Posted by Authored by: Hon. Mary Colleen Roberts (Ret.)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere. Virtually every conversation these days involves AI and now this advanced technology seems to be on the cusp of transforming nearly every aspect of society. Whether that proves to be more hype than reality remains to be seen.
AI has certainly made plenty of headlines in the legal profession and, more often than not, for all the wrong reasons. But many attorneys and law firms are taking a good hard look at the technology, particularly generative AI, which includes tools such as ChatGPT, and its ability to research, organize and summarize materials.
According to a recent Thomson Reuters article, 80% of legal professionals surveyed believe AI will have a significant impact on their work over the course of the next five years. The same report found that 72% of these attorneys view AI as a positive tool. Digging deeper, the article revealed that 77% use AI for document review, while 74% indicated they use it for legal research, 74% to summarize documents and 59% to draft briefs or memos.
In an article from February 2025, “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Law Firms’ Business Models,” published by the Center on the Legal Profession at Harvard Law School, the suggestion was that AI holds the potential to dramatically improve productivity and, in turn, quality of service. The article stated: “AI may cause the ‘80/20 inversion’; 80 percent of time was spent collecting information, and 20 percent was strategic analysis and implications. We’re trying to flip those timeframes.”
Despite all of its promise, there are significant pitfalls legal professionals, law firms and the courts must consider as this technology becomes more pervasive. Unsurprisingly, the same issues faced by litigators are being experienced in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Let’s take a closer look at how AI is beginning to impact ADR and how attorneys can avoid the many challenges presented by this burgeoning technology.
How AI Is Being Used
Some litigators have begun to use AI tools to increase efficiency and gain a strategic edge. It is not difficult to imagine these tools finding a role in the ADR process. Just as in litigation, attorneys could use AI to rapidly analyze large volumes of legal databases to find relevant precedents, statutes and regulatory information for the purposes of preparing for a mediation or arbitration. Such AI tools could significantly reduce research time. Generative AI has proven itself adept at document analysis, freeing up attorneys from having to review and categorize documents and identify key themes, while highlighting important information for the legal team. It is likely AI is being used to develop case strategy, present arguments and anticipate the moves of the opposing party. Much as in a court case, some attorneys are even employing AI in their ADR practice to draft arbitration settlement proposals, motions and pleadings as well as mediation statements, though such use of AI tools can be risky, as I will explore later in this article.
Innovative digital tools such as AI hold tremendous promise in enhancing productivity by automating repetitive responsibilities, including administrative tasks involving scheduling, communication and document organization. This can allow attorneys to focus more of their time on strategic work. Some attorneys may already be deploying AI for these purposes within the ADR process.
Some law firms may also take advantage of AI’s predictive analytics capabilities to analyze past settlements, case outcomes, and mediator or arbitrator tendencies to forecast potential outcomes. This type of information could be used to better manage client expectations and inform settlement offers. The effectiveness of these tools remains to be proven, but they are nonetheless intriguing.
And given the speed of development around AI in general, promising new applications will likely emerge that present attractive opportunities for attorneys engaged in the ADR process. For instance, it is likely that law firms will soon be able to program the AI to pull information from not only reliable legal databases such as Westlaw and Lexis, but also their own databases, assisting lawyers in making better decisions.
Where AI Falls Short
AI does have its limitations. Ethical guidelines, such as those set by the California State Bar, emphasize that attorneys must actively oversee AI tools to maintain accuracy and prevent issues such as “hallucinations”—where AI generates inaccurate or false information. I have some firsthand experience with this problem. When I was still on the bench, I was reading a brief in support of a motion, and something stood out to me in one paragraph. There was a citation that I thought was particularly interesting, so I researched that case and discovered the actual case had nothing to do with what was offered in the brief. After a bit more research, I found a number of the cases cited were inaccurate. This was when I realized AI had been used to write the brief and that the attorney did not verify its accuracy.
Another shortcoming of generative AI tools is that they are only as good as the data they are trained on. This means that if the data is inaccurate or not up to date, then the output will reflect those same flaws. The issue of bias is also a real concern. AI models trained on historical data may perpetuate existing biases. Attorneys must be vigilant to prevent AI outputs from amplifying those biases There is no substitute for the human touch. AI lacks the ability to understand legal nuance, weigh strategic implications or grasp the specific context of a case, which can lead to flawed arguments or a failure to recognize when a statute is irrelevant. AI tools tend to produce generic results that may omit critical, case-specific terms and fail to account for jurisdictional subtleties.
Because of the “black box” nature of most AI algorithms, it is difficult to understand how a decision was reached, which raises concerns about accountability and transparency when errors occur. Attorneys who use these tools will be responsible for the end product.
Neutrals, who are tasked with managing the mediation or arbitration process, face similar challenges as judges do in the courtroom in dealing with the use of AI by attorneys. When neutrals are compelled to do additional research because of potential inaccuracies from AI, this lengthens the amount of time spent before and during the proceedings, which increases the cost to the parties. This runs counter to one of the bedrock advantages of ADR, which is its cost-effectiveness relative to litigation.
Generative AI tools offer important opportunities for improving productivity and efficiency. And those opportunities will surely be utilized in ADR. However, as mentioned previously, attorneys are responsible for the accuracy and ethical integrity of their work product. AI will never be a substitute for the astute mind of counsel.
Beyond attorneys, ADR providers are exploring how AI can enhance the mediation and arbitration experience by offering tools that aid in note taking, transcription, and digital assistance. In a recent CEOWORLD magazine article, Kimberly Taylor, CEO and president of JAMS, discussed how JAMS is leveraging AI to streamline administrative workflows, organize data, and improve case management. She noted that by automating routine tasks—like scheduling, document handling, and communication management—AI enables case administrators and neutrals to devote more attention to the human elements of dispute resolution, such as judgment, empathy, and creative problem-solving. While technology cannot replicate the insight and discernment that neutrals bring to each case, it can serve as an important complement, enhancing both efficiency and precision.
AI holds real potential for ADR, much as it does for the legal profession more broadly. But its use will require caution and careful consideration. Like any powerful and evolving tool, it must be used in ways that maintain the integrity of the process.
About the Author:
Hon. Mary Colleen Roberts (Ret.) is a JAMS arbitrator, mediator, and neutral evaluator based in Chicago. She brings more than 35 years of legal and judicial experience, including 18 years on the bench of the Circuit Court of Cook County, where she presided over complex civil matters such as commercial, employment, construction, and professional-liability cases.