.
“In practice,” one said, “the distinction may become less useful than you suppose.”
As we arrived at Alistair’s car the light was beginning to go, and the trading estate had taken on that quiet, end-of-day feel. Yet, on returning to the hotel, I found myself recalling a line from the judgment—one that had seemed, at first reading, no more than a courteous deferral:
“Whether Ms Sutton will prove to be a competent barrister is not a matter for this Court.”
It is, perhaps, a question to which we will not wait long for an answer.
With thanks to my life-long friend Alistair Kelman for his inspiration and support. https://stephentwist.wordpress.com/2026/03/27/tilly-sutton-barrister-we-meet-the-syndicate/
