AI transcription in arbitration hearings: interpreters and the record

The short version

• The American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) 2022 Commercial Rules allow “a transcriber or transcription service”, where the 2013 rules said “a stenographer”. None of the arbitration rules we checked (how we search) mentions AI transcription.
• Under AAA’s rules a party may arrange a transcription service on notice. Other recording needs the parties’ agreement or the arbitrator’s direction, as under JAMS’s rules. JAMS says all parties must agree before its AI transcription is used.
• AAA said on 18 September 2023 that its AI transcripts reach 99% word accuracy after two levels of human review.
• A transcript becomes the official record when the parties agree or the tribunal decides. Notes from the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and an order in one International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) case add a correction step.
• We found no institution offering AI interpretation of witnesses.
• On the European Commission’s draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, not yet adopted, a court’s AI speech-to-text tool is not high-risk under the EU AI Act, though that could change if it also summarises or evaluates.^{