May 5, 2026
As AI tools become increasingly common in legal practice, their use is now extending into alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation and arbitration. This raises important questions about transparency, confidentiality, and professional responsibility that clients involved in these processes must understand.
A recent article published on Slaw.ca identifies three emerging approaches that mediators and arbitrators are considering when it comes to disclosing their use of AI. The first treats AI as a professional support tool requiring no disclosure when used only for administrative tasks such as organizing issues or drafting correspondence, so long as the neutral retains full responsibility for all decisions. The second holds that some level of disclosure is good practice even when not strictly required, to maintain confidence in the process. The third supports disclosure when AI plays a more substantive role in analysis or decision-making, such as analyzing large volumes of documents, generating outcome predictions, or assisting in drafting awards. All three approaches share a common concern: how to integrate AI without undermining the fairness, confidentiality, and trust that make dispute resolution credible.
What ADR Organizations Are Saying
Several leading ADR organizations have begun publishing formal guidance on AI use in mediation and arbitration. The following is a summary of the key guidance issued by each:
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb): CIArb published a comprehensive Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration in 2025. Key principles include that arbitrators must not relinquish decision-making to AI and must independently verify AI outputs. Disclosure of AI use may be required where it affects evidence or the outcome of proceedings.
American Arbitration Association / ICDR (AAA-ICDR): The AAA-ICDR published AAAi Standards for AI in ADR covering six core considerations: ethical and human-centric values, privacy and security, accuracy and reliability, explainability and transparency, accountability, and adaptability. The Standards emphasize that AI should augment rather than replace human judgment, and that AI outputs must always be verified against trusted sources.
International Bar Association (IBA): The IBA Mediation Committee published Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in Mediation. The guidelines identify ways AI can support mediation, including document summarization, dispute analysis, and drafting settlement agreements, while emphasizing that AI should serve as a support tool rather than a decision-maker, and that core values of neutrality, confidentiality, and party autonomy must be preserved.
Clients involved in mediation or arbitration should be aware that formal guidance in this area is still developing. Until clear and uniform standards are established, it is advisable to consult with counsel about how AI tools may be used in any dispute resolution process.
To read the full Slaw.ca article, click here [1].