The rules of some ADR institutions authorize the tribunal to issue a default award as a sanction. Do you believe that is a good idea in some circumstances? Have you ever heard of such a sanction occurring in an arbitration proceeding?

What are your thoughts?

How should arbitrators address requests to issue subpoenas addressed to a 3d party witness located outside of the state in which an in-person hearing is scheduled?  In a remote arbitration, where exactly is the hearing “located” for purposes of Rule 45?

What are your thoughts?

When may an arbitrator start drafting the award?  If a tribunal, may the Chair start drafting the award before consulting with the wings?

What are your thoughts?

FAQ: Understanding the AAA AI Arbitrator

By Jeffrey Zaino

When I first posted that the AAA-ICDR would launch an AI arbitrator, the reaction was exactly what was hoped for: spirited, curious, and deeply thoughtful. Several respondents expressed skepticism. We welcome and appreciate all comments, and I look forward to sharing our progress as we work with clients and AAA arbitrators excited to be a part of the inaugural and voluntary roll out.

That said, I would like to clarify what our AI arbitrator will be at launch, what it won’t be at launch, and how we’re making sure that the trust built over nearly a century of arbitration remains at the heart of this new process.

First and Most Importantly: Every Case Has a Human Arbitrator

Despite what the term “AI arbitrator” might suggest, no case is decided solely by AI.

Here’s how it works:

1. Parties submit their claims and evidence.
2. Parties validate that the AI arbitrator has accurately summarized their submissions.
3. AI arbitrator then parses claims, analyzes evidence, applies law, and drafts a proposed award with record citations.
4. An AAA-trained human arbitrator reviews, revises as needed, finalizes, and issues the award.

This “human-in-the-loop” structure allows for every decision to be grounded in real legal judgment and transparent reasoning—not algorithms alone.

Furthermore, party participation is entirely optional. Both parties must agree to use the AI arbitrator. If one or both prefer a traditional AAA arbitration, that’s exactly what they’ll get.

We’re starting with two-party, documents-only construction disputes—cases where there are no live witnesses and where speed and efficiency are paramount. As the technology matures, we’ll expand to other case types, always with human oversight built in.

For nearly a century, the AAA has helped people and businesses resolve disputes fairly and efficiently. The AI arbitrator is our next step in carrying that mission forward—using technology to scale fairness, not to substitute for it. Take a look at the below selection of FAQs crafted to help address some common inquiries.

1. Is the AI arbitrator actually deciding cases on its own?

No. Every decision made by the AI arbitrator involves a human arbitrator. The AI arbitrator uses legal reasoning to draft a recommended award—not a final decision. An AAA-trained human arbitrator reviews the AI’s analysis, revises if needed, and issues the final, binding award.

2. Does the AI replace human legal judgment or ethics?

No. Human legal judgment remains central at every step. The AI arbitrator acts as an analytical tool—it organizes and reasons through case documents, but only a human arbitrator can finalize an award. Every output is validated for logic, fairness, and legal soundness by an experienced AAA arbitrator trained in AI arbitrator oversight. Carefully crafted AAA frameworks and standards are baked into every layer of the AI arbitration platform’s development to allow for transparency and accountability.

3.  What data is the AI arbitrator trained on?

For its initial launch, the AI arbitrator was trained on real AAA construction awards—more than 1,500+ expert-labeled awards—and refined through expert human calibration.  This training gives the system domain-specific expertise while protecting confidentiality.

4. Can parties review the AI’s draft before a final award?

This is not a black box. While the parties do not see the AI’s draft award, during the filing and response process, they do have the opportunity to review and confirm that the AI correctly summarized their claims and submissions before their information is submitted.

5. Is participation in AI arbitration mandatory?

No. The AI arbitrator is completely opt-in. Both parties must agree to use it; otherwise, the case proceeds under traditional AAA arbitration.

6. How does this affect arbitrators?

This innovation is designed to empower, not replace, human arbitrators.  The AI arbitrator increases the speed and volume of cases, which we think can provide more opportunities for panelists. Arbitrators working on AI-led cases receive specialized training in reviewing AI-generated analyses.

7. Is this suitable for complex or subjective cases?

Not yet. The AI arbitrator’s initial deployment focuses on documents-only construction disputes—cases without live witnesses or complex factual issues.  As the system matures  AAA may expand its use to other case types.

8. How do we ensure fairness and trust in this process?

AAA’s reputation for fairness is built on nearly a century of trusted arbitration. Every AI-led case follows AAA’s ethical frameworks, due process principles, and disclosure requirements. Parties will always know who their arbitrator is, how the case is handled, and how the decision is made. AAA maintains a dedicated AI Governance Committee overseeing compliance, ethics, and model outputs.

9. What are the time and cost benefits?

Early testing shows 20–25% faster resolution times and 35% or greater cost savings in documents-only construction disputes.

10. What if the AI “gets it wrong”?

The human arbitrator is ultimately responsible for detecting and correcting any deficiencies before issuing the final award. Every award remains the human arbitrator’s award, not the AI’s. The AI assists, but the decision—and accountability—stays human.

For more information or for a demo, please contact me at ZainoJ@adr.org.

The AAA-ICDR announced in September that it will “release an AI Arbitrator to deliver fast, cost-effective, and trusted dispute resolution. The AI arbitrator will first be available in November 2025 for documents-only construction cases, a high-volume area where efficiency and speed are essential.”

What are your thoughts about the use of an AI arbitrator?

An arbitrator is retained by the ABC law firm to be a neutral wing arbitrator in a matter where the arbitration clause states that each side retains an arbitrator and the two select a Chair. During the course of the arbitration, a different attorney at the ABC law firm calls the arbitrator directly to retain her services for a mediation. May the arbitrator engage in a conversation with this attorney? May the arbitrator agree to the new retention? How would you handle this situation?

What are your thoughts?

Does a party have the right to challenge a party appointed arbitrator for conflicts? What should be the standards, if any, for removal? Are the standards different than those for challenging arbitrators appointed by an arbitral institution? Are the standards different for non-neutral arbitrators? 

What are your thoughts?

This question concerns the situation where there is a right to attorney fees to the prevailing party, in particular in employment and consumer matters. Since the advent of many bans on class actions, it is frequently the case that the claimants’ firms represent multiple claimants against the same respondent with nearly identical claims.  Sometimes this occurs in the mass arbitration context, but also frequently where a firm might represent 3-10 claimants.  In evaluating an attorney fee request from the claimant's attorney after a finding in favor of the claimant, how should the firms representation of multiple claimants affect the attorney fee award, if at all. Frequently, the firms are able to use sections of their briefs, particularly regarding the legal issues, in multiple cases.

What are your thoughts?

May arbitrators include "continuing jurisdiction" provisions in awards without party request?  Is this a common practice?

What are your thoughts?

How should arbitrators approach quantum calculations? How much should arbitrators ask of the parties and quantum experts? Should the arbitrators decide the quantum issues and write the Award based on the parties submissions and not ask for additional materials from parties or their quantum experts? Or, should the arbitrators ask for additional materials from parties or their experts if they deem such additional information relevant and material to deciding the "quantum" outcome of the case in the Award?

What are your thoughts?