On 7 May 2025, over 300 participants gathered in Stuttgart, Germany for the annual Spring Conference of the German Arbitration Institute (“DIS”) entitled “The Revolution of Arbitration – Is Artificial Intelligence a Gamechanger?”.
As in many—if not all—industries, business sectors, and areas of daily life, the topic of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is currently attracting significant attention in arbitration. Given the pace of technological progress, it is challenging to assess AI’s future role in arbitration. While skeptics emphasize the limits and risks of deploying AI, others are eager to explore its potential. The conference focused on precisely this question: how can AI’s potential be meaningfully harnessed in arbitration?
The conference opened with a welcome by Prof. Dr. Stefan Kröll (DIS), who thanked the organizing team: Dr. Karsten Grillitsch (DIS/Bosch), Dr. Roland Kläger (Haver & Mailänder), and Dr. Claudia Krapfl (Gleiss Lutz).
Arbitration 2030: AI’s Role in the Future of Dispute Resolution
The keynote address by Bridget McCormack (American Arbitration Association) set an ambitious and inspiring tone. She portrayed AI and dispute resolution as a “match made in heaven,” arguing that AI can democratize access to justice and drive innovation and prosperity. Furthermore, she emphasized AI’s core strength—its ability to understand language—and highlighted its potential in various arbitration-related tasks such as data management, fact analysis, and enhancing legal writing. She also pointed out that the American Arbitration Association is pursuing impressive and far-reaching projects to explore and develop the application of AI in the field of dispute resolution. For example, at the AAAiLab, tools such as ClauseBuilder—a generative AI for drafting arbitration agreements—and an AI-powered chat book that supports advocates, students, and self-represented parties with tailored guidance at every stage of arbitration proceedings, are being developed (see also here). Bridget McCormack’s closing call encouraged the audience to proactively engage with the topic.
Case Studies: How AI is Already Used in Arbitration
The first panel, moderated by Dr. Anke Meier (Noerr), provided hands-on insights into practical applications of AI in arbitration. Live polls via QR code gave insight into the audience’s experiences with and views on AI. For instance, tools like ChatGPT, DeepL, Harvey, and Libra were cited. Concerns included hallucinations, data privacy, and effective prompt design.
Dr. Ramona Schardt (DIS) presented the DIS’s proactive efforts to integrate AI in a meaningful way, focusing on initiatives like the DIS eFile, a fully digital case management system designed to enhance efficiency and transparency. She also emphasized efforts to ensure a legally secure AI framework.
Florian Diekmann (Regional Court of Rottweil) shared state court experiences, highlighting the role of the newly established Commercial Court in Baden-Württemberg as an innovation driver. He also reported that the majority of case files are now maintained digitally and that, in Stuttgart, AI was also used in the diesel mass litigation procedure to sort the overwhelming influx of cases.
Franziska Fuchs (Bosch) highlighted the substantive cost savings of up to 90% that can be achieved in arbitration with existing AI tools, such as summarizing depositions and analyzing documentary evidence. She emphasized that commercial clients expect law firms to proactively embrace AI and suggested that law firms work closely with their clients to jointly shape the integration of AI into their workflows.
Prof. Dr. Eric Wagner (Gleiss Lutz) stressed that while implementation of AI is costly, it is necessary to maintain competitiveness.
The panel agreed that the successful use of AI in arbitration depends on budget, technical capability, and mindset.
Will Disputes Soon Be Resolved by Robo-Arbitrators?
This for and against debate, moderated by Dr. Felix Zimmermann (LTO), presented opposing views on whether AI could and should one day replace human arbitrators:
Prof. Dr. Thomas Riehm (University of Passau) argued that AI cannot replace arbitrators, as human communication and consciousness are essential for decisions that are acceptable and legitimate for the parties involved. While AI can certainly analyze procedural risks and distill them into amounts and decision proposals, such AI-driven decisions would represent a fundamentally different concept from the current arbitration system.
Dr. Alexander Steinbrecher (BVG Berlin) countered with a pragmatic view: AI could replace arbitrators, especially from an economic perspective, since it can deliver faster and potentially even more accurate decisions at lower cost. This development aligns with the expectations of the business world, where legal disputes are basically seen as unwelcome business interruptions.
