---
title: "Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution"
type: "practice_area"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A6"
task_count: 23
last_reviewed: "2026-10-10"
---

# Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution

> Arbitration clauses, pleadings, procedure and awards, plus mediation. AI drafts and builds schedules; the lawyer protects confidentiality and the independence of witnesses, experts and the tribunal.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-10

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

Also covers: International commercial arbitration, domestic commercial arbitration, institutional arbitration (ACICA, AMINZ, ICC, SIAC, LCIA seated in Australia), ad hoc arbitration, mediation, expert determination, conciliation, dispute boards, ODR, NMAS-accredited mediation

## Key facts

- Tasks: 23
- Green: 4, Yellow: 17, Red: 2
- Levels: Green is AI drafts and the lawyer checks; Yellow is lawyer and AI draft together; Red is the lawyer writes and AI may only check, clarify or collect data.

## Principles

- **Define the matter**: Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- **Verify the authorities**: Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- **Preserve the witness’s evidence**: Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.

## Checklist

- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Confirm that the wording reflects the client’s instructions and contains no unintended admission, concession or commitment. Check the recipient and tone.
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Restrictions

- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.

## Jurisdiction note

Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.

## Basis

Practice guidance supports planning; the responsible lawyer confirms the scope, evidence and review requirements for the matter.

Also covers: International commercial arbitration, domestic commercial arbitration, institutional arbitration (ACICA, AMINZ, ICC, SIAC, LCIA seated in Australia), ad hoc arbitration, mediation, expert determination, conciliation, dispute boards, ODR, NMAS-accredited mediation

Australian ADR practice spans international commercial arbitration (International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) and the UNCITRAL Model Law), domestic arbitration (uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts), and non-binding ADR including court-annexed mediation, expert determination, and conciliation. The AI risk profile is elevated by four compounding factors: the statutory confidentiality regime attaching to arbitral proceedings (IAA s 23C); the absence of any right of merits appeal in international arbitration (making an AI-caused error at the substantive-analysis stage potentially unrecoverable); the hallucination risk on authority verification where fabricated citations in submissions or awards create grounds for natural-justice challenge and non-enforcement under IAA s 8(7A); and the undisclosed-arbitrator-AI risk illustrated by LaPaglia v Valve (US, 2025) where an award was challenged on grounds the arbitrator outsourced reasoning to an AI tool — a pattern that exposes Australian-seated awards to analogous set-aside applications under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34.

## Limits on AI assistance

Red lines — never in this area

## Limits on AI assistance

AI must never draft or substantially rewrite the substantive content of witness statements or affidavits — content must reflect the witness's own recollection, knowledge and experience (NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, effective 3 February 2025; Federal Court GPN-AI, effective April 2026). AI must never draft or provide the reasoning or opinion section of an expert report — expert opinions must reflect the expert's own analysis and comply with any applicable Code of Conduct; court rules (GPN-AI Expert Evidence Practice Note requirements) apply when reports are recycled into curial proceedings. AI must never be used to process arbitral documents, witness statements, mediation communications, or without-prejudice materials through a public LLM or any AI vendor whose data-retention and training policies have not been verified in a written data-processing agreement — IAA s 23C attaches statutory confidentiality to international arbitral proceedings seated in Australia and ASCR r 9 requires perpetual confidentiality of client information; APP 11 requires active protective measures. AI must never serve as the sole authority-verification step before any submission, memorial, or document citing legal authority is filed in a curial proceeding (enforcement application, challenge, interim relief) — Federal Court GPN-AI (April 2026) requires a named responsible lawyer to declare AI use and personally confirm every cited authority exists and supports the stated proposition. AI must never independently assess whether a natural justice objection, public-policy ground for non-enforcement, or arbitrator-AI challenge is available — these are high-threshold legal judgments with direct and potentially irreversible implications for award enforceability and cannot be delegated to AI. AI must never be used to produce final consent award language submitted to an arbitral tribunal without full lawyer review — errors in consent awards recorded as arbitral awards are generally not correctable post-signature. AI must not be used to conduct conflict screening as a standalone step — arbitrator conflict and disclosure assessment must involve independent lawyer-supervised searches covering related entities, applying IBA Guidelines distinctions that AI cannot reliably apply. AI output that has not been independently verified must never be presented to a client as definitive advice on enforcement jurisdiction, New York Convention membership, or limitation periods for enforcement applications — errors in these areas cause clients to miss unextendable deadlines.

