No Result
View All Result
Daily Jus
  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • Jus Mundi AI Hub
  • Reports
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • The Daily Jusletter
  • About us
  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • Jus Mundi AI Hub
  • Reports
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • The Daily Jusletter
  • About us
No Result
View All Result
Daily Jus
No Result
View All Result

Home Legal Tech & AI

Twenty Leading Arbitration Experts Put Jus AI to the Test: Here’s What They Found

16 December 2025
in Arbitration, Legal Insights, Legal Tech & AI, News, Products, World
Twenty Leading Arbitration Experts Put Jus AI to the Test: Here’s What They Found

THE AUTHOR:
Alexandre Vagenheim, VP of Global Legal Data at Jus Mundi


AI makes lofty promises about transforming legal research, everything from faster answers and comprehensive analysis to hours of work compressed into minutes. But in arbitration, the stakes are too high for promises alone. You need proof. 

That’s why we invited 20 of the top minds in arbitration to put Jus AI to the test. 

Twenty respected arbitration professionals from arbitral institutions, top law firms, academia, and corporate legal teams independently evaluated Jus AI on complex, domain-specific legal research questions drawn from their real work. 

It’s one of the clearest, most transparent looks yet at how arbitration-trained AI performs under real expert scrutiny. 

In this article, we’re sharing what the experts found when they tested Jus AI against professional standards, what sets it apart from other AI tools, and what it means for practitioners. 

Download the complete expert evaluation report to review the full methodology, examine detailed performance across all criteria, and read what leading practitioners said about Jus AI in arbitration practice. 

The Methodology 

To understand whether Jus AI can meet the standards of real arbitration practice, we designed an evaluation process that mirrors how practitioners actually work. 

Each of the 20 experts received one complex legal research question tailored to their domain of expertise; questions involving treaty interpretation, jurisdictional objections, procedural issues, standards of review, damages methodology, and other issues that arise in real cases. 

They then evaluated Jus AI’s response using four criteria that reflect the core demands of arbitration research: 

  • Reasoning: Was the AI’s analytical process coherent, structured, and legally sound? 
  • Correctness: Were the legal principles and conclusions accurate? 
  • Faithfulness: Did the AI correctly represent and cite its sources, with no distortions or fabrications? 
  • Completeness: Did the answer address all relevant aspects of the question? 

Each criterion was scored on a 5-point scale (5-excellent, 1-unacceptable), with detailed written commentary explaining the expert’s assessment. 

The evaluation sessions were held in real time. Jus AI generated its answers on the spot, reflecting authentic, unscripted performance. 

The methodology produced a practitioner-led examination of how Jus AI behaves under realistic arbitration conditions and how its reasoning, accuracy, and rigor hold up under the scrutiny of experts who know exactly what makes legal analysis trustworthy. 

The Results: Professional-Grade Performance 

The evaluation produced 80 assessments across four critical dimensions of AI performance. Jus AI scored 4.28 out of 5 overall, with 80% of evaluations rated “Good” or “Excellent.” Not a single evaluation fell below the acceptable threshold. 

But overall scores only tell part of the story. What matters is how Jus AI performed on the dimensions that determine whether practitioners can actually trust and use AI for substantive legal work. 

Reasoning: Jus AI’s Standout Strength 

Score: 4.50/5 | 95% scored 4 or higher 

Reasoning was the highest-rated criterion: 95% of experts rated it “Good” or “Excellent,” with more than half awarding perfect scores. 

What impressed experts most was the transparent planning feature: the AI’s ability to break down complex queries and show its research strategy before executing. One expert explained: 

“The AI understood the query. The response was structured in a logical manner: It correctly identified and summarised the relevant provisions under the HKIAC Rules, then proceeded to explain the steps in filing a joinder or consolidation request, followed by the limitations and safeguards. It was easy to understand and presented in a user-friendly format.” 

Joanne Lau, Secretary General, HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) 

Correctness: Solid Legal Accuracy 

Score: 4.28/5 | 85% scored 4 or higher 

Legal accuracy is the foundational requirement; without it, speed and comprehensiveness are ineffectual. 85% of experts rated Jus AI’s correctness at “Good” or “Excellent,” finding the legal analysis grounded in sound doctrine and established principles. 

The professional benchmark emerged repeatedly in expert feedback. Multiple evaluators independently compared the output to work they’d expect from capable associates: 

“The legal analysis is both accurate and firmly grounded in established legal principles. It demonstrates a clear command of the relevant doctrines and jurisprudential developments, while maintaining fidelity to authoritative sources and interpretative conventions. The reasoning reflects not only a correct understanding of the applicable law but also a disciplined methodological approach to its application.” 

Kabir Duggal, Senior International Arbitration Advisor, Arnold & Porter

Faithfulness: Accurate Source Representation 

Score: 4.26/5 | 70% scored 4 or higher 

Hallucination is a constant problem plaguing generative AI. Can you trust that citations are real and that sources actually say what the AI claims they say? 

70% of experts rated Jus AI’s source representation at “Good” or “Excellent,” with nearly half awarding perfect scores. Experts who verified citations found them accurate and reliable: 

“It represents an accurate representation of the sources cited. As such, it is a faithful and trusted research summary.”

Loukas Mistelis, Professor, Queen Mary University of London 

Completeness: Comprehensive Coverage 

Score: 4.06/5 | 70% scored 4 or higher 

70% rated completeness at “Good” or “Excellent,” finding that responses addressed query aspects comprehensively. Experts praised the structural organization: the AI identifies relevant dimensions, organizes analysis logically, and provides breadth of coverage. 

