Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Artificial intelligence is making lawyers faster, research more accessible and legal services more efficient. But as AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, legal practitioners are confronting a more difficult question: how can the profession embrace technological transformation without surrendering the human judgment, ethics and accountability that lie at the heart of legal practice?
Reflecting on nearly five decades in the legal profession, from manual typewriters to AI, Sir Geoffrey warned that the competition to develop national AI capabilities is simultaneously a competition to preserve the influence of established legal systems, and that courts which resist this reality risk making themselves irrelevant.
From fabricated citations to autonomous AI agents, the arbitration community is confronting a new reality. At LIDW 2026, experts debated whether AI is a revolutionary tool for dispute resolution or a risk that demands greater human oversight.
The discussion on AI moved from the identification of risks to their practical management, focusing on governance structures, professional obligations, and the preservation of independent judgment in AI-assisted arbitration practice.
Day 3 of IIDW 2026 brought sharp debates on civil courts, constitutional expansion, power asymmetries in litigation, and technology reshaping the judiciary.
Day 2 of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 featured a compelling lineup of sessions and distinguished speakers, offering in-depth discussions on critical issues shaping the future of arbitration. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the day’s proceedings, capturing the key insights, thought leadership, and dynamic exchanges that marked the sessions.
The LIDW 2025 Main Conference brought together leaders from across the dispute resolution world to discuss the most topical issues of the moment, on the theme of “Innovation in Dispute Resolution: Navigating Global Risks”.
Kerala High Court made it clear that permission to conduct cross-examinations via video conferencing is not an automatic right. Such permission should only be granted if valid reasons are provided, and the absence of a specific provision in the rules should not prevent this.
