{"id":905180,"date":"2025-12-18T15:13:05","date_gmt":"2025-12-18T22:13:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905180"},"modified":"2025-12-18T15:13:08","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T22:13:08","slug":"artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration-unleash-or-restrain-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration-unleash-or-restrain-it\/","title":{"rendered":"AI in Arbitration: Unleash It or Restrain It? What Practitioners Need to Know"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

American Arbitration Association<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Artificial intelligence<\/a> has moved from the margins to the mainstream of legal practice. From document review and procedural summaries to drafting support and citation checks, AI is reshaping how disputes are prepared and managed. And as adoption accelerates, practitioners face a critical question:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can we leverage AI\u2019s efficiency without compromising fairness, trust, or professional judgment? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question took center stage at the 2025 American Arbitration Association\u00ae Future Dispute Resolution \u2013 New York Conference in a candid debate on \u201cUnleashing AI or Restraining It,\u201d where panelists examined real-world examples of how AI is reshaping legal practice, weighing its promise and its pitfalls. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion distilled into three essential takeaways for practitioners navigating AI adoption today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human Judgment Must Still Lead \u2014 Even as AI Scales Efficiency <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Panelists agreed that AI has proven valuable for procedural histories, document organization, citation verification, and large-scale evidence analysis. These efficiencies allow practitioners to move faster and work more effectively with complex record sets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But they emphasized legitimacy in arbitration still rests on human judgment. \u201cThere are a lot of sections of arbitral awards that really lend themselves to the integration of AI,\u201d Sarah Reynolds of Kaplan & Grady said, \u201cbut at the end of the day, the arbitrator\u2019s essential function really remains the exercise of judgment.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No algorithm can currently replicate the human evaluation of credibility, nuance, fairness, or process integrity \u2014 core responsibilities that define the neutral\u2019s role. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, panelists cautioned against overconfidence in AI outputs. Generative AI\u2019s authoritative tone can give users a false sense of certainty, even when its conclusions are wrong or incomplete. That risk makes human skepticism and review non-negotiable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet manual line-by-line verification of thousands of outputs eliminates much of AI\u2019s value. Practitioners need systems designed for layered validation, where AI tools cross-check one another to flag anomalies or inconsistencies, allowing expert reviewers to focus where judgment matters most. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt\u2019s one thing to check a brief and make sure the citations are accurate. It\u2019s another thing to check 10,000 documents and make sure the extractions are accurate,\u201d Allen Waxman of DLA Piper said. \u201cIf you need to check all of those, you\u2019ve lost the whole benefit of the efficiency of the system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What this means for practitioners: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI should accelerate preparation and analysis, not replace independent judgment. The goal isn\u2019t the automation of decision-making; it\u2019s the redeployment of human expertise to the complex evaluative tasks only people can perform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diligence and Disclosure Are the Foundations of Responsible AI Use <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

AI\u2019s efficiency gains are undeniable, but they raise more complex questions for practitioners: What must be disclosed? How is confidentiality safeguarded? And where does professional responsibility reside when technology assists the work? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panelists emphasized that while some AI tools may be new, the duties governing their use are not. Obligations of competence, diligence, candor, and confidentiality remain the ethical guardrails guiding responsible adoption. Neutrals must independently evaluate AI-assisted content rather than adopt it wholesale, and counsel must safeguard sensitive material by avoiding uploading it to unsecured or open-source platforms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t just\u2026sign off on an AI-drafted award without\u2026ensuring that we\u2019re not delegating decision-making to the AI tool,\u201d Reynolds said. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Panelists also addressed the role of disclosure and consent. While some parties may accept greater AI involvement in exchange for lower costs or faster outcomes, panelists stressed that any such tradeoffs must be knowingly and transparently agreed to, never presumed by neutrals or institutions on the parties\u2019 behalf. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhat\u2019s important is that the parties choose to assume those risks,\u201d Reynolds said. \u201cYou would never want to be in a position as an arbitrator that you assume those risks on behalf of the parties.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Institutions are stepping in to provide clearer guidance where uniform bright-line rules have yet to emerge fully. The\u00a0AAA-ICDR\u00ae Guidance on Arbitrators\u2019 Use of AI Tools<\/a>, for example, advises arbitrators to:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n