THE AUTHOR:
Mısra Yalçın, Associate at Tahan | Cem Attorney Partnership
The SCC (SCC Arbitration Institute) has long positioned itself as an innovation leader in international dispute resolution services. Its commitment to advancing efficiency and modernization can be seen in its embrace of emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). Among others, the SCC has been collaborating with Legora, a Swedish LegalTech firm that provides collaborative AI tools for legal professionals.
On 3 June 2025, the SCC co-organized an event with Legora, titled “AI and Arbitration: Revolutionising (and Future-Proofing) Dispute Resolution”. The event opened with a welcome address by Caroline Falconer (Secretary General, SCC), followed by introductory remarks from Jake Lowther (Specialist Counsel, SCC), which discussed the SCC’s Guide to the Use of AI in Cases Administered Under the SCC Rules 2024 “SCC Guide”). This was followed by a panel discussion featuring, Jonathan Williams (Legora), Anna Byström (EY), Angela Bergman Evans (Mannheimer Swartling), Natasha Lindstedt (Vattenfall), and Miranda Espenäs (Swedish Company Lawyers Association, Spotify), and was moderated by Jake Lowther. This article summarizes the discussion and offers concluding reflections on how AI is reshaping arbitration.
The SCC Guide
AI is becoming increasingly relevant across industries, and dispute resolution is no exception. AI has significant potential to improve efficiency in arbitration, and to neutralise recent criticisms regarding perceived increases in time and cost.
To promote modern and efficient dispute resolution, the SCC actively encourages the use of AI. However, as underscored by Lowther, the use of AI must be responsible and guided by some principles and standards. In line with this, the SCC Guide was published in October 2024, which provides flexible and non-binding recommendations for parties, counsel, and arbitrators on how to integrate AI responsibly in arbitration.
According to the SCC Guide, arbitral tribunals using AI systems should bear in mind:
- The need to ensure confidentiality;
- The importance of review to ensure the quality of AI-assisted outputs;
- To disclose certain AI use to ensure the integrity of the proceedings; and
- That its decision-making mandate is non-delegable, preserving the human role in adjudication.
Counsel in the Age of AI: Adapt or Be Left Behind?
AI is undoubtedly a transformational innovation that has already become an integral part of both our daily and professional lives. As Lindstedt stated, few technological developments have so dramatically reshaped the legal profession, particularly in terms of workload and efficiency, as AI. Is AI then coming for the jobs of legal professionals?
Williams noted that while AI may lead to a reduced number of lawyers involved in certain tasks, it is unlikely that dispute resolution proceedings will be entirely handled by AI, at least not in the near future. To illustrate his point, he referred to Jevons’ paradox: when efficiency and productivity improve, overall use of a resource often increases rather than decreases. In other words, as AI boosts efficiency, the demand for legal services may also grow. Furthermore, as pointed out by Byström, the value of the human element in dispute resolution cannot be overlooked. This includes the skills AI cannot replace, such as analytical thinking, communication, judgement, and common sense.
On this topic, Evans referred to a study from the University of Chicago, “Judge AI: Assessing Large Language Models in Judicial Decision-Making”, which explores whether AI can replace human judges. The study compared human and AI decision-making, and examined how factors like human psychology, sympathy, and precedent shaped outcomes. The research found that, unlike AI, the majority of judges were influenced by sympathetic factors of defendants. While this may be less relevant in commercial disputes, the research raises a fundamental question: is there a legitimate place for the human element in judicial decision making? The question brought the point to Richard Susskind’s book, How to Think About AI: A Guide for the Perplexed, that highlights technological myopia and the short sightedness towards the future of AI. As Evans stressed, while our focus on AI today is very much around productivity, we need to confront some fundamental and deeper discussions around humanity as well.
Although AI replacing humans may seem like a distant concern, there is another question that immediately applies today. Will there be room for lawyers who are not proficient in using AI? The panel highlighted that technological skills and AI literacy are already influencing law firms’ recruitment expectations. Therefore, regardless of seniority, incorporating AI into legal practice is no longer optional and is in fact a necessity to adapt to today’s legal landscape.
Law Firm – Client Relationship
When discussing AI, an important consideration is whether clients are comfortable with the use of AI by service providers. The panel concluded that clients generally expect their legal counsel to benefit from technology and AI to deliver faster and less expensive services. However, Espenäs highlighted the importance for in-house counsel of transparency around the use of AI, and how crucial it is to maintain the trust in the lawyer-client relationship.
Another important aspect to consider is billing. As highlighted by Lindstedt, the increased productivity by AI may decrease the time spent on individual tasks. Therefore, clients have a reasonable expectation from their service providers of honest and transparent billing that reflects the efficiency gained through using AI.
Cybersecurity
As highlighted by the SCC Guide, dispute resolution proceedings often involve critical information that must be kept confidential. This raises questions as to cybersecurity when AI is employed. Williams emphasizes the importance of balance between confidentiality and quality, noting that AI offers improved quality through trained data, although this may pose some risks to the confidentiality of the data.
A noteworthy discussion centred on whether confidentiality is considered to be a part of the duty of legal counsel or if it requires explicit instruction from the client. Lindstedt noted that it is the responsibility of legal counsel to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information that belongs to the client. It is also important to maintain an open dialogue with external advisors about the sensitivity of information, once again highlighting the importance of transparency.
Concluding Remarks
AI is no longer a futuristic concept but is a transformative reality that significantly enhances efficiency in dispute resolution. There is no doubt that AI has irreversibly changed the nature of legal work. Therefore, it is crucial for legal practitioners to embrace the use of AI in order to adapt to today’s dynamic legal landscape. Nevertheless, AI must be used responsibly and in line with certain principles, such as those set forth in the SCC Guide. Despite the rapid evolution of legal practice through technology, the human element remains an essential component of dispute resolution. Therefore, it can be concluded that AI should be seen as a powerful tool that supports legal professionals rather than replacing them. However, deeper questions around ethics and humanity remain to be unsolved and will require further discussions in the future. As of 2025, arbitration stands to benefit most from a balanced dynamic between human element and responsibly used AI.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mısra Yalçın is a lawyer admitted to the Istanbul Bar and an associate at Tahan | Cem Attorney Partnership with experience in advising and representing clients in litigation and international arbitration, particularly in construction and shipping matters under various institutional rules, as well as in ad hoc proceedings. She holds an LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law (“ICAL”) from Stockholm University. Previously in her career, she has served as tribunal secretary, and held visiting roles at the Istanbul Arbitration Centre and the SCC Arbitration Institute.
*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.
