{"id":401267,"date":"2026-11-14T10:00:44","date_gmt":"2026-11-14T04:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=401267"},"modified":"2026-11-13T18:22:42","modified_gmt":"2026-11-13T12:52:42","slug":"dubai-arbitration-week-2026-clifford-chance-ai-in-arbitration-risk-opportunity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/dubai-arbitration-week-2026-clifford-chance-ai-in-arbitration-risk-opportunity\/","title":{"rendered":"Dubai Arbitration Week 2026: Examining AI’s growing role, risks and safeguards in international arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Dubai Arbitration Week 2026, held from 9 to 13 November, brought together arbitration practitioners, legal professionals and technology experts to discuss developments shaping international dispute resolution. Among the sessions was “AI in Arbitration – Balancing Risk and Opportunity”<\/span>, organised by Clifford Chance on 11 November 2026 at Lulu & The Beanstalk, ICD Brookfield, Dubai. The session considered the expanding use of artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the arbitration lifecycle, examining how practitioners are using AI for document review, case assessment, translation, legal research and hearing administration. The discussion also addressed the risks associated with its use, particularly in relation to confidentiality, data security, legal professional privilege, professional responsibility and the disclosure of AI-generated material.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture from left to right: Mr. Pravin Arvyta, Ms. Victoria St-Amour, Dr. Mustapha Tawbi and Ms. Prachi Trivedi]<\/p>\n

The panel featured Mr. Pravin Arvyta<\/span>, Director, Deloitte; Dr. Mustapha Tawbi<\/span>, GenAI Partner Technologist Lead, Amazon Web Services; Ms. Prachi Trivedi<\/span>, Counsel, Clifford Chance; and Ms. Victoria St-Amour<\/span>, Senior Associate, Clifford Chance. Drawing on their professional experiences, the panellists discussed both the practical benefits of AI and instances where its use had produced unexpected or unreliable results.<\/p>\n

AI’s growing role in arbitration and lessons from its failures<\/p>\n

Opening the discussion, Mr. Pravin Arvyta<\/span> recalled an early experience with an AI translation tool used to review communications across multiple jurisdictions. During the review of an exchange between two individuals who had a difficult relationship with their line manager, the tool translated an Egyptian Arabic expression into an opposite sentiment. The example illustrated the limitations of literal translation where meaning depended on cultural and linguistic context. Although the tool had translated much of the communication successfully, the particular expression demonstrated why AI-generated translations still required human verification. Ms. Prachi Trivedi<\/span> shared a personal example involving an AI voice-generation tool. She had used it to create a personalised Christmas message from Santa Claus for her two young children. The tool generated a booming voice that sounded like a well-known broadcaster, frightening the children, who asked her to stop the recording. Further, Ms. Victoria St-Amour<\/span> also recounted another experience involving an AI tool that repeatedly reassured her that a tree transplanted from her old garden would survive in its new location. Despite seeing no signs of life in the tree, she continued receiving positive assurances from the system.<\/p>\n

These examples introduced an important distinction that ran through the session: AI could generate convincing responses, but convincing responses were not necessarily accurate ones. Context, verification and human judgement remained essential.<\/p>\n

Applying AI across the arbitration lifecycle<\/p>\n

Discussing the practical use of AI in arbitration, Ms. Victoria observed that the technology was particularly suited to the document-heavy and fact-intensive nature of proceedings. Lawyers and experts routinely spend substantial time searching, organising and comparing documents before synthesising the information for clients or submissions. These were tasks in which AI tools were increasingly capable of assisting. She nevertheless cautioned against delegating every task to AI. The distinction, she explained, was between using technology to augment existing work and allowing it to replace tasks requiring legal judgement and strategic assessment. Where the task involves professional judgement or the client’s strategy, she emphasised:<\/p>\n

“…AI needs to be kind of used with a lot of proportion, or perhaps not at all.”<\/p>\n

Referring to institutional guidance, she noted that arbitration organisations were beginning to address the appropriate use of AI. The objective of such guidance was not to discourage adoption, but to enable practitioners to benefit from the technology while protecting procedural rights and the integrity of the arbitral process. Ms. Victoria identified three stages at which AI was proving particularly useful.<\/p>\n