91% of Arbitration Practitioners Plan to Use AI

According to the report "2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Road Ahead - Realities and Opportunities in International Arbitration" released by the global law firm White & Case, the majority of respondents predicted that "the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of arbitration will surge over the next five years."

The survey asked about perceptions of AI, actual usage, and future plans for its adoption. Of the 2,402 respondents, 64% said they had used AI for fact-finding and legal research in the past five years. Additionally, 91% stated that they would use AI for fact investigation and document review tasks within the next five years.

Reference photo to aid understanding of the article. Pixabay

These responses contrast with past survey results. In the 2018 survey, 78% said that "AI usage should increase," but in reality, 68% responded that they "never" or "rarely use it." In the 2021 survey, 59% still said they "rarely use it."

However, since 2021, the emergence of generative AI such as ChatGPT appears to have transformed the arbitration practice environment. The report analyzes that "as AI adoption has become more widespread, work efficiency and procedural speed have improved significantly."

Respondents cited the following reasons for using AI: saving time for parties and representatives (54%), cost reduction (44%), reduction of human error (39%), saving time for arbitrators (36%), protecting smaller participants (26%), and maintaining competitiveness (25%). They evaluated AI as an efficient substitute for simple tasks and shared examples where the time required to analyze arbitrator candidate resumes was significantly reduced.

The greatest obstacle to AI adoption was identified as the "risk of errors and bias" (51%). This was followed by concerns over the risk of confidentiality and data leakage (44%), lack of experience and proficiency in usage (44%), absence of guidelines (38%), fears of awards being invalidated due to procedural fairness issues (28%), ethical and trust concerns (24%), and cost and accessibility issues (18%). Respondents emphasized that "transparency regarding how AI was used is more important than whether it was used," and maintained the view that "AI is merely a tool and should not replace human judgment."

When asked about the permissible scope of AI use by arbitrators, the top responses were "assisting with calculation of damages and costs" (77%), "summarizing documents and evidence" (66%), and "drafting procedural orders" (60%). In contrast, only 23% supported using AI to draft the reasoning of awards, and 31% supported using it to verify the accuracy of legal arguments and evidence. This reflects the prevailing view among practitioners that the core duties of arbitrators are to reach conclusions and make judgments, and therefore AI should be limited to administrative assistance. One respondent stated, "The arbitrator should be the person who knows the case best," adding, "AI cannot fulfill that role."

An arbitration specialist attorney said, "AI's translation and interpretation functions are being used for simultaneous interpretation and large-scale document translation, resulting in significant improvements in work efficiency and cost savings." The attorney added, "Arbitration is already more cost-effective and expeditious than court trials, and AI can maximize these advantages, potentially leading to greater use of arbitration." However, the attorney also noted, "Just as many believe it is premature to use AI in court rulings, most practitioners oppose its use in arbitration awards due to difficulties in securing trust."

Hong Yoonji, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.