One expert noted: 

“The answer provides a thorough response to elements of the query (as interpreted), covering most major aspects and adding some depth in areas. 

In terms of breadth, the answer draws on a variety of cases. It mentions different arbitral institutions and a court decision. This breadth contributes to completeness, as it provides multiple perspectives and shows different institutional approaches to the question.” 

Charlie Morgan, Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills 

What This Means for Practitioners 

For arbitration practitioners, the demand has always been for an AI that can actually produce analysis they can rely on in submissions, strategy, and client work, not just promise it can. 

This evaluation offers independent confirmation that Jus AI delivers exactly that. 

Integration with Confidence 

With 80% of evaluations scoring “Good” or “Excellent” and expert consensus at 85%, practitioners can integrate Jus AI into their workflows knowing it meets professional standards. Jus AI a validated tool that delivers reliable performance across the dimensions that matter most. 

Real Efficiency 

The time savings experts validated aren’t incremental, they’re transformational. Eduardo Silva Romero, Founding Partner at Wordstone Dispute Resolution, noted that Jus AI “would undertake in a matter of minutes and with incredible accuracy a complex research that a human being would complete in one or two days and potentially with some gaps.” 

That reduction changes what’s possible. Not by replacing judgment, but by eliminating mechanical work so practitioners can focus on strategy, analysis, and advocacy. 

Collaborative Research Partner 

Multiple experts compared Jus AI to work from capable associates. You can use the AI the way you’d use a strong associate’s first draft: build on the foundation it provides, add the depth your matter requires, apply your strategic judgment, verify key citations. 

The AI doesn’t replace senior lawyers, it makes them more effective by handling the research foundation so they can spend time where their expertise creates the most value. 

Trust Through Transparency 

What set Jus AI apart in expert evaluation wasn’t just performance, it was the transparent reasoning that scored 4.50 with 95% approval. Practitioners can see the research plan, validate the approach, and refine their queries. That visibility transforms AI from black box to research partner. 

Download Now

About Jus Mundi

Founded in 2019 and recognized as a mission-led company, Jus Mundi is a pioneer in the legal technology industry dedicated to powering global justice through artificial intelligence. Headquartered in Paris, with additional offices in New York, London, and Singapore. Jus Mundi serves over 150,000 users from law firms, multinational corporations, governmental bodies, and academic institutions in more than 80 countries. Through its proprietary AI technology, Jus Mundi provides global legal intelligence, data-driven arbitration professional selection, and business development services.


*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.

Related Posts

Duan & Duan Expands Cross-Border Capabilities and Accelerates Arbitrator Research by 80% with Jus AI

Duan & Duan Expands Cross-Border Capabilities and Accelerates Arbitrator Research by 80% with Jus AI

by Jus Mundi
16 December 2025

Duan & Duan accelerated arbitrator research by 80% and expanded its international arbitration practice using Jus AI.

Minimum Contacts No More? Enforcing awards in the US after CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.

Minimum Contacts No More? Enforcing awards in the US after CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.

by Jus Mundi
15 December 2025

The US Supreme Court’s Devas ruling reshapes award enforcement by removing the “minimum contacts” hurdle under the FSIA—while leaving key...

Spotlight on France: Navigating the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Annulled at the Seat

Spotlight on France: Navigating the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Annulled at the Seat

by Jus Mundi
12 December 2025

France continues to recognize foreign arbitral awards annulled at the seat, but recent case law highlights limits when such awards...

Load More

Your daily dose of arbitration and legal industry insights.

Follow Us

Ressources

  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • Jus Mundi AI Hub
  • Reports
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • The Daily Jusletter
  • About us

Newsletter

loader

Sign up now to get weekly digests of the latest arbitration updates and articles in your inbox.

© 2023 Jus Mundi

  • Home
  • About us
  • Jus Mundi
  • Jus Connect
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • Products
    • Partnerships
    • Conference Reports
  • Jus Mundi AI Hub
  • Reports
  • Legal Insights
    • Arbitration
      • Commercial Arbitration
      • Investor-State Arbitration
      • Arbitration Aftermath
    • Mediation
    • Worldwide Perspectives
      • Arbitral Institutions’ Spotlights
      • Clyde & Co
      • London VYAP
      • Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)
      • SG VYAP
      • Sciences Po TADS
      • Sygna Partners
      • Lawyering Plus
  • World
    • Africa
      • Egypt
      • Nigeria
    • Americas
      • U.S.A
      • Brazil
      • Latin America
    • Asia-Pacific
      • Australia
      • Central Asia
      • China
      • Hong Kong SAR
      • India
      • Japan
      • Singapore
    • Europe
      • Austria
      • France
      • Germany
      • Poland
      • Spain
      • Switzerland
      • The Netherlands
      • United Kingdom
      • Russia
      • Sweden
    • Middle East & Turkey
      • Israel
      • Lebanon
      • Qatar
      • Saudi Arabia
      • Turkey
      • UAE
  • Industry
    • Construction
    • Energy
      • Electric Power
      • Oil & Gas
    • Mining
    • Telecommunication
  • Business Development
    • Firm growth
    • Professional Development
  • Awards
    • Jus Connect Rankings
    • Arbitration Team Of the Month
    • Arbitration Practitioner Of the Week
  • In conversation with
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Jus Events
  • Publish on Daily Jus
    • Become an Author
    • Editorial Guidelines & Process
    • Editorial Policies
  • The Daily Jusletter
  • About us

© 2024 Jus Connect