THE AUTHORS:<\/strong> On Thursday, 26 March 2026, as part of Paris Arbitration Week<\/a>, Jus Mundi<\/a> hosted the conference \u201cJus Mundi AI for Justice Symposium.<\/em>\u201d The first panel explored AI\u2019s impact on justice, discussing trust, fairness, and legitimacy, and asserted that innovation should boost confidence. The second one confirmed AI\u2019s role in institutional workflows, highlighting its use in research, drafting, translation, and case management by top arbitral institutions. The third panel focused on operationalising responsible AI through governance and controls, with leaders sharing how they balance innovation and risk management to ensure trustworthiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first panel, moderated by Ms Sol\u00e8ne Bedel<\/strong> (Head of Legal, Jus Mundi<\/a>), discussed AI\u2019s impact on the legitimacy of judicial and arbitral systems. Panellists Mr Bertrand Kleinmann<\/strong> (Vice-President, Paris Tribunal of Economic Activities), Professor Maxi Scherer<\/a> <\/strong>(ArbBoutique<\/a> co-founder), Ms Marike Paulsson<\/strong><\/a> (Secretary General for the Council for International Dispute Resolution of Bahrain), and Ms Sapna Jhangiani<\/strong><\/a> KC (Barrister at Blackstone Chambers<\/a>; Judge at DIFC<\/a> Court of Appeal) examined the balance between efficiency and due process amid technological changes, highlighting examples of AI use that maintain ethical standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Professor Scherer discussed the evolving regulatory landscape, noting that the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689)<\/a>could classify arbitration as a \u201chigh-risk<\/em> activity,<\/em>\u201d underscoring its impact on parties\u2019 rights and responsibilities. This regulatory framework, blending mandatory requirements with soft-law instruments, will influence AI deployment in the EU and beyond. She pointed out that while arbitral institutions have adapted to new technologies, courts face greater risks from unrepresented parties and public scrutiny. Additionally, she mentioned ongoing efforts by the International Bar Association to develop \u201cliving documents<\/em>\u201d to guide practitioners on confidentiality and ethical use of AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Kleinmann offered the perspective of the Paris Tribunal of Economic Activities, one of Europe\u2019s most technologically advanced courts, which has taken a leading role in implementing AI tools within a judicial setting. He described the creation of a \u201ccircle of compliance<\/em>\u201d under which judges are prohibited from using unapproved AI tools and must adhere to a strict internal code of conduct. Mr Kleinmann stated that \u201cjustice<\/em> is<\/em> not<\/em> a<\/em> technical<\/em> aspiration,<\/em> it<\/em> is<\/em> a<\/em> commitment,<\/em>\u201d asserting that AI’s role should be limited to preparatory work and reporting, with decision-making remaining with human judges. The goal is to optimise time and reduce inefficiencies, enabling judges to concentrate on substantive analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judge Jhangiani emphasised the need for ethical guidelines in AI usage within the judiciary. While French courts are leading in AI integration, many judicial systems are still developing these frameworks. She highlighted the DIFC Courts 2023 AI Guidelines, which promote transparency in AI use while ensuring confidentiality. Although AI can enhance case processing and access to justice, she insisted that it should never replace judges\u2019 vital role in reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From an international standpoint, Ms Paulsson referred to ongoing discussions within UNCITRAL, noting that work on AI remains divided between Working Group III, responsible for treaty negotiations, and Working Group II, which focuses on commercial arbitration instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention<\/a>. She observed that progress has been relatively slow and that uncertainty persists as to how and where the issue will be addressed, particularly with the possibility of it being moved to the Commission. She raised core questions regarding the scope and level of regulation, including what should be regulated, whether action should be taken at the state or institutional level, and whether soft law may be more appropriate in light of the rapid pace of technological developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second panel featured leaders from major arbitral institutions discussing AI strategies and institutional administration. Moderated by Mr Alexandre Vagenheim<\/strong><\/a> (VP of Global Legal Data, Jus Mundi<\/a>), participants included Ms Ana Serra e Moura<\/strong><\/a> (Deputy Secretary General, ICC Court<\/a>), Ms Eliana Tornese (Registrar, LCIA<\/a>), Ms Thara Gopalan (Vice-President, AAA-ICDR<\/a>), and Mr William Sternheimer<\/strong><\/a> (Manager for Training and Education, CAS<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Serra e Moura outlined the ICC\u2019s long-term strategic approach, noting that while case management teams do not currently use AI for direct decision-making, the institution is focused on data governance and diverse solutions. She highlighted the launch of \u201cICC One Click<\/em>\u201d, an AI-powered tool designed to facilitate international trade for small businesses and entrepreneurship, and emphasised the ongoing work of the Strategy Commission in shaping a guidance ecosystem for the use of AI in case law. This framework rests on five main pillars, including due process and the balance between soft and hard law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Tornese, LCIA, said innovation is about structured experimentation. The institution has an internal task force to assess AI in award review and checks. Tornese emphasised that human knowledge and judgment are irreplaceable: \u201cAI can support, but not substitute, institutional judgment.