- AI must never draft or substantially rewrite the substantive content of witness statements or affidavits — content must reflect the witness's own recollection, knowledge and experience (NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, effective 3 February 2025; Federal Court GPN-AI, effective April 2026).
- AI must never draft or provide the reasoning or opinion section of an expert report — expert opinions must reflect the expert's own analysis and comply with any applicable Code of Conduct; court rules (GPN-AI Expert Evidence Practice Note requirements) apply when reports are recycled into curial proceedings.
- AI must never be used to process arbitral documents, witness statements, mediation communications, or without-prejudice materials through a public LLM or any AI vendor whose data-retention and training policies have not been verified in a written data-processing agreement — IAA s 23C attaches statutory confidentiality to international arbitral proceedings seated in Australia and ASCR r 9 requires perpetual confidentiality of client information; APP 11 requires active protective measures.
- AI must never serve as the sole authority-verification step before any submission, memorial, or document citing legal authority is filed in a curial proceeding (enforcement application, challenge, interim relief) — Federal Court GPN-AI (April 2026) requires a named responsible lawyer to declare AI use and personally confirm every cited authority exists and supports the stated proposition.
- AI must never independently assess whether a natural justice objection, public-policy ground for non-enforcement, or arbitrator-AI challenge is available — these are high-threshold legal judgments with direct and potentially irreversible implications for award enforceability and cannot be delegated to AI.
- AI must never be used to produce final consent award language submitted to an arbitral tribunal without full lawyer review — errors in consent awards recorded as arbitral awards are generally not correctable post-signature.
- AI must not be used to conduct conflict screening as a standalone step — arbitrator conflict and disclosure assessment must involve independent lawyer-supervised searches covering related entities, applying IBA Guidelines distinctions that AI cannot reliably apply.
- AI output that has not been independently verified must never be presented to a client as definitive advice on enforcement jurisdiction, New York Convention membership, or limitation periods for enforcement applications — errors in these areas cause clients to miss unextendable deadlines.

