Within the legal profession, the perception towards generative artificial intelligence (“AI“) has evolved from wariness into growing enthusiasm. As reported by Thomson Reuters in its 2024 Future of Professionals Report, half of law firm respondents cited exploring and implementing AI as their highest priority.
Specific to arbitration, AI has the potential to significantly enhance the efficiency and quality of the arbitral process. However, it also carries some confidentiality and cybersecurity risks. Further, legislative and regulatory initiatives may have led to a ban or restriction on some AI tools in certain jurisdictions. It is therefore crucial that the parties’ use of AI and the conduct of an arbitration do not conflict with any applicable laws or institutional rules.
Against this backdrop, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“Ciarb“) published its Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) (“Guideline“) on 19 March 2025. The Guideline addresses the use of AI in a manner that allows dispute resolvers, parties, their representatives, and other participants to take advantage of the benefits of AI. It also supports practical efforts to mitigate some of the risks potentially posed by AI to the integrity of the process, any party’s procedural rights, and the enforceability of any ensuing award or settlement agreement.
The Guideline covers the following topics in relation to the use of AI in arbitration:
- Benefits and risks: The benefits include increased efficiency through assistance with legal research, data analysis, transcription, translation and interpretation, among others. Conversely, risks include confidentiality issues regarding the data input into third-party AI tools, cybersecurity risks, and algorithmic bias. The use of AI even raises questions of due process which may impact upon the enforceability of resulting awards.
- General recommendations: Parties and arbitrators should (i) seek to understand the technology, function and data of a prospective AI tool; (ii) balance perceived benefits against potential risks; (iii) make reasonable enquiry about any applicable AI-related law, regulation, or rule of court; and (iv) be clear that the use of AI by a participant in the arbitration would not diminish that participant’s responsibility and accountability for the resulting output, unless expressly agreed otherwise in writing.
- Arbitrators’ powers to give directions and make rulings on the use of AI by parties: The use of AI by parties falls within the general power of arbitrators to conduct proceedings. Arbitrators may wish to consider (i) regulating the use of AI; (ii) requiring disclosure of the use of AI; and (iii) recording any decision on the use of AI in a procedural order. Arbitrators should not regulate the private use of AI where such private use does not interfere with the proceedings and the integrity of the arbitral process, and where such use is generally allowed in litigation. If a party fails to comply with directions or orders on the use of AI, arbitrators may remedy that failure, make further rulings on the use of AI, draw appropriate conclusions including adverse inferences, or impose costs consequences.
- Use of AI by arbitrators: Arbitrators should consult with the parties on the arbitrator’s use of AI. If AI is used, arbitrators should not relinquish their decision-making powers to AI. Nor should they use AI in ways that could compromise the integrity of the proceedings or the validity or enforcement of the award. They should also independently verify the accuracy and correctness of information obtained through AI.
The Guideline also includes two templates that incorporate the Guideline: (i) an agreement on the use of AI in arbitration by the tribunal and parties; and (ii) a procedural order on the use of AI in arbitration.
The Guideline is intended for use in conjunction with, and does not supersede, any applicable laws, regulations or policies, or institutional rules related to the use of AI in an arbitration.
Click on the following links for more information (available on the Ciarb website at www.ciarb.org):
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
