Offering a Best Practice Clause for Jus AI Use in Arbitration Submissions
THE AUTHORS:
Alexandre Vagenheim, VP of Global Legal Data at Jus Mundi
Zeyad Abouellail, Senior Legal Officer at Jus Mundi
The use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in arbitration has increased rapidly in recent years with the introduction of Generative AI (“Gen-AI”) tools. Parties are now regularly exploring AI’s potential to improve different aspects of the arbitration process. Gen-AI tools already confirm significant gains in efficiency, saving considerable time and costs on routine and time-consuming tasks, and enabling legal professionals to focus on more strategic and valuable work.
However, the rapid adoption of AI has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding transparency. Around 60% of arbitration practitioners believe there should be increased transparency about the use of AI, and around 70% suggest that counsel should explicitly disclose the use of AI tools for document review and production, translation of documents, or drafting of expert reports.
Current Approaches to Disclosure of the Use of AI in Arbitration
Alongside the rise of AI, several arbitral institutions and associations have issued guidance on its use in arbitration proceedings. However, their approaches to disclosure obligations vary significantly.
Arbitral Institutions
The American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) was the first institution to release its Principles Supporting the Use of AI in Alternative Dispute Resolution in 2023, which outline general ethical standards for AI usage but do not impose explicit disclosure requirements.
In Europe, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) released a Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cases Administered Under the SCC Rules in 2024, encouraging arbitral tribunals to disclose their use of AI in legal and factual research. Under an article on “Integrity”, the Guide states that “Arbitral Tribunals are encouraged to disclose any use of AI in researching and interpreting facts and the law or applying the law to facts”. However, it does not address disclosure from parties themselves nor impose specific disclosure obligations.
More recently, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) released its Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings in April 2025, which does not explicitly mandate disclosure of the use of AI tools. However, Article 5, titled “Management of Parties’ and Arbitrators’ Use of AI”, states that the arbitrators and the parties “may wish to discuss in the case management conference, the potential use of AI in the proceedings, the requirement of disclosure as well as the potential impact of AI on the arbitration timeline and costs”. Article 6, “Evidence and AI”, notes that “In relation to the submission of factual and expert evidence, it is within the arbitrators’ discretion to decide whether to request disclosure of evidence produced by AI or with the support of AI”.
Additionally, the ICC Commission announced at its meeting in Mexico on 14 September 2024 the creation of a new Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in International Dispute Resolution. This task force is currently being formed, and its scope is still being defined.
Currently, institutions are not imposing mandatory rules but are instead providing broad, non-binding guidance intended to stimulate discussion and reflection around the responsible use of AI in arbitral proceedings.
Published Guidelines
We currently have two notable sets of guidelines released in 2024 and 2025 by the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb).
The SVAMC released its Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration in 2024, which include an article dedicated solely to disclosure. The SVAMC adopts a flexible approach. Guideline 3 provides that “Disclosure that AI tools were used in connection with an arbitration is not necessary as a general” and that “Decisions regarding disclosure of the use of AI tools shall be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the relevant circumstances, including due process and any applicable privilege matter”. The accompanying commentary explains that “In this evolving landscape, defining a set of generally applicable criteria for disclosure of AI does not seem feasible and could create more controversy than it resolves”, while acknowledging “the possibility that disclosure of the use of AI may be appropriate in some circumstances”. (see Benjamin I. Malek and Felix Kasseroler, The Future of AI in Arbitration: A View through the Eyes of the SVAMC AI Guidelines, Jus Mundi Arbitration Review (JMAR) Volume 1 Issue 2 2024, p. 34).
CIArb issued its Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration in March 2025, which explicitly address disclosure obligations. Article 7.1 states that “Disclosure of the use of an AI Tool may be required to the extent that its use may have an impact on the evidence, the outcome of the arbitration or otherwise involve a delegation of an express duty toward the arbitrators or any other party” while Article 7.2 provides that “Disclosure of the use of AI may be required to ensure transparency over its use and ultimately preserve the integrity of the arbitration and/or the validity and enforceability of the award”. The guidelines grant the arbitrators the authority to “impose certain AI-related disclosure obligations on the parties including any party-appointed experts or factual witness” (Article 7.3) emphasising that any duty to disclose is “continuous” and persists “throughout the entire arbitration proceedings”. Further, the guidelines allow arbitrators to take “any measures” to remedy the failure to disclose, depending on its impact “on the integrity of the proceedings”.
