{"id":288559,"date":"2025-12-11T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-11T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288559"},"modified":"2025-12-18T10:10:25","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T09:10:25","slug":"the-ai-conversation-arbitration-actually-needs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/11\/the-ai-conversation-arbitration-actually-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"The AI Conversation Arbitration Actually Needs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Insights from Richard Susskind, the LCIA, and Practitioners on AI Implementation, Ethics, and What Comes Next<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:
Cl\u00e9mence Pr\u00e9vot<\/a><\/strong>, Director of Publications at Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Building effective AI for arbitration requires more than technological capability. It demands honest conversation between those building the tools and those using them daily. That’s why on December 2, 2025, during London Arbitration Week, Jus Mundi<\/a> and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)<\/a> brought together the perspectives that matter most.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion, titled “All in Favour: Say AI,” assembled an exceptional panel: Professor Richard Susskind<\/a> CBE KC, tone of the biggest legal tech evangelists; Kevin Nash<\/a>, Director General of the LCIA (London Court for International Arbitration)<\/a>; Ilona Logvinova<\/a>, Global Chief AI Officer at Herbert Smith Freehills; Tara Waters<\/a>, Legal Innovation Strategist and VALS AI Project Lead; and Jean-R\u00e9mi de Maistre<\/a>, CEO and Co-Founder of Jus Mundi<\/a>. The discussion was moderated by Alexandre Vagenheim<\/a>, VP of Global Legal Data at Jus Mundi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, we’ve gathered some of the panelists’ key insights on works in practice, common pitfalls, where to draw ethical lines, and where arbitration is heading, so you can future-proof your teams for the next wave of AI innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Beyond Automation: Rethinking What AI Is For<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Professor Susskind opened with a provocative challenge: Are we on the verge of a new form of dispute resolution, one that could actually be better than what we have today?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His central thesis confronted a common misconception. “The first 65 years of legal technology have been devoted to automation, to grafting technology onto our old ways of working,” he observed. “But when I look across other sectors for truly game-changing uses of technology, rarely are the examples I find about automating someone remaining on the job.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Black & Decker as an example (a company that realized it doesn’t sell drills, it sells holes in walls), Susskind urged the arbitration community to ask: Are we in the business of conducting hearings and producing awards, or are we in the business of resolving disputes? The distinction matters profoundly when considering AI’s potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drawing from medicine, he noted how innovation extends beyond robotic surgery to include non-invasive therapy and preventative medicine, outcomes that look nothing like traditional practice but serve patients better. “What’s the equivalent in law?” he asked. “What’s preventative lawyering? We now have tools emerging that help identify early markers of disputes before they escalate.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

AI in Practice: From Research to Award Drafting<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The conversation quickly moved from theory to implementation. Jean-R\u00e9mi de Maistre shared concrete examples from Jus Mundi’s experience deploying AI across approximately 200 clients, spanning the entire arbitration lifecycle: pre-arbitration market analysis, early case assessment for corporates and funders, arbitrator due diligence, legal research and argument analysis during submissions drafting, and even award preparation by arbitrators themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Notably, arbitrators and trainees are among the heaviest AI users,” Jean-R\u00e9mi revealed. “Applications range from drafting procedural histories to analyzing legal issues, though arbitrators maintain full judgment authority.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kevin Nash reinforced these benefits with an institutional perspective, recalling a counsel who spent two weeks manually extracting 44,000 entity names for conflict checks. “That would have been a situation where an AI tool could have helped tremendously and gotten us to the things that require actual thoughtfulness.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilona Logvinova introduced a reframing of AI’s role, citing Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: “I think with AI, and I work with humans.” Rather than viewing AI as a tool humans use, this formulation positions it as a strategic thinking partner. “AI can help you surface better quality output. It can help you tap into an intelligence layer you’re not getting if you’re just iterating in your own mind,” she explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Ethics and Governance: Drawing the Lines<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Kevin Nash posed a direct question to the room: “How comfortable are you right now with arbitrators using AI without disclosing it?” The discomfort was palpable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He continued: “What you don’t want is shadow AI. As long as it’s being disclosed and the scope is clearly delineated, that’s perfectly fine.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jean-R\u00e9mi de Maistre addressed the thorny issue of AI bias head-on. Recounting feedback from a user who suspected Jus AI<\/a> was “investor-biased,” he acknowledged the complexity: “Each AI carries biases from the models we use, from the data we use, and potentially from the system design itself. Should we be transparent about that? Absolutely.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He outlined Jus Mundi’s approach to explainability across three levels:<\/p>\n\n\n\n