����Ӱ��

In an era poised for transformation, AI stands on the cusp of revolutionising arbitration – promising unparalleled efficiency but also underpinned by significant risks at times. How can we best harness the potential of this emerging superpower whilst being cognisant of all the challenges it may pose? What are our genuine expectations from this digital ally?

These pivotal questions framed the dynamic panel session AI in arbitration held at the ICC United Kingdom Arbitration & ADR conference on 24 October 2024.

The panel consisted of Guy Pendell, Partner, CMS and Chair, ICC United Kingdom Arbitration & ADR Committee (acting as the moderator); Joseph Otoo, Senior Legal Counsel, Associate Director, Arup; Monica Crespo, Head of Product, Jus Mundi; Minesh Tanna, Global AI Lead, Partner, Simmons & Simmons; and Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel and Founder, TrialView.

The panel of experts unveiled AI tools that are reshaping hearing preparation and evidence management – think smart tech that predicts outcomes and flags discrepancies before they escalate. Welcome to the present (and future) of arbitration!

The Three Pillars of AI

The consensus was unmistakable: AI delivers efficiency and adaptability, yet begs us to consider the implications on accuracy, transparency and reliability. As we lean into this brave new world, how do we address a chilling concern: AI’s voracious data appetite threatens confidentiality. Are we unwittingly compromising sensitive information?

Accountability and Consent

The dialogue heated as the panel tackled the appealability of AI-generated outputs. With ‘hallucinated’ outputs looming, how do we safeguard against errors? Consensus: rigorous verification processes are non-negotiable. Every AI-generated insight must be anchored in traceable evidence.

But, if one party leverages AI, should the other not have the right to object? And what of mutual agreement? The implications of AI on the integrity of the arbitral process are under scrutiny. Are we risking fairness in our pursuit of digital advancement?

Disclosure Obligations

Debates flared over transparency in AI use. Is full disclosure an obligation or an overreach? While preventing fabricated evidence was unanimous, opinions diverged on the necessity for disclosure levels.

Some argued for complete transparency – advising that AI usage be revealed to keep the arbitral tribunal fully informed. Others felt the arbitral tribunal deserves visibility into AI users, sparking a crucial question of our times: how transparent is too transparent?

Striking a balance between transparency and innovation is essential for enhancing dispute efficiency. This call for collaborative groundwork within the arbitration community echoes practices ushered in by the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center[1].

Seizing Opportunities and Looking Ahead

As the conversation evolved, a powerful call emerged: legal professionals must equip themselves with AI literacy, especially with the impeding EU AI Act[2] on the horizon. Yet, lurking scepticism about oversight remains. Who will safeguard the integrity of these technologies in the long term? While the financial sustainability of AI solutions also looms as a vital consideration, the environmental impact of energy-hungry data centres (a topic which was not explored during the panel session) demands our attention. How will we confront these challenges while driving innovation forward?

As we tread this transformative path, we face some critical considerations: will we let innovation redefine us and will we ensure our principles of integrity and accountability remain unyielding? The future of arbitration hangs in the balance – what legacy do we want to leave in the AI age? This story continues.