Latin American Arbitration Practitioners EU Second Annual Conference (2024)
THE AUTHOR:
Michela Bertello, LL.M. Graduate at IE University
Latin American Arbitration Practitioners EU (LATAP EU) is an association aimed at building a network of practitioners focused on international arbitration and with strong ties to, or experience in, Latin America and based in Europe. On September 2024, LATAP EU organized its second Annual Conference in Paris, France, hosted by Freshfields.
Introducing the Panel
On 25 September 2024, the Latin American Arbitration Practitioners EU (“LATAP EU”) organized its Second Annual Conference in Paris, France.
During the conference, Gustavo Mata Morreo (Mayer Brown), Ignacio Delgado Larena-Avellaneda (Qanlex), and Bianca Longo Campos (Jus Mundi), moderated by Alexander A. Witt (Orrick), discussed the impact of artificial intelligence (“AI”) on international arbitration in Latin America, addressing both opportunities for innovation and challenges related to legal frameworks, ethical considerations, and implementation strategies.
Mr. Witt introduced the discussion by comparing the current prominence of AI to the ‘big data’ discussions of a decade ago. He then identified two critical issues:
- the rapid development of AI means that legal professionals are constantly navigating new, unfamiliar territory; and
- we seem to be approaching a “point of no return” where AI could fundamentally reshape how we work and practice law.
To emphasize the magnitude of AI’s potential, Mr. Witt referenced Jeff Ward, a Professor of Law at Duke Law School, who likened AI’s transformative potential to that of the discovery of fire.
The Current and Future Development of AI
Following Mr. Witt’s introduction, Mr. Mata acknowledged the transformative potential of AI in the legal profession but cautioned that, as of today, its full capabilities have yet to be realized. Mata noted that many first-time users perceive these AI tools as game changers, expressing concerns about job security, only to find themselves unsure of how to effectively integrate AI into their daily work. He highlighted that AI has proven beneficial for tasks such as machine translation and document review, streamlining processes that allow interns to begin drafting earlier in their careers. However, he likened the current state of AI in the legal field to discovering vast oil reserves without the knowledge of how to extract or utilize them effectively.
Mr. Mata raised a critical concern regarding the issue of confidentiality, stating that while legal professionals are instructed not to input client confidential information into public AI systems, breaches of this guideline may occur. He noted that many law firms have implemented specific AI platforms designed to secure sensitive information but noted that, given recent leaks and cyber-attacks, some may have valid reasons to be sceptical about the reliability of these systems.
Focusing on the Latin American context, Mr. Mata emphasized AI’s role as an equalizer within the legal profession. He noted that while some advanced AI tools require payment, accessible options like ChatGPT are available for free. For practitioners in Latin America, especially those at smaller or local law firms with limited resources, AI can bridge the gap, enabling them to compete with larger firms and enhance their efficiency in the market.
With respect to the use of AI by third-party funders, Mr. Delgado explained that his company, Qanlex, has embraced technology from the outset, including as a valuable tool to promptly evaluate potential cases for funding. While Mr. Delgado noted that AI does not make final decisions for them, it assists in analyzing vast amounts of documents and data in seconds. He also mentioned that, while AI tools are not making decisions independently for the time being, their future potential remains uncertain.
Thereafter, Ms. Longo recalled the significant transformation the legal field has undergone over the past 20 years. In particular, she explained that the first wave (2000–2011) focused on the digitalization of legal processes and that the second wave (2012–2018) saw the introduction of AI tools, such as early machine learning models, to automate legal research, contract analysis, and case management. Jus Mundi, for instance, was created in 2018 and used extractive AI for collecting and processing data, document anonymization and profiling of arbitrators and lawyers. Ms. Longo described the third wave (2018–present) as the current phase of innovation, featuring advanced algorithms and generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, which are capable of processing vast data and producing human-like responses. She encouraged legal professionals to engage with these technologies to better understand their potential applications.
Ms. Longo further explained that Jus Mundi’s clients include law firms, arbitrators, and arbitral institutions, and referred to the recent launch of the Jus AI Assistant, a generative AI tool tailored for legal professionals.
