Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration
Introduction
As technology advances, artificial intelligence (“AI”) is steadily making its way into dispute resolution, promising enhanced efficiency. Practitioners are carefully weighing its capabilities against its limitations. This article explores the various applications of AI in arbitration, from document review to case management, translation, and evidence. It also delves into the associated challenges, such as confidentiality, technical limitations, and ethical considerations.
AI Applications in Arbitration: Key Areas
Document Review and Legal Research
AI has become an essential tool for streamlining document-intensive tasks. Leveraging AI for document review allows the rapid processing of massive datasets, which is essential in complex arbitration cases. AI systems can sift through volumes of case files, identify relevant documents, and flag legal precedents. This expedites traditional document review, enabling legal teams to focus on higher-value activities like case strategy and advocacy. However, while AI efficiently identifies information, human oversight is crucial to ensure contextual relevance and accuracy of AI-sourced data.
Precedent Analysis and Case Management
AI tools can identify legal patterns and precedents from historical rulings, assisting in case strategy by creating decision trees and help manage complex data. AI's predictive analytics capability helps legal teams assess case outcomes based on precedent, which can guide settlement strategies. Practitioners view AI-enhanced case management as invaluable support, though they are cautious of over-reliance on AI.
Translation and Transcription
International arbitration often involves multilingual documentation, making translation and transcription a significant hurdle. AI-driven translation tools have become increasingly reliable, enabling faster and more accurate translations, which helps streamline document review across language barriers. However, while AI translation is helpful, human review is still necessary, particularly for nuanced legal terms and culturally specific language use. Misinterpretations in translation can affect case outcomes, making human verification essential for accuracy.
AI transcription services are similarly useful. They can transcribe proceedings in real-time, capturing the statements of parties and arbitrators during a hearing. They can also analyze claims to identify opposing arguments or evidence presented by witnesses and experts. However, as accuracy may not be 100 percent, they bear the risk of the arbitral tribunal being misled by incorrect or unreliable outputs.
Practitioners also reported some reservations considering “hallucinations” and confidentiality breaches.
Challenges of AI in Arbitration
Fact-Finding and Subjective Judgment
AI is still limited in its ability to make subjective interpretations, which are critical in arbitration. For example, witness credibility and fact-finding involve understanding emotions and motivations—areas where AI falls short. While AI can organize and analyze data, it cannot yet replace the situational awareness and emotional intelligence required for effective cross-examination and oral arguments.
Confidentiality and Security Risks
The use of AI in handling confidential information raises significant data security questions. Many AI tools operate on third-party cloud platforms, which can introduce data privacy vulnerabilities. Ensuring encryption, secure data storage, and limited access helps maintain client privacy protection. On April 30, 2024 The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (“SVAMC”) has published guidelines (“Guidelines”) emphasizing the importance of maintaining confidentiality when using AI in arbitration.
SVMAC Guideline 5 states that parties, party representatives and experts may not use any form of AI in a manner that may affect the integrity of the arbitration or otherwise disrupt the conduct of the proceedings.
According to these Guidelines, all participants must ensure that their use of AI tools aligns with their confidentiality obligations. AI systems should not process confidential information without proper authorization and should only be handled by AI tools that offer robust data protection measures.
Risk of Hallucinations and Inaccuracies
Large language models have a documented tendency to “hallucinate”, or fabricate data, which can lead to inaccuracies in legal analysis.
This can lead to mistakes in legal interpretation, which can have severe consequences in the field of law. Therefore, when applying AI in the field of law, where interpretation is so fundamental and adherence to factual information so critical, practitioners generally adopt a very cautious approach and treat AI-generated content as preliminary drafts that need to undergo rigorous human review and approval, rather than fully trusting and using it. This is because hallucinatory cases such as fabricated case citations concretely demonstrate the risks of AI in this context. These hallucinatory cases may lead to not only concrete case citations, but also, as mentioned earlier, to misinterpretations in legal analysis and consequently to misapplication of legal principles. Therefore, such hallucinations can lead to significant errors of judgment if practitioners do not approach them with extreme caution and rigor, emphasizing the importance of a reliable verification process as a safeguard against the potential pitfalls of AI-generated content.
Under Guideline 1, the SVMAC emphasizes this cautious approach and the importance of verification as essential for maintaining the reliability of legal outputs in AI-integrated environments.
Regulatory and Ethical Considerations
With AI becoming more prevalent, regulatory bodies have started addressing ethical concerns. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, ("EU AI Act") for instance, classifies certain AI uses as high-risk, imposing stringent requirements for transparency, fairness, and accountability.
The SVAMC Guidelines also recommend a ‘Duty of Competence’ for parties and representatives, requiring them to use AI responsibly. This includes verifying AI outputs and ensuring human oversight. The guidelines highlight the importance of transparency and suggest that any use of AI outside the record be disclosed to maintain due process.
Such disclosures should include details about the AI tool used, its version, and its application in the specific context of the arbitration. This measure aims to preserve due process, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to assess and comment on AI-generated contributions.
Additionally, the Guidelines advise representatives to ensure that AI use aligns with ethical standards and professional responsibilities, particularly in evidence integrity and avoiding reliance on AI tools to mislead the arbitral tribunal. Parties are also encouraged to familiarize themselves with the potential risks of "hallucinations" or inaccuracies in AI outputs, and to mitigate these risks through diligent review.
The Future of AI in Arbitration: A Balanced Approach
The potential use of AI in arbitration is promising, but a balanced approach is essential. AI tools can streamline processes and improve case management; however, human insight should remain central. The hybrid model—delegating simpler tasks to AI while retaining human-led oversight for complex cases—offers a practical and ethical pathway forward, aligning efficiency with the core principles of arbitration.
There is still no clarity on how courts will evaluate the use of AI in arbitration during set aside and enforcement proceedings, or what role it will play in claims of public policy violations. Moreover, since most arbitration institutions have not yet issued guidelines or rules regarding the use of AI, it is crucial to pay attention to issues such as transparency and confidentiality to avoid facing such claims.
Additionally, the SVAMC Guidelines emphasize a non-delegation principle, advising arbitrators against relying solely on AI for decision-making. While AI can assist in organizing and analyzing information, the Guidelines reinforce that final judgments and legal decisions must reflect the arbitrator's independent analysis.
Conclusion
AI is a valuable tool in arbitration, particularly for document review, case management, and data analysis. Yet, its limitations in subjective judgment, confidentiality, and data accuracy underscore the necessity of human oversight. Adopting AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement allows arbitration practices to harness the benefits of innovation while maintaining fairness, integrity, and due process.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence (Convention) is an international treaty proposed by the Council of Europe that was recently opened for signature . This is the first legally binding international framework regulating the entire lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. The Convention ensures...
The "Brussels Effect" refers to the phenomenon where European Union (“EU”) regulations influence or set standards globally. Since the EU is a significant market, global companies often find it practical and economically beneficial to adopt EU standards across all their operations rather than comply with multiple...
With its decision dated 11.10.2023 and numbered 2020/76 E., 2023/172 K. published in the Official Gazette dated 10 January 2024 and numbered 32425 ("Decision"), the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court") evaluated the requests for the annulment of certain articles of the Law No. 7253 on the...
The Information Technologies and Communications Board adopted the Procedures and Principles for Social Network Providers (“Procedures and Principles”) with its decision dated 28.03.2023 and numbered 2023/DK-ID/119. The said decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 01.04.2023, and entered into...
The first “Artificial Intelligence Act” of all time, which includes rules and regulations that directly affect tools such as ChatGPT, Bard and Midjourney adopted by the European Parliament with a majority of votes. Thus, the European Parliament has officially taken the steps of a regulation that could be a turning point for...
ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) developed by OpenAI, is an artificial intelligence (AI) system based on deep learning techniques and neural networks for natural language processing. ChatGPT can process and generate human-like text, chat, analyse and answer follow-up questions, and acknowledge errors...