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Australian traps

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

IAA s 23C imposes default statutory confidentiality on international arbitration proceedings seated in Australia. Uploading arbitral materials to any public AI tool is a potential breach of s 23C and ASCR r 9, and may constitute a waiver of legal professional privilege. Exceptions under ss 23D–23G are narrow (court proceedings, professional privilege, necessity, consent, enforcement) and do not include operational AI tool use. The ACICA 2026 Rules revision has AI confidentiality expressly on the consultation agenda — final provisions are not yet published. Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (effective April 2026): requires all persons filing documents to be able to state what GenAI was used, how, and for what purpose; mandates disclosure at the head of documents in specified circumstances; requires practitioners to confirm that all cited authorities exist and support stated propositions before filing; prohibits presenting false or inaccurate information generated by AI; non-compliance attracts adverse costs orders and professional discipline. This applies directly to any enforcement application, challenge, or interim relief application in Federal Court arising from an arbitration. NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 (effective 3 February 2025): prohibits GenAI from generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, and character references; documents must include a disclosure statement confirming GenAI was not used to generate the content. Where arbitral witness evidence is recycled into NSW curial proceedings (interlocutory applications, enforcement), this prohibition is directly engaged. Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 24: the High Court held by majority that proportionate liability statutes apply as a default rule in Australian arbitrations. AI trained on pre-August 2024 precedents will not reflect this holding. Any AI-drafted arbitration clause that omits a proportionate-liability exclusion where the parties intend to exclude it is defective. The exclusion must be express and is not implied by the existence of an arbitration agreement alone. ACICA Arbitration Rules 2021 are currently under public consultation for a 2026 revision. The consultation (closed 18 May 2026) expressly covers AI, confidentiality, change of party representation, opt-in appeals, and publication of anonymised awards. AI trained on the 2021 Rules may not reflect the final 2026 edition. All ACICA rule references must be verified at acica.org.au before reliance. Domestic arbitration in each Australian State and Territory is governed by the local Commercial Arbitration Act (based on the 2010 Model Bill). Key operative provisions — s 12 (disclosure), s 18 (natural justice), s 34 (setting aside) and s 36 (recognition and enforcement) — differ materially from IAA provisions in scope and drafting. AI frequently conflates IAA and Commercial Arbitration Act provisions. Australia applies a high threshold for refusing enforcement of foreign awards on public-policy grounds under IAA s 8(7A) — the award must be 'so fundamentally offensive to Australian notions of justice as to be unconscionable to enforce'. This is not the same as the public policy standard in other New York Convention jurisdictions. AI risk analysis of enforcement grounds must be checked against current Federal Court authority. Without-prejudice privilege in federal proceedings is governed by Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131. Inputting settlement communications or mediation materials into an AI tool with uncertain data-retention policies risks permanent and irreversible privilege waiver. The Law Council of Australia identified this as a central AI risk in its Federal Court consultation submission. Common law without-prejudice privilege applies in State proceedings where the uniform Evidence Acts do not apply. The NMAS (National Mediator Accreditation System) and most court-annexed mediation orders impose express confidentiality obligations on parties and practitioners in addition to without-prejudice privilege. Breach is a professional conduct matter for NMAS-accredited mediators. Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) APP 11 requires entities to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised disclosure. Uploading client or witness personal information (common in document review and witness statement preparation) to an AI vendor without a verified data-processing agreement may breach APP 11. From 11 December 2024, APP 8 was amended with a whitelist mechanism for overseas data transfers; verify that any cloud-based AI vendor's jurisdiction is on the whitelist or that an alternative compliance pathway applies. LaPaglia v Valve Corporation (US District Court, S.D. Cal., pending as of September 2025): a party sought to vacate an arbitral award on grounds the arbitrator outsourced reasoning to ChatGPT, citing hallucinated facts not in the evidentiary record. Although a US proceeding, the same challenge pathway is available in Australian-seated arbitrations under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34(2)(a)(iv) (failure to observe agreed procedure) and s 34(2)(a)(ii) (natural justice breach). Practitioners should document whether arbitrators have disclosed AI use and examine awards for AI hallucination indicators before limitation periods for challenge applications expire. Foreign lawyers may represent parties in Australian-seated international arbitrations (IAA s 29) but may not give Australian legal advice. AI-generated Australian law analysis must be reviewed and certified by an admitted Australian practitioner before attribution.

