Series
Blogs
Series
Blogs
The LCIA is revising its arbitration rules — and we've had our say. Our International Arbitration team has submitted a response to the LCIA’s “Stage 1” consultation, including a focus on how any revision should tackle AI. Find out more below.
As some will be aware, the LCIA is currently engaged in a process of considering what revisions it might make to the current (2020) version of its arbitration rules. The LCIA kicked off “Stage 1” of this process earlier in the year by issuing a call to the global arbitration community to provide input.
“Stage 1” has, in effect, been an open consultation for users to submit observations to the LCIA, although it did provide a list of themes which might particularly attract comment (such as expedition of proceedings and technological issues).
This consultation recently closed on 11 May.
As part of Stage 1, our International Arbitration team has submitted a response to the LCIA containing a number of observations on the 2020 LCIA Rules based on our experiences in practice and views as to likely future trends.
Whilst some of our suggestions go to more technical clarifications, the big ticket issue we address is the impact of the use of artificial intelligence tools in the conduct of arbitral proceedings. Given the potential of the technology and the flexibility of its application across workflows, much consideration is being given across the arbitration world as to whether its use by parties and tribunals needs to be managed and, if so, how. In the present context it raises a key issue: how far is it appropriate to address such issues in institutional rules themselves?
In our response, we suggest that the LCIA Rules should grasp the nettle and address use of artificial intelligence tools by the parties and arbitral tribunal. However, rather than adopting a overly prescriptive approach (which might become outdated and prove inflexible) we think this should, generally, be by way of amendments to encourage early engagement between the parties and the arbitral tribunal; who would then have powers to make binding directions on a case-by-case basis.
That being said, in two key areas we suggest more granular provision in relation to artificial intelligence. The first relates to confidentiality. Although, in this regard, the LCIA rules already establish a general duty, our suggestion is that this be amended to specifically reiterate that the use of artificial intelligence tools are subject to it. That might then help manage risk by providing a specific flag to the parties and tribunal to manage such issues appropriately. The second relates to the tribunal’s decision making. As experience in the use of tribunal secretaries shows, issues can arise if a tribunal inappropriately divests itself of its decision making function. We suggest a specific restatement that tribunals should not do this in order to help minimise issues.
Following the closure of “Stage 1” the LCIA plans to review any submissions received. It has said that this will be followed, later in the year, with publication of a draft version of revised arbitration rules for a second round of community feedback. In that respect the LCIA has said that revisions will “focus on practical provisions that improve cost management, reduce procedural friction, and equip tribunals with enhanced tools to deliver efficient and enforceable outcomes.” We’ll be looking out for those with a view to inputting on “Stage 2”.
For more information, please refer to any of the contacts listed, or click here for the LCIA’s rules revision website page.
11 May 2026