At the time of writing, it is also worth mentioning that the IBA Arbitration Committee has established a task force to develop the IBA Guidelines on the Use of AI in International Arbitration. This current task force is taking a more practical approach based on actual use cases rather than focusing solely on principles.
Despite these variations, a common thread across the guidelines is the emphasis on promoting transparency, fairness, and safeguarding procedural integrity.
Practical Difficulties of Disclosing the Use of AI Tools: Whether, When, and How to Disclose
Given the wide-ranging applications of AI tools in arbitration, uncertainty persists around the necessity and scope of disclosures. The lack of a universally recognised trigger for disclosure across existing guidelines adds to this uncertainty. Different guidelines articulate different thresholds for when AI use should be disclosed. CIArb ties it to the impact on evidence or the outcome of the arbitration, whereas SVAMC leaves it to the tribunal’s discretion in a case-by-case analysis.
Further complications arise regarding the form and timing of disclosure. Should AI use be disclosed proactively at the start of arbitration, mentioned in procedural orders, or only when AI-generated materials are submitted? Current guidelines don’t clearly address these practical details, leaving it to counsel or tribunals to decide. Additionally, it remains unclear precisely what information should accompany an AI disclosure. Should counsel simply mention that AI was used, or should they provide detailed information such as the specific tasks performed by the AI, the version of the tool, or the extent of human oversight involved? For instance, the SVAMC Guidelines state that details such as the “name, version, and relevant setting of the tool”, “a short description of how the tool was used”, and the “complete prompt and associated output” may help evaluate the reliability of the AI-generated results.
Finally, ambiguity persists regarding to whom disclosures should be made. In the interest of transparency and procedural fairness, disclosure to both the tribunal and opposing counsel is generally advisable. CIArb’s guidelines suggest that disclosure is generally to “other arbitration participants”, which implies both the tribunal and opposing counsel. However, in some contexts, counsel might consider confidential disclosures solely to tribunals, particularly where revealing strategic use of AI tools might disadvantage their client’s interests.
Jus AI Disclosure Clause
At Jus Mundi, we firmly believe that transparency around the use of AI is paramount to safeguarding the integrity of the arbitration process. Whenever appropriate, parties should ensure early and clear disclosure of the use of AI tools, such as Jus AI, to arbitrators and opposing parties.
To assist practitioners, we propose the following disclosure clause, adaptable across different AI tools and use cases:
“The [Claimant/Respondent], [Party Name], hereby discloses that Jus AI, an artificial intelligence tool developed by Jus Mundi (“JusAI “), was used in the preparation and analysis of materials submitted in these arbitration proceedings. Jus AI was specifically used to assist in the drafting of documents, legal research, and data analysis, [other purposes to be added, as needed], in view to increasing efficiency and accuracy in the presentation of the case. All outputs generated by Jus AI were reviewed and, where necessary, edited by legal counsel prior to submission to ensure accuracy and compliance with applicable rules. The use of Jus AI complied with confidentiality obligations and data protection requirements relevant to this arbitration. The [Claimant/Respondent] undertakes to promptly disclose any further material use of AI tools in connection with these proceedings. This disclosure is made in accordance with the principles of transparency and fairness, as outlined in the Charted Institute of Arbitrators Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) and the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (2024), [others applicable Rules to be included, as needed], and to inform the tribunal and other party(ies) of the technological tools used in these proceedings”
This proposal is not intended to suggest that practitioners must disclose the use of every AI system, particularly where such systems pose no specific ethical or procedural issues — for example, the use of spell-checkers, document formatting software, or proofreading tools that have been standard in legal practice for decades. Similarly, the use of legal research databases, such as Jus Mundi, even if powered by AI, does not, by itself, trigger disclosure obligations, as these tools are widely accepted as part of modern legal practice. Rather, this proposal invites arbitration participants to first assess whether disclosure is warranted based on the nature, function, and potential impact of the AI tool used. Where disclosure is appropriate, this clause provides a practical framework to communicate that use effectively and responsibly.
We believe this model clause reflects the current best practice and sets a high standard for the ethical use of AI in arbitration. Importantly, it reassures tribunals and opposing parties that AI has been used responsibly, under legal oversight, and with respect for procedural integrity. By explicitly addressing how AI has been integrated into legal work, this clause helps avoid misunderstandings, reduces the risk of challenges to procedural fairness, and reinforces confidence in the validity and enforceability of the award.
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.
Press Contact
Helene Maïo, Senior Digital Marketing Manager, Jus Mundi – h.maio@jusmundi.com
