AI in Arbitration: Striking the Balance Between Efficiency, Ethics, and Impartiality

New Ciarb Guidelines on AI Use in Arbitration Highlight Key Benefits and Risks

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has issued fresh guidance addressing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration. While AI offers significant efficiency and quality improvements, arbitrators are cautioned against "cognitive inertia" — the tendency to rely too heavily on AI outputs without critical assessment.

According to Ciarb, arbitrators must retain full responsibility for their decisions and the reasoning behind them. The guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining independent judgment rather than deferring to AI-generated suggestions or conclusions.

AI’s Potential to Enhance Arbitration

Ciarb recognizes AI as a tool that can substantially improve the arbitral process. Beyond traditional legal research and data analysis, AI can predict likely case outcomes and provide insights into procedural strategies and arguments. This capability can boost both efficiency and outcome predictability.

However, the organization stresses that transparency and caution are essential when integrating AI. Ethical, procedural, and technological concerns must be actively managed to preserve the integrity of proceedings.

Bias and Other Risks in AI Applications

One key challenge highlighted is algorithmic bias. AI tools may reflect biases embedded in the datasets they use or in how their algorithms are configured. This can affect the objectivity of information provided to arbitrators.

In addition to algorithmic bias, Ciarb warns about affirmational authority bias and cognitive inertia — risks where arbitrators might uncritically accept AI outputs, potentially skewing their decisions.

The risks to impartiality and independence vary depending on the AI application. For example, using AI to search case documents carries a lower risk compared to using AI to decide disputed issues.

Other concerns include confidentiality and environmental impact. AI systems often require significant energy, so their environmental footprint should be considered in arbitration settings.

Maintaining Party Autonomy and Arbitrator Responsibility

The guidelines underline party autonomy as a fundamental principle. Parties can agree on whether and how AI tools are used, subject to applicable laws and regulations.

Crucially, arbitrators must not delegate their decision-making authority to AI. They are responsible for independently verifying AI-generated information and must maintain a critical perspective. Ultimately, arbitrators carry full accountability for awards, regardless of AI assistance.

Practical Takeaways for Legal Professionals

• Use AI as a support tool, not a decision-maker.
• Remain vigilant against biases in AI outputs.
• Ensure transparency around AI use in proceedings.
• Respect confidentiality and consider environmental impacts.
• Confirm party consent on AI involvement in arbitration.

For legal professionals interested in the practical applications of AI and maintaining ethical standards, ongoing education is key. Explore specialized AI courses for legal roles to stay informed about best practices and emerging tools.