Anastasiya Ugale<\/a><\/strong>, International Arbitration Counsel, Washington, D.C. & New York<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
As tribunals increasingly grapple with electronic records and the evidentiary and cybersecurity issues that come with them, virtual hearings, and integration of AI into arbitral procedure, neither tribunal disclosures nor traditional appointment criteria capture the factors that shape a tribunal\u2019s ability to handle these case-management challenges. A new layer of appointment data \u2014 an arbitrator\u2019s digital competence profile, or digital score \u2014 would close a gap that sophisticated users already appreciate and try to fill through informal channels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hearings now happen across multiple time zones with remote participants and digital presentation of evidence. Pleadings arrive electronically. Hearing bundles are digital by default. AI tools are increasingly used to assist with research, translation, case organisation, and even the resolution of lower-value disputes<\/a>. Yet when parties and counsel assess arbitrator candidates, the market still tends to focus on expertise, availability, independence, language, and prior appointments. Those factors remain fundamental. They however no longer tell the whole story of a successful arbitral tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A less visible arbitrator trait increasingly shapes the cost and quality of arbitral proceedings: digital competence. Some arbitrators work comfortably with institutional platforms, digital records, remote hearing logistics, and newer technology-related procedural issues. Others do not. That difference can materially affect efficiency and arbitration cost. In a system built on an informed choice of arbitral tribunals, that information should be easier to identify and compare, so that parties can select arbitrators capable of using technology efficiently and effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For that reason, arbitration is ready for a new category of appointment data: an arbitrator\u2019s digital score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parties rarely ask about \u201cdigital competence\u201d formally. They ask indirectly. Will this chair be willing to efficiently manage a remote hearing? Is this tribunal likely to insist on unnecessary paper filings? Will the arbitrator use institutional infrastructure well, or recreate cumbersome workflows from scratch? How comfortable will the tribunal be if questions arise about AI-assisted translations, electronically filed exhibits, remote witness examination, or cybersecurity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those are ordinary case-management questions in 2026. The answer often determines whether a proceeding is perceived as well-organised and efficient, or redundant and more expensive than it needs to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, counsel already try to gather information regarding the arbitrators\u2019 comfort with technology through private channels. Such information, however, remains scattered and anecdotal, which means newer users and smaller teams operate at a disadvantage. A more transparent market would treat arbitrators\u2019 digital competence as a legitimate part of the appointment process, ensuring equal access for all parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Institutions have been building for this reality for years. ICSID made electronic filing its default procedure in 2020<\/a>, and the 2022 Arbitration Rules<\/a> continued that modernising direction as part of a broader effort to reduce cost, simplify procedure, and reflect contemporary practice. ICSID\u2019s 2025 reporting<\/a> shows how deeply digital processes are now embedded: 76% of hearings and sessions included remote features. ICSID\u2019s hearing services now include secure virtual hearing support, real-time document display, and integrated technical assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The procedural framework is therefore already there and is increasingly digital. The practical question is whether tribunals are keeping pace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My own research suggests the answer is uneven. Electronic filing is the default, but in at least eleven recent ICSID arbitrations registered between 2023 and 2025, tribunals requested paper filings of the entire submission or certain pleadings without articulating any \u201cspecial circumstances\u201d justification [e.g.<\/em>, Mario Noriega Willars v. Mexico<\/a><\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/23\/29,, para. 14.2.1; Tayeb Benabderrahmane v. Qatar<\/a>, <\/em>ICSID Case No. ARB\/22\/23, para. 13.3; Continental Gold Inc. v. Colombia<\/a><\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/24\/25, Procedural Order No. 1, 14 March 2025, para. 14.4.1]. In several further cases, tribunals reserved the right to require hard copies (for example of \u201clengthy pleadings\u201d) \u2014 again, without anchoring that reservation in special circumstances [Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. Mexico<\/a><\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/23\/4, para. 14.3; Kurt Harald Gr\u00fcninger, Alexandra Gr\u00fcninger and Sascha Spittel v. Costa Rica<\/a><\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/23\/16, para. 14.4; Korea National Oil Corporation, KNOC Nigerian West Oil Company Limited, and KNOC Nigerian East Oil Company Limited v. Nigeria<\/a><\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/23\/19, para. 14.2] The pattern is not catastrophic, but it demonstrates that old habits and duplicative approaches continue to dilute the efficiency gains the rules were designed to deliver. That gap deserves more attention, particularly from users paying for procedural inefficiency in real time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The relationship between digital competence and efficiency is not speculative. The 2025 White & Case \/ Queen Mary survey<\/a> shows that participants see AI and other technologies as concrete efficiency tools, with 36% of respondents emphasizing the use of AI as a time-saver for arbitrators themselves. At the same time, the survey identifies that digital inexperience as one of the major factors impeding the use of AI and other technology in arbitral proceedings: 44%of respondents named lack of experience as a principal obstacle to the greater use of AI in arbitration. These numbers underline that tribunals need enough digital competence to unlock the benefits while managing the risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent investor-State arbitration in which I served as co-counsel offers a straightforward example. The chair\u2019s firm hosted the entire hearing on jurisdiction and the merits remotely at its own offices instead of using a separate remote hearing vendor or platform or having a live hearing. The arrangement worked well, the hearing proceeded effectively, and the parties saved significant cost. That experience left little doubt in my mind that procedural leadership, combined with comfort using modern hearing infrastructure, can produce direct value for clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examples like that do not usually appear in arbitrator CVs or appointment databases. They circulate privately, if at all. Yet they are highly relevant. If one chair repeatedly finds practical ways to streamline hearings by using technology and another routinely defaults to paper filings and cumbersome arrangements, parties should be able to take that into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conversation about digital competence has been building for years in domestic professional circles as well. The American Bar Association\u2019s comment to Model Rule 1.1<\/a> makes clear that legal competence now includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, and that guidance has been adopted in more than forty U.S. jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia and New York\u2014bars in which many international arbitrators are licensed. State bars increasingly expect lawyers to know enough about digital tools to use them intelligently and supervise them responsibly. That expectation travels with licensed attorneys, whether they appear as counsel or sit as arbitrators, into international arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethical frameworks for AI in arbitration are starting to reflect this reality more explicitly. The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center\u2019s 2024 Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration<\/a> are a leading example. They introduce a principle-based framework that assumes a basic level of technological literacy from everyone involved in the process. Party representatives are reminded to observe ethical duties of diligent and competent representation when using AI; tribunals are expected to exercise oversight, require disclosure where appropriate, and never delegate decision-making responsibility to an AI system. Digital competence is being treated as part of professional competence, not an optional feature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators<\/a>, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre<\/a>, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce<\/a>, the AAA-ICDR<\/a> have moved in a similar direction. AAA-ICDR\u2019s 2025 guidance on arbitrators\u2019 use of AI tools reflects a broader recognition that AI in dispute resolution requires boundaries, supervision, and judgment. The AAA has also developed an AI Arbitrator<\/a> product for certain low-value cases, illustrating how quickly institutional experimentation is moving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether one greets these developments with enthusiasm or caution, they point in the same direction. Arbitrators now need enough digital fluency to understand how AI may surface in proceedings around them. They need to recognise when a tool is being used responsibly, and when it creates risks of confidentiality breaches, inaccuracies, hallucinated citations, or inappropriate delegation of judgment. Arbitrators themselves must be competent users of technology to meet the demands of their mandate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The phrase \u201cdigital score\u201d may sound novel, but the underlying idea is simple. It is a structured way to make visible what sophisticated practitioners already care about. A useful profile should not reward use of technology for its own sake, and it should not reduce arbitrators to a simplistic ranking number. It could capture practical indicators such as experience with virtual and hybrid hearings; comfort with electronic filings, digital bundles, and shared platforms; familiarity with cybersecurity and confidentiality in the digital space; ability to address AI-related issues in procedural orders or hearings; and a track record of using technology to reduce unnecessary friction, delay, or cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This score would complement traditional appointment criteria, without displacing them. No party appoints an arbitrator solely because they are good with hearing platforms. But where two candidates are otherwise strong and one has a demonstrated record of managing digitally intensive proceedings in a practical, cost-conscious way, that information matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A digital competence profile would be most useful if it were hosted by an actor already trusted as a source of structured information about arbitrators. Several candidates exist. Arbitral institutions may request relevant disclosures at the time of appointment and could include digital-readiness indicators in the data they publish on appointed arbitrators. Arbitrator search and intelligence platforms \u2014 Jus Connect<\/a> among them \u2014 already aggregate publicly available arbitrator data and could extend that infrastructure into digital practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A first step would not need to be elaborate. Arbitrator profiles could include a short digital-competence section based on standardised criteria, perhaps starting with self-reported information and developing over time into a richer mix of observable indicators and market feedback. Even a modest start would improve the current lack of transparency on arbitrators\u2019 digital competency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The value of such information would be especially clear for parties and co-counsel in complex commercial arbitrations, construction arbitrations, and investor-State disputes, where procedural choices often have major cost consequences. Appointment decisions in those cases are strategic decisions. Better information produces better results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arbitration has always depended on reputation of its practitioners. That will not change. But reputation works best when the underlying factors are transparent. Digital competence is now one of those factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some arbitrators already bring real efficiency gains to the parties because they are comfortable with contemporary tools and willing to use them effectively. Others are less comfortable, and the process is heavier, slower, or more expensive as a result. Parties know this. Counsel know this. The market simply has not yet found a good way to signal it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I write this as someone who runs a deliberately lean, technology-enabled arbitration practice. Tracking an arbitrator\u2019s digital score would not address every challenge in my practice or in arbitral appointments. It would, however, shine light on one of the least discussed and increasingly consequential aspects of arbitral process design. In a field where procedure can be as important as substance, that would be a useful advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Anastasiya Ugale<\/a><\/strong> is an international arbitration counsel admitted in Washington, D.C. and New York. Her practice focuses on investor-State dispute settlement and complex international commercial arbitration, with particular depth in ICSID and UNCITRAL procedure, the Eurasia\/CIS region, and emerging markets. She is a co-author of \u201cThe ICSID Arbitration Rules (2022): A Commentary\u201d (forthcoming second edition) and writes regularly on procedural issues in investor-State arbitration. More at augale.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n *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.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Arbitrators are assessed on expertise and independence. But what about digital competence? The case for a new appointment criterion is growing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291421,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"146"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_image":"291425","fb_title":"The Case for an Arbitrator Digital Competence Score","twitter_title":"The Case for an Arbitrator Digital Competence Score","twitter_image":"291425","twitter_description":"Arbitrators are assessed on expertise and independence. But what about digital competence? The case for a new appointment criterion is growing.","fb_description":"Arbitrators are assessed on expertise and independence. But what about digital competence? The case for a new appointment criterion is growing."},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[[]],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_number":"10"}],"price":[[]],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,188,146,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-legal-tech","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291414"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291414\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291439,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291414\/revisions\/291439"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291414"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Question Clients Already Ask in Private<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why This Matters Now<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Efficiency is Not Theoretical<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ethics are Moving in the Same Direction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What a Digital Score Could Capture<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Where Could a Digital Score Live?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A Practical Market Signal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/2025-10-galo-marquez-ruiz.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"