- IAA s 23C imposes default statutory confidentiality on international arbitration proceedings seated in Australia. Uploading arbitral materials to any public AI tool is a potential breach of s 23C and ASCR r 9, and may constitute a waiver of legal professional privilege. Exceptions under ss 23D–23G are narrow (court proceedings, professional privilege, necessity, consent, enforcement) and do not include operational AI tool use. The ACICA 2026 Rules revision has AI confidentiality expressly on the consultation agenda — final provisions are not yet published.
- Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (effective April 2026): requires all persons filing documents to be able to state what GenAI was used, how, and for what purpose; mandates disclosure at the head of documents in specified circumstances; requires practitioners to confirm that all cited authorities exist and support stated propositions before filing; prohibits presenting false or inaccurate information generated by AI; non-compliance attracts adverse costs orders and professional discipline. This applies directly to any enforcement application, challenge, or interim relief application in Federal Court arising from an arbitration.
- NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 (effective 3 February 2025): prohibits GenAI from generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, and character references; documents must include a disclosure statement confirming GenAI was not used to generate the content. Where arbitral witness evidence is recycled into NSW curial proceedings (interlocutory applications, enforcement), this prohibition is directly engaged.
- Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 24: the High Court held by majority that proportionate liability statutes apply as a default rule in Australian arbitrations. AI trained on pre-August 2024 precedents will not reflect this holding. Any AI-drafted arbitration clause that omits a proportionate-liability exclusion where the parties intend to exclude it is defective. The exclusion must be express and is not implied by the existence of an arbitration agreement alone.
- ACICA Arbitration Rules 2021 are currently under public consultation for a 2026 revision. The consultation (closed 18 May 2026) expressly covers AI, confidentiality, change of party representation, opt-in appeals, and publication of anonymised awards. AI trained on the 2021 Rules may not reflect the final 2026 edition. All ACICA rule references must be verified at acica.org.au before reliance.
- Domestic arbitration in each Australian State and Territory is governed by the local Commercial Arbitration Act (based on the 2010 Model Bill). Key operative provisions — s 12 (disclosure), s 18 (natural justice), s 34 (setting aside) and s 36 (recognition and enforcement) — differ materially from IAA provisions in scope and drafting. AI frequently conflates IAA and Commercial Arbitration Act provisions.
- Australia applies a high threshold for refusing enforcement of foreign awards on public-policy grounds under IAA s 8(7A) — the award must be 'so fundamentally offensive to Australian notions of justice as to be unconscionable to enforce'. This is not the same as the public policy standard in other New York Convention jurisdictions. AI risk analysis of enforcement grounds must be checked against current Federal Court authority.
- Without-prejudice privilege in federal proceedings is governed by Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131. Inputting settlement communications or mediation materials into an AI tool with uncertain data-retention policies risks permanent and irreversible privilege waiver. The Law Council of Australia identified this as a central AI risk in its Federal Court consultation submission. Common law without-prejudice privilege applies in State proceedings where the uniform Evidence Acts do not apply.
- The NMAS (National Mediator Accreditation System) and most court-annexed mediation orders impose express confidentiality obligations on parties and practitioners in addition to without-prejudice privilege. Breach is a professional conduct matter for NMAS-accredited mediators.
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) APP 11 requires entities to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised disclosure. Uploading client or witness personal information (common in document review and witness statement preparation) to an AI vendor without a verified data-processing agreement may breach APP 11. From 11 December 2024, APP 8 was amended with a whitelist mechanism for overseas data transfers; verify that any cloud-based AI vendor's jurisdiction is on the whitelist or that an alternative compliance pathway applies.
- LaPaglia v Valve Corporation (US District Court, S.D. Cal., pending as of September 2025): a party sought to vacate an arbitral award on grounds the arbitrator outsourced reasoning to ChatGPT, citing hallucinated facts not in the evidentiary record. Although a US proceeding, the same challenge pathway is available in Australian-seated arbitrations under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34(2)(a)(iv) (failure to observe agreed procedure) and s 34(2)(a)(ii) (natural justice breach). Practitioners should document whether arbitrators have disclosed AI use and examine awards for AI hallucination indicators before limitation periods for challenge applications expire.
- Foreign lawyers may represent parties in Australian-seated international arbitrations (IAA s 29) but may not give Australian legal advice. AI-generated Australian law analysis must be reviewed and certified by an admitted Australian practitioner before attribution.