The lively debate revealed broad agreement that, while fully AI-driven decisions are difficult to envisage (especially when it comes to evaluating evidence and developing the law), AI may serve well as a predictive or advisory tool—at least for now.
Amara’s Law: A Turning Point in Arbitration?
Prof. Dr. Jörg Risse (Baker McKenzie) offered a thought-provoking take on Amara’s Law—the notion that we overestimate technological change in the short run, but underestimate it in the long run. He argued that we have crossed the threshold into an era of exponential change in legal tech.
He presented three fictional, yet plausible, AI use cases: an arbitrator using AI-generated case assessments to nudge the parties toward settlement, a statutory AI system reducing court burdens by resolving mass flight compensation claims, and a powerful law firm’s in-house AI predicting legal success rates.
His conclusion: although these scenarios are not yet real, they could soon be. In line with Amara’s law, having passed the trough of disillusionment, we now stand at the threshold of an unstoppable and exponentially accelerating development of AI in arbitration.
Limits and Best Practices for AI in Arbitration
Moderated by Dr. Vanessa Pickenpack (Oppenhoff), the next panel explored both the potential and the challenges of AI tools:
Nathalia Schomerus (Legora) demonstrated real-world applications like Google’s Gemini and Legora’s AI solution designed for legal professionals. She illustrated how these tools can be used for tasks such as searching for a suitable arbitrator, reviewing documents, summarizing witness statements, and identifying contradictions within materials.
Dr. Daniel Schnabl (Freshfields) and Prof. Dr. André Janssen (Radboud University) discussed advantages and risks of such use cases. Challenges included issues of bias, transparency, and ethical considerations. All panelists concurred that cautious and critical experimentation—beginning with the use of free AI tools and advancing to more sophisticated, paid solutions—is the best way forward.
Looking Ahead: Revolution or Evolution of Dispute Resolution through AI?
The final session, moderated by Dr. Andreas Hacke (Zwanzig Hacke Meilke & Partner), featured representatives from the legal tech sector: Alisha Andert (Legal Tech Verband), Dr. Micha-Manuel Bues (Bryter), and Dr. Dierk Schindler (Liquid Legal Institute).
All panelists affirmed that AI adoption is inevitable for the legal market. Their advice to practitioners was to start small, collaborate across sectors with legal tech providers, clients and even competitors, and focus on suitable use cases. Good tools exist, but are underused.
Looking ahead, the panel anticipated key trends shaping the future of AI in dispute resolution: a shift from one-size-fits-all tools to solutions specifically designed for the legal sector, an increasing reliance on external providers rather than in-house development, and—most notably—a rapidly approaching, far-reaching, and fast-paced transformation. This shift is set to redefine the dispute resolution landscape.
Conclusion
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kröll (DIS) concluded the conference by encouraging everybody to “just get started.” His message reflected the spirit of the day—an invitation to embrace an AI-enhanced future of arbitration with courage, curiosity, and an open mind.
Participants left the conference not only with plenty of food for thought, but also with concrete ideas for implementing AI into their daily work. Effective use cases for AI in arbitration already exist today, such as processing large volumes of data, intelligently identifying contradictions, and refining legal arguments both stylistically and substantively. Developing one’s own expertise is crucial for the successful application of these tools.
However, the conference also called attention to important limitations, especially regarding privacy and ethics, making transparency and clear guidelines essential. The discussions also made clear that from the majority’s point of view, the core process of legal decision-making involves a deeply human element and that the arbitration community, at least for now, is not ready to hand over this key task to AI.
How soon and to what extent AI will reshape arbitration practice depends on each individual—but the momentum is undeniable. The conference inspired attendees to actively shape this transformation rather than watch it unfold from the sidelines.
The world of AI innovation includes innovators, early adopters, early and late majority, and laggards. This year’s DIS Spring Conference brought together a strong lineup of leading innovators. After such an inspiring event, the number of early adopters in arbitration will likely grow.
The content of this post is intended for educational and general information. It is not intended for any promotional purposes. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, the Editorial Board, and this post’s author make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy or completeness of any information in this post.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here. To submit a proposal for a blog post, please consult our Editorial Guidelines.