Ms. Longo also referred to one of Jus Mundi’s ongoing projects, a partnership agreement with CAM-CCBC, one of the leading arbitration institutions in Brazil, to create AI-generated summaries of the decisions issued under their rules using their Jus AI technology. When questioned about the products she expects to be rolled out in the near future, she noted that the industry is likely to focus on tools for hearing preparation. In this context, she envisioned the development of virtual reality courtroom simulations.
Are International Arbitration Lawyers at Risk of Becoming Obsolete?
Ms. Longo’s opinion is that international arbitration lawyers will not become obsolete, since human skills such as creativity, critical thinking, emotional and social intelligence remain essential in the field. However, she noted a growing need for lawyers to acquire new skills in technology-related areas such as AI, data science, coding, and cybersecurity. Notably, while some roles may disappear, new positions such as fraud detection specialists and AI-assisted legal researchers are anticipated. Additionally, she cited a survey indicating that 94% of Latin American professionals believe AI will positively impact the legal profession.
Mr. Mata agreed that international arbitration lawyers will not become obsolete but stressed that adaptability is crucial for all professionals, so lawyers must stay up to date with AI developments to remain indispensable.
Mr. Delgado also indicated that from a funder perspective, as AI continues to develop, its impact on cost efficiency might influence future funding decisions and attract clients who are currently not interested in funding.
AI and Decision-Making: What Can We Do To Prevent Its Misuse?
Mr. Witt considered that derogating some procedural decisions to AI could bring the benefit of removing unconscious and cognitive biases from human decision-makers. With respect to that possibility, Mr. Mata expressed concerns about bias in AI tools, noting that a decision made by AI might merely reflect the inputs given to the algorithm without accounting for the nuanced details of specific requests. He highlighted the ‘black box’ issue and expressed concerns about the transparency of AI decision-making. Mr. Mata stated that, at this time, he would be reluctant to endorse AI-driven decisions.
Ms. Longo stated that there are numerous task forces and working groups actively addressing the question of how to effectively integrate AI into the justice system. For example, in Brazil there are ongoing discussions regarding a resolution from the National Justice Committee that regulates the use of AI in the Brazilian judicial system. She highlighted that a primary concern in these discussions is the ‘black box’ issue, which involves understanding and interpreting AI decision-making processes. The proposed resolution stipulates that any AI system employed must comply with principles of justice, equity, and non-discrimination. Additionally, they must be fully transparent, regularly audited, comprehensible to judges and allow them to request explanations from service providers regarding the AI’s reasoning. Ms. Longo explained AI has the potential to enhance access to justice where courts are burdened with a high number of cases.
With respect to the use of AI to summarize case files or documentation for arbitrators, Mr. Mata explained that while AI could be effective for straightforward questions, complex issues currently exceed its capabilities, so the tribunal would need to review the underlying documents in any event. Ms. Longo also questioned whether procedural timelines influence a tribunal’s reasoning in decision-making. Mr. Witt added that at the very least, procedural history could be streamlined through AI, citing Article 14 of the LCIA Rules’ emphasis on efficiency.
With respect to the potential misuse of AI, Ms. Longo proposed incorporating traceability and watermarks as well as authentication tools to mitigate misuse. She stressed that addressing these issues is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including law firms, which should implement ethical guidelines, and governments, which could enforce regulatory measures.
Mr. Witt noted that the international arbitration community has started to establish guidelines on responsible AI usage, referencing the Guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration from the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Mr. Delgado expressed concern about the potential for overregulation and argued that existing ethical standards are largely encompassed within current guidelines.
Lastly, with respect to the potential use of AI to generate false evidence, Mr. Mata commented that the legal profession has always had rules against submitting false evidence, noting that the challenge with AI arises when individuals are unaware of or simply unable to make a determination on the evidence’s authenticity.
In sum, the panel discussion highlighted both the great opportunities and significant challenges AI presents for international arbitration, including in Latin America. AI’s potential to enhance efficiency, level the playing field, and assist in decision-making processes is transformative. However, issues of confidentiality, bias, and transparency remain critical concerns. The discussion underscored the importance of adaptability and collaboration among practitioners, institutions, and regulators to ensure that AI is implemented responsibly and effectively.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michela Bertello holds an LL.B, an LL.M specialized in International Dispute Resolution, and a Master in Management from IE University.
* This report has been approved by all the conference speakers.
**The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