## Risks to address

How it goes wrong

## Risks to address

Hallucinated Australian arbitration case law: the corpus of reported Australian arbitration decisions is small and thinly represented in LLM training data; AI fabricates plausible Federal Court and State Supreme Court decisions. As of May 2026 Damien Charlotin's database records 73 Australian court decisions impacted by AI hallucinations. Fabricated citations cited in enforcement or challenge proceedings attract adverse costs orders, referral to professional bodies, and potential injunctions against the practitioner. Confidentiality breach via public LLM: practitioner uploads arbitral award, witness statement, or mediation brief to ChatGPT or similar public tool, triggering IAA s 23C breach, ASCR r 9 breach, potential APP 11 breach, and potentially permanent waiver of legal professional privilege over the uploaded materials. Tesseract omission in clause drafting: AI generates an arbitration clause without a proportionate-liability exclusion; following Tesseract [2024] HCA 24, the regime applies by default in Australian arbitrations and may significantly and adversely alter loss allocation in multi-party construction, engineering, or professional services disputes without the client's knowledge. Stale ACICA Rules reference: AI applies ACICA 2021 Rules provisions (Art 27 on document production, Art 14 on third-party funding disclosure, emergency arbitrator opt-in) that may be superseded by the 2026 revision, producing wrong procedural advice. Without-prejudice privilege waiver in mediation preparation: AI processes mediation position paper containing settlement offers and admissions through a public tool; privilege under Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131 is potentially waived, making communications admissible in subsequent proceedings. Natural-justice challenge from AI-generated witness content: AI substantially authors a witness statement the witness then signs; if discovered, the award or curial proceeding based on that evidence faces challenge on authenticity and natural-justice grounds (IAA s 8(7A)(b)); the practitioner faces potential referral for professional misconduct.

- Hallucinated Australian arbitration case law: the corpus of reported Australian arbitration decisions is small and thinly represented in LLM training data; AI fabricates plausible Federal Court and State Supreme Court decisions. As of May 2026 Damien Charlotin's database records 73 Australian court decisions impacted by AI hallucinations. Fabricated citations cited in enforcement or challenge proceedings attract adverse costs orders, referral to professional bodies, and potential injunctions against the practitioner.
- Confidentiality breach via public LLM: practitioner uploads arbitral award, witness statement, or mediation brief to ChatGPT or similar public tool, triggering IAA s 23C breach, ASCR r 9 breach, potential APP 11 breach, and potentially permanent waiver of legal professional privilege over the uploaded materials.
- Tesseract omission in clause drafting: AI generates an arbitration clause without a proportionate-liability exclusion; following Tesseract [2024] HCA 24, the regime applies by default in Australian arbitrations and may significantly and adversely alter loss allocation in multi-party construction, engineering, or professional services disputes without the client's knowledge.
- Stale ACICA Rules reference: AI applies ACICA 2021 Rules provisions (Art 27 on document production, Art 14 on third-party funding disclosure, emergency arbitrator opt-in) that may be superseded by the 2026 revision, producing wrong procedural advice.
- Without-prejudice privilege waiver in mediation preparation: AI processes mediation position paper containing settlement offers and admissions through a public tool; privilege under Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131 is potentially waived, making communications admissible in subsequent proceedings.
- Natural-justice challenge from AI-generated witness content: AI substantially authors a witness statement the witness then signs; if discovered, the award or curial proceeding based on that evidence faces challenge on authenticity and natural-justice grounds (IAA s 8(7A)(b)); the practitioner faces potential referral for professional misconduct.