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Gopalan explained that technology has long been integrated into AAA-ICDR operations to enhance access, minimise friction, and ensure proportionate dispute resolution. With approximately five hundred and eighty thousand cases annually, including eight hundred international disputes, scalability is crucial. She introduced the \u201cAI<\/em> Arbitrator<\/em>\u201d as a tool that supports, not replaces, human decision-making, and the \u201cResolution Simulator\u201d as a means for early case assessment. She emphasised that these tools remain optional, with parties maintaining full control over their use of AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Sternheimer discussed how AI has been integrated to manage a significant volume of cases annually. This technology has streamlined their research and case management by about thirty per cent, functioning as an efficient \u201cfirst tool<\/em>\u201d like a human intern. However, he emphasised the importance of human oversight and cross-checking to ensure smooth operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Q&A session, the panel discussed the importance of training models on high-quality data, such as the one thousand five hundred cleaned AAA awards used to refine their decision-making support tools. They also emphasised that codes of ethics must evolve to address the disclosure and consensual use of AI in international arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third panel, moderated by Mr Jean-R\u00e9mi de Maistre<\/strong><\/a> (Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Jus Mundi<\/a>), explored the practical implementation of ethical AI within law firms and legal technology companies. The speakers included Ms Natalia Chumak<\/strong><\/a> (Partner, Signature Litigation<\/a>), Mr Lucas de Ferrari<\/strong><\/a> (Partner, White & Case<\/a>), Ms Eleissa Karaj <\/strong>(Innovation Manager, A&O Shearman<\/a>) and Mr Filip Nordlund<\/strong> (Legal Engineering Manager, Legora<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Karaj discussed A&O Shearman’s approach to AI deployment, emphasising structured governance and training. The firm initially limited access to AI tools, gradually introducing approved solutions while managing risks. She highlighted the importance of cultural and educational readiness, training lawyers not just in tool functionality but also in responsible judgment, confidentiality, and understanding AI limitations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr de Ferrari explained that White & Case rigorously tested multiple platforms before selecting Legora as its preferred AI system, owing to its reliability and advanced features. Within arbitration teams, AI now supports drafting, research, and analytical comparison, enhancing the quality and coherence of submissions. Yet he emphasised mindset as the decisive factor: adoption requires open curiosity combined with professional caution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a litigation perspective, Ms Chumak detailed how AI enhances efficiency in pre-claim assessments, crisis management, and legal research. She described AI as a \u201csounding board<\/em>\u201d that stimulates creative reasoning rather than replacing human insight. For Signature Litigation, the focus remains on robust internal governance: ensuring traceability of tool usage, verifying quality of outputs, and maintaining transparency with clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Nordlund discussed Legora\u2019s partnership with Jus Mundi, focusing on their integration of generative modelling and organised legal data for reliable research. He emphasised the importance of evaluation and transparency in building trust, especially in international arbitration, where confidentiality matters. Mr Nordlund noted that the main challenges in adopting AI often stem from human factors such as misunderstandings, trust issues, and curiosity about these technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, the discussions highlighted that AI is already reshaping dispute resolution by improving efficiency, accessibility, and analytical capabilities. However, its integration raises fundamental questions regarding legitimacy, accountability, and procedural fairness. A clear consensus emerged that AI must remain a tool supporting human decision-making rather than replacing it. Ensuring transparency, maintaining rigorous oversight, and preserving party autonomy are essential to building trust. As technological developments continue to accelerate, the future of dispute resolution will depend on striking a careful balance between innovation and responsibility. Justice must remain human in the digital age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Seedley Bouillet<\/strong>, LL.M. Graduate from Queen Mary University of London<\/strong>
Yeonhwa Kim, <\/strong>Global Policy Intern at the International Chamber of Commerce (\u201cICC\u201d)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n