Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter↑

Search
Log in
Forgot password

Arbitrator Analytics and Selection

Tuesday, July 07, 2026 8:13 AM | Anonymous

SVAMC Publishes Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration – Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center

Party-side AI now profiles neutrals' rates, ruling patterns, and writing — is that a disclosable influence on selection, and does it pressure neutrality? Does widespread profiling change arbitrator behavior? If arbitrators believe that every procedural ruling or written decision will be analyzed and scored, is there a risk that they will become more cautious, or even subconsciously tailor their decisions to preserve their 'metrics'?  

What are your thoughts? 

Comments

  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 1:28 PM | Thomas P. Valenti
    Party-side AI profiling is not automatically a disclosable “influence” just because counsel used it to choose or rank a neutral. But it becomes a governance issue when the tool affects the proceeding itself, rests on opaque or biased data, is used asymmetrically, or is deployed to challenge, pressure, or steer the neutral.

    Profiling itself is not the ethical breach; ungoverned, opaque, outcome-shaping profiling is the danger. The best response is not to ban analytics, but to normalize guardrails, such as:


    1. Require disclosure when AI outputs are put before the tribunal, used in challenges, or affect evidence/procedure.
    2. Encourage institutions to give neutrals access to, or correction rights over, material profile data used in institutional systems.
    3. Train arbitrators to recognize metric pressure as a modern form of implicit influence.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 1:40 PM | Eric D. Kuritzky, Architect, CBO, Arbitrator
    I do not believe in the use of AI for any aspect of Arbitration by the Arbitrator. Once you start, you might as well have the AI make the determination. There are aspects of what we do that rely on the presentation, and behavior...not just the words...of the case information.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 1:47 PM | Robert A. Creo
    I do not think it is a concern. All of the published decisions are behind paywalls such as Bloomberg, Wolters Kluwer, West, Lexis which are not accessible to AI. I had Claude run me and all that turned up were a couple court cases involving motions to confirm or vacate awards. it only found two of them althougth I know there are at least five. AI can did into the dockets but a more difficult time finding court records naming arbitrators. Concern about AI reports on arbitrators should NOT affect the willingness of arbitrators to submit cases to publication nor affect AAA policies on seeking publiation.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 1:50 PM | David B. Wilson
    As I understand it, these sorts of analytical tools are not commercially available but only are used within some law firms. At least, this is what AI tells me. Moreover, it seems unlikely that "every procedural ruling or written decision will be analyzed and scored," given that procedural rulings and written decisions generally are not published or otherwise accessible.

    I also understand that the available tools analyze, for example, clarity of writing, clarity of procedural directions, and other traits that most arbitrators would consider good practices. Thus, I don't see why these AI tools would pressure neutrality. Rather, in the currently unlikely event that an arbitrator learns of the AI's evaluation, it sounds like the evaluation would help the arbitrator to enhance neutrality.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 2:38 PM | Joseph A Del Sole
    I do not know to what extent, if any, the use of AI to examine an arbitrators rulings may influence selection. Arbitrators should not allow the possibility of how their rulings may influence future selection impact decisions.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 3:07 PM | Laura A Kaster
    I would like to flip the discussion a bit. One of the issues for selection of non-judge arbitrators is the dearth of information about their thought processes. That is why publication is so important. By and large advocates are mistaken when they think they can predict a former judge’s likely views, but for non-judge arbitrators, it may be good to get more information out to people selecting neutrals.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 4:32 PM | Robert A. Creo
    I do not think it is a concern. All of the published decisions are behind paywalls such as Bloomberg, Wolters Kluwer, West, Lexis which are not accessible to AI. I had Claude run me and all that turned up were a couple court cases involving motions to confirm or vacate awards. it only found two of them althougth I know there are at least five. AI can did into the dockets but a more difficult time finding court records naming arbitrators. Concern about AI reports on arbitrators should NOT affect the willingness of arbitrators to submit cases to publication nor affect AAA policies on seeking publiation.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 4:40 PM | Steven Skulnik
    Competent lawyers use AI as a tool to speed up work that would have otherwise been done more slowly. They don't rely on AI outputs without thoroughly vetting them. For good lawyers with good cases, the tools will only enable quicker and better research on arbitrators. I welcome that.
    Link  •  
    Author
    Comment
     
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2026 11:10 PM | Stephen Sorensen
    I don’t believe that AI should be used in arbitration; but, I understand that counsel may be using AI to select arbitrators based upon past decisions. There is not much I can do to stop counsel from doing that. I guess we just have to live with it.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Wednesday, July 08, 2026 11:41 AM | Anonymous
    I understood that most if not all decisions of an AAA Arbitrator are private and therefore not generally available to AI analysis, unless published as part of a court challenge to an award. So how is this generally an issue for arbitrator selection or disclosure!
    Link  •  Reply
    • Wednesday, July 08, 2026 4:00 PM | Steven Skulnik
      A substantial percentage of awards become public through court filings. Institutions also publish redacted awards.
      Link  •  Reply
      • Wednesday, July 15, 2026 2:50 PM | Jon Parritz
        Does AAA publish redacted awards? If so, do they notify or consult with the arbitrator before publishing?
        Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, July 09, 2026 1:25 PM | Tong Wang
    Parties and their counsel are going to utilize any intelligence they possess about arbitrators, including in selection process, AI or not. I do not see a need for a separate disclosure category beyond what’s already in place in major disclosure guidelines. I too do not see why it concerns neutrality. Arbitrator controls neutrality, period.
    Link  •  Reply
Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter

© 2026 ACR-GNY

Contact Us

Email us at questions@acrgny.org

ACR-GNY's mission and programming are generously sponsored by:

ADR Notable: Dispute Resolution Management Made Easy
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software