## Review checklist

The lawyer's review checklist

## Review checklist

Confidentiality gate: before any AI tool is used on a matter, confirm the tool has a verified zero-retention, no-training data-processing agreement; confirm no IAA s 23C arbitral material, without-prejudice mediation communications, or legally privileged information has been or will be processed through a public LLM — if in doubt, do not proceed. GPN-AI compliance: for any document to be filed in Federal Court proceedings (enforcement, challenge, interim relief), confirm: (a) the AI disclosure statement appears at the head of the document; (b) a named responsible lawyer has personally verified every cited authority exists and supports the stated proposition; (c) factual assertions are sourced to the evidentiary record. Tesseract audit for clause drafting: for any AI-drafted or AI-audited arbitration clause, confirm a proportionate-liability exclusion is present if intended (Tesseract [2024] HCA 24 makes exclusion non-optional for parties who wish to avoid the default); confirm the seat designation is unambiguous and the ACICA Rules edition referenced is the current version. Citation verification (all research and submissions): independently confirm every case exists and every ratio attributed to it is accurate — do not treat AI's own summary of a case as verification; search AustLII, Jade, or a subscribed database directly; note that the Australian arbitration case law corpus is small and AI fabrication rate is correspondingly high. Witness and expert integrity: confirm no AI-generated content has been incorporated into the substantive body of any witness statement, affidavit, or expert report; confirm compliance with NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (affidavits) and Federal Court GPN-AI (expert reports); confirm the witness or expert has independently read, verified, and adopted every statement in their own words. Award review — arbitrator AI disclosure: when reviewing any award for enforcement or challenge advice, check for indicators of undisclosed AI use (factual references not in the record, hallucinated citations, stylistic anomalies) and confirm whether the arbitrator made any AI disclosure; assess whether a challenge under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34 or IAA s 8(7A) arises before limitation expires. Enforcement jurisdiction mapping: where advising on enforceability of a foreign award or enforcing an Australian award abroad, verify New York Convention state-party membership and reservation status for both the seat and the enforcement jurisdiction using current UNCITRAL official sources; verify applicable limitation period under the relevant State limitation act (not a generic AI-stated period). ACICA Rules currency: confirm all references to ACICA Rules articles reflect the current published edition; verify at acica.org.au that the 2026 revised Rules have or have not been published and, if published, identify any material changes to document production (Art 27), third-party funding (Art 14), emergency arbitrator, and confidentiality provisions that differ from the 2021 edition AI was trained on.

- Confidentiality gate: before any AI tool is used on a matter, confirm the tool has a verified zero-retention, no-training data-processing agreement; confirm no IAA s 23C arbitral material, without-prejudice mediation communications, or legally privileged information has been or will be processed through a public LLM — if in doubt, do not proceed.
- GPN-AI compliance: for any document to be filed in Federal Court proceedings (enforcement, challenge, interim relief), confirm: (a) the AI disclosure statement appears at the head of the document; (b) a named responsible lawyer has personally verified every cited authority exists and supports the stated proposition; (c) factual assertions are sourced to the evidentiary record.
- Tesseract audit for clause drafting: for any AI-drafted or AI-audited arbitration clause, confirm a proportionate-liability exclusion is present if intended (Tesseract [2024] HCA 24 makes exclusion non-optional for parties who wish to avoid the default); confirm the seat designation is unambiguous and the ACICA Rules edition referenced is the current version.
- Citation verification (all research and submissions): independently confirm every case exists and every ratio attributed to it is accurate — do not treat AI's own summary of a case as verification; search AustLII, Jade, or a subscribed database directly; note that the Australian arbitration case law corpus is small and AI fabrication rate is correspondingly high.
- Witness and expert integrity: confirm no AI-generated content has been incorporated into the substantive body of any witness statement, affidavit, or expert report; confirm compliance with NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (affidavits) and Federal Court GPN-AI (expert reports); confirm the witness or expert has independently read, verified, and adopted every statement in their own words.
- Award review — arbitrator AI disclosure: when reviewing any award for enforcement or challenge advice, check for indicators of undisclosed AI use (factual references not in the record, hallucinated citations, stylistic anomalies) and confirm whether the arbitrator made any AI disclosure; assess whether a challenge under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34 or IAA s 8(7A) arises before limitation expires.
- Enforcement jurisdiction mapping: where advising on enforceability of a foreign award or enforcing an Australian award abroad, verify New York Convention state-party membership and reservation status for both the seat and the enforcement jurisdiction using current UNCITRAL official sources; verify applicable limitation period under the relevant State limitation act (not a generic AI-stated period).
- ACICA Rules currency: confirm all references to ACICA Rules articles reflect the current published edition; verify at acica.org.au that the 2026 revised Rules have or have not been published and, if published, identify any material changes to document production (Art 27), third-party funding (Art 14), emergency arbitrator, and confidentiality provisions that differ from the 2021 edition AI was trained on.

