One of the most significant uses of AI in arbitration is in the contract analysis and risk management stage, where AI can review large volumes of commercial contracts. AI-based tools like Kira Systems exemplify how digital transformation is becoming imperative in the legal field. As law firms face cost-focused landscapes where client discounts are common, improving efficiency and creating a client-centred model is crucial.
This system has demonstrated that law firms using Kira AI reduce contract review times by up to 60 %. Leading firms such as DL Piper, Freshfields, and Allen & Overy have increased efficiency and enhanced client services through AI-powered software.
Similarly, platforms like Luminance allow parties to identify potentially conflicting or ambiguous clauses that could lead to disputes, facilitating a more thorough and quicker review process. Predictive analysis reduces litigation risks by helping companies identify areas of conflict before they escalate. Founded by AI experts from the University of Cambridge, Luminance is a leading legal AI platform. Based on a proprietary large legal language model (LLM), Luminance conceptually understands legal documents in any language.
Another use lies in outcome prediction and risk assessment, as mentioned earlier. Tools like JuriMetría, developed by La Ley and Google Spain, and Arbilex, utilize extensive datasets of arbitration cases to forecast potential outcomes in future disputes. Machine learning algorithms identify patterns in previous decisions, enabling lawyers and parties to estimate success probabilities.
These AI tools not only aid in procedural strategy but also in negotiating agreements, promoting early resolutions, and reducing arbitration time and costs.
Document review processes in arbitration, especially in international cases involving large volumes of evidence, can be lengthy and expensive. AI has revolutionized this area with Predictive Document Review (TAR). Programs like Relativity or Everlaw analyze millions of documents, identify patterns, and classify their relevance, accelerating the discovery of essential evidence for cases. Everlaw optimizes all aspects of litigation processes with features such as rapid data processing, email searches, and advanced analytics integrated into its platform.
For example, in an international arbitration between two major tech corporations, AI could review over a million emails and documents in just a few days—tasks that would otherwise take months for a human team. This reduces costs and allows parties to focus on critical case aspects.
AI also plays a role in drafting awards. While final decisions remain human, AI can assist in structuring awards and researching relevant norms or precedents. Tools like ROSS Intelligence have been used by arbitrators and courts to find case law and simplify drafting complex arguments.
However, the use of artificial intelligence systems that analyze large volumes of data to make such predictions also raises other legal issues, such as the permission to use such data and its relationship to copyright,
This is precisely the case of
The latest activity in the case dates back to July 2024, when the Court ordered ROSS to submit a list of all headings it considers to be direct quotations or that minimally vary from direct quotations of judicial opinions by July 29, 2024. Subsequently, if Reuters wished to submit comments on the list, it was required to do so by August 5, 2024.
The Court will not exclude any headings that are not direct quotations or trivial variations of direct quotations, meaning the jury will need to consider all headings that can reasonably be deemed original and, therefore, subject to copyright protection by the plaintiff.
This case highlights the legal and ethical implications of using artificial intelligence as a tool for arbitrators and litigants in arbitration, but most importantly, for the designers of such tools.
In the international context, the growth of online arbitration has been largely driven by AI. Platforms such as Modria and Smartsettle allow parties to resolve commercial disputes entirely digitally. These platforms not only automate logistical aspects, such as document submission and communication management, but can also include AI algorithms that assist parties in finding solutions through AI-assisted negotiation.
In the field of document management, the development of AI-based tools such as ChatDoc, Sharly, and Humata is transforming this essential task for case analysis in various areas, including international arbitration. Their ability to efficiently analyze, summarize, and interact with documents makes them strategic allies in this field, where cases often involve large volumes of information and complex documentation.
Meanwhile,
Together, these tools offer numerous benefits to international arbitration. They optimize document management by handling large volumes of information in an organized manner, reduce costs and time by automating repetitive tasks, and increase accuracy in case preparation. Additionally, by offering real-time analysis, they enable legal teams to make informed decisions more quickly. With their application, international arbitration faces a future that is more efficient, precise, and technologically advanced.
In the coming years, we will likely see how leading arbitration centers in our region, such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Center of the Bogotá Chamber of Commerce, will incorporate AI-assisted arbitration services, following the leadership it has always had by being one of the first centers in the region to offer online arbitration tools.
In international disputes, where language differences, time zones, and travel costs can complicate the arbitration process, AI-based platforms have enabled faster and more accessible resolutions. One example is the case of international e-commerce, where companies disputing product quality or contractual terms have been able to resolve their conflicts in weeks rather than months, using online resolution platforms that employ AI to facilitate negotiation.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration practice is rapidly transforming global processes, becoming an indispensable tool in international arbitration. A detailed analysis of the Annual Report Survey,
However, this technological advancement is not without controversy.
Moreover, the ethical and regulatory debate surrounding AI is becoming increasingly prominent. 60 % of respondents demand greater transparency in how these technologies are implemented, while 74 % oppose the use of AI by arbitrators to draft awards. This reflects a widespread perception that automation in such delicate decisions could compromise the legitimacy and fairness of the arbitration process.
In this context, it is evident that the path toward a balanced integration of AI in arbitration requires a multidisciplinary approach that combines technological advances with solid ethical and legal principles. Only in this way will it be possible to maximize the capabilities of these tools while mitigating the risks inherent in their use.
In line with this, a survey conducted by the prestigious Queen Mary London University School of International Arbitration and White & Case in 2021 found that the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration practice is becoming more frequent, with 41 % of respondents using AI always, frequently, or sometimes in their arbitration practice.
Interviews conducted in the survey showed that the use of AI in the legal field is almost exclusively concentrated on technology-assisted document review, known as e-discovery. This approach has been described by one of the interviewees as a “brilliant revolution,” as it has significantly improved procedural efficiency. The ability to process and analyse large volumes of data in shorter timeframes has allowed the parties involved in international arbitrations to save resources and time, which is crucial in alternative dispute resolution procedures. However, the potential of AI in other areas is still being explored, with few consolidated cases beyond this specific application.
In addition to e-discovery, some interviewees mentioned the occasional use of AI-based data analysis tools, which can help identify relevant patterns in complex litigation or arbitration cases. However, a recurring issue is the high cost of these tools, making them inaccessible to many users, especially in disputes of lower economic value or less technical complexity.
This economic aspect becomes a barrier, as even when clients have the resources to invest in these technologies, they often question whether the benefits justify the expense. This is particularly true when disputes do not involve large volumes of information or require advanced analysis. Additionally, the free tools available today carry the risk of “hallucinating” or providing incorrect information, to the point of inventing cases.
Such was the case on March 8, 2024, when the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida suspended a lawyer for one year after discovering that they had submitted a brief containing non-existent case law precedents generated by artificial intelligence. This violated both the court’s rules and the Florida Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
The case began when the opposing counsel filed a complaint stating that the cited cases could not be found in any legal database. Upon requesting full versions of these precedents, they received evasive responses from the sanctioned lawyer, who ultimately admitted to using artificial intelligence to draft parts of the document without verifying the accuracy of the generated citations. This prompted the Grievance Committee to investigate further, concluding that the lawyer’s conduct demonstrated not only a lack of reasonable diligence but also the invocation of completely fabricated precedents.
In its report, the Committee emphasized that while artificial intelligence can be a useful tool in legal research, it does not replace the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy and validity of the legal arguments presented to the court. As a result, Judge John E. Steele, based on clear and convincing evidence, suspended the lawyer and imposed strict conditions for reinstatement. These included attending professionalism and management workshops, complying with corrective measures ordered by the Florida Bar and other courts, settling pending sanctions, and certifying the complete reading of the rules of professional conduct and the court’s local rules.
This case underscores the importance of professional diligence in the practice of law, even when using advanced technological tools like artificial intelligence. The sanction sends a clear message: lawyers have an unyielding obligation to verify the accuracy of the information they present in their legal briefs.
Another challenge identified is the lack of familiarity with new technologies among arbitration users. The implementation of AI in this field not only depends on costs but also on the acceptance and understanding of professionals and involved parties. In some cases, there remains a sense of distrust toward these tools, especially when it comes to algorithms designed to predict legal outcomes or judicial decisions, a practice known as predictive justice.
Many interviewees in the Queen Mary and White & Case report expressed scepticism regarding the ethics and limits of these tools, questioning to what extent they should interfere with the adjudicative functions of human judges and arbitrators.
Despite the advantages AI can offer, such as improving efficiency and reducing human errors, there is a general consensus that these tools cannot replace the judgment and experience of arbitrators and lawyers. Human interaction remains indispensable for interpreting the complexities of each case and ensuring a fair and ethical approach to conflict resolution. Indeed, most interviewees emphasized that AI should be considered a complementary tool, not a substitute, as the human element is essential to ensure that legal decisions are not only technically correct but also socially just and acceptable.
Finally, the interviews also highlighted the need to foster greater technological literacy in the legal field. This involves not only training professionals in the use of these tools but also addressing ethical concerns and the biases inherent in algorithms, which could negatively impact trust in the justice system.
The successful implementation of AI in arbitration and other legal areas will require a balanced approach that combines technological innovation with a strong commitment to the fundamental values of the law. Below is the chart referenced in the Queen Mary and White & Case report on the use of AI in international arbitration (
The previous cases and situations identified by arbitrators and arbitration practitioners worldwide highlight that, despite the rapid growth of these important technological innovations applied to both domestic and international arbitration, one of the most significant we face as arbitrators and developers of arbitration technology is ensuring that the use of AI in arbitration maintains one of the justice system’s most cherished values: impartiality.