## Tasks (23)

| Task | Level | How AI is used | What the lawyer must review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Audit the arbitration clause and draft a workable replacement](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/audit-the-arbitration-clause-and-draft-a-workable-replacement.md) | Yellow | Extract seat, rules, number of arbitrators, language, governing law and court path from the clause, flag gaps and draft a replacement on the client's… | Confirm the clause is operable with the chosen rules and seat Resolve pathological clauses (empty institutions, conflicting seats) yourself |
| Build a Redfern schedule from the document requests | Yellow | Turn requests, objections and the responsive-document index into a Redfern or disclosure schedule with columns for request, objection, proposed search and… | Make privilege and relevance calls yourself Confirm searches match the tribunal's order |
| Draft the memorial or statement of claim from the evidence index | Yellow | Build a structured memorial or defence with proposed exhibit citations from the evidence index and the issues list. | Verify every exhibit cite and legal authority Do not file a memorial you have not rewritten |
| Check a draft witness statement or expert report against the proof and index the exhibits | Red | The tool writes no part of the witness statement and no part of the expert report — no draft, no first draft, no scaffold, no skeleton, no outline, no… | Before any of this material is uploaded, the lawyer settles the confidentiality position and confirms the tool's use is consistent with it — the… |
| Draft the mediation position paper and negotiation analysis | Yellow | From the file, draft a position paper and a confidential negotiation note (interests, ranges, open issues) for the lawyer. | Take offers from client instructions Check the paper does not concede facts the pleadings still put in issue |
| [Review an award for enforcement or set-aside points](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/review-an-award-for-enforcement-or-set-aside-points.md) | Yellow | Extract the dispositive orders, reasons structure, and any apparent due-process or jurisdiction issues into a table with paragraph references. | Decide enforcement and set-aside grounds under the seat and the New York Convention Treat the table as an aid only |
| Compile the hearing bundle, chronology and agreed-facts draft | Yellow | From the exhibit list, draft a bundle index, a chronology and a first-cut agreed-facts statement with sources. | Agree facts only where both sides' documents support them Match the index to the final bundle |
| [Screen arbitrator disclosures against the parties and counsel](https://ailawframework.com/practice/arbitration-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/screen-arbitrator-disclosures-against-the-parties-and-counsel.md) | Yellow | Compare the arbitrator's disclosure, CV and published cases with the party/counsel/related-entity list and flag possible connections for the lawyer. | Leave challenge decisions to the lawyer and client Do not treat a database hit as a conflict |
| Draft the settlement agreement or consent award | Yellow | Turn the settlement terms into a draft settlement agreement or consent-award request matching the tribunal's procedure. | Check parties, release scope and confidentiality Confirm the tribunal has power under the rules to issue a consent award |
| Draft costs submissions from the costs file | Yellow | From the costs ledger and the award on liability, draft a costs submission structure with proposed categories and a list of items that need invoices. | Decide recoverability and proportionality yourself Check the costs rules of the seat and the applicable rules |
| Prepare a working translation log of multilingual exhibits | Yellow | List foreign-language exhibits, produce a working English summary, and flag passages that need a certified translation. | Do not treat working summaries as evidence Commission certified translations for anything to be tendered |
| Draft procedural correspondence and a proposed procedural order | Yellow | Draft letters to the tribunal and a marked-up procedural order from the parties' agreed timetable and the rules. | Read every paragraph before tribunal correspondence is sent Match dates to the order as made, not as proposed |
| Review arbitrator AI-use disclosure and assess a challenge | Red | Extract the arbitrator's AI disclosure (if any) and the applicable rules/guidance into a comparison table for the lawyer. | Decide yourself whether non-disclosure founds a challenge Do not send a challenge on a generated analysis |
| Compare the memorial against the evidence index and list unsourced facts | Yellow | Check each factual assertion in the draft memorial against the evidence index and list statements with no exhibit, broken cites and exhibits not used. | Fix or strike unsourced facts before filing Do not treat the comparison as a merits review |
| Draft the notice of arbitration or response from the contract and facts brief | Yellow | Produce a first-draft notice of arbitration or answer from the arbitration clause, the facts brief and the chosen rules' required contents. | Confirm the respondent and the clause invoked Confirm the rules' mandatory contents are present Handle service yourself; it is a legal step |
| Summarise an arbitration hearing transcript | Green | Produce issue-based summaries. | Check against transcript. |
| Check an award draft for consistency | Green | Flag inconsistent defined terms and figures. | Tribunal and counsel review. |
| Draft a disclosure statement on AI use in arbitration | Yellow | Draft a protocol on AI use by parties. | Tribunal approves. |
| Translate exhibits for internal review | Yellow | Produce working translations. | Certified translation for filing. |
| Prepare a mediation summary for the client | Green | Summarise positions and outcomes. | Lawyer checks. |
| Use AI for mediation preparation | Yellow | Prepare summaries and options. | Mediator reviews. |
| Verify AI-assisted arbitration submissions | Green | Verify authorities. | Counsel signs off. |
| Brief the tribunal on AI use | Yellow | Draft protocol. | Tribunal approves. |

## Jurisdiction notes

### Australia

#### Law

International arbitration: International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Domestic: the uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts. Also court-annexed mediation, expert determination and conciliation.

#### Confidentiality

Arbitral proceedings carry statutory confidentiality (IAA s 23C). Check it before any material goes into an AI tool.

#### No merits appeal

International awards have no merits appeal, so an AI error in the substantive analysis may be unrecoverable.

#### Citations

Fabricated citations in submissions or awards can ground natural-justice challenges and non-enforcement under IAA s 8(7A).

#### Arbitrator AI use

LaPaglia v Valve (US, 2025): an award challenged on the ground the arbitrator outsourced reasoning to AI. Australian-seated awards face similar applications under Commercial Arbitration Acts s 34.

### New Zealand

Local name: Arbitration (Arbitration Act 1996)

#### Governing Act

Arbitration Act 1996, not an Australian Commercial Arbitration Act or the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

#### Purposes (s 5)

Include consistency with the UNCITRAL Model Law and giving effect to the 1923 Protocol, 1927 Geneva Convention and 1958 New York Convention (texts in Schedule 3).

#### Schedules

Schedule 1 applies to a New Zealand seat. Schedule 2 applies to international arbitrations only by agreement, and to other New Zealand-seat arbitrations unless the parties opt out.

#### Foreign seat

Articles 8, 9, 35 and 36 of Schedule 1 still apply. Section 6A: the Minister of Justice appoints a body for certain article 11 appointment matters.

#### Court applications

Before a High Court stay, set-aside or enforcement filing, open the Courts of New Zealand lawyer guidelines.

- Do not file a generated citation, quote or statutory reference until you have opened it in legislation.govt.nz or a trusted case database.
- Do not enter private, confidential, suppressed or privileged material into a public chatbot.

Sources:

- [Arbitration Act 1996](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/99/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Courts of New Zealand: GenAI guidelines — Lawyers (7 December 2023)](https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Lawyers.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [NZLS: Generative AI guidance for lawyers (March 2024)](https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/) (checked 2026-09-23)

### United States

Local name: Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution

#### Governing law

Federal Arbitration Act, the state arbitration statute and the chosen institutional rules replace the Australian arbitration statutes.

#### AI protocols

Open any seat or institution AI protocol. A federal court standing order does not apply inside the arbitration.

#### Ethics

Formal Opinion 512: competence, confidentiality and candor still apply.

Sources:

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11) (checked 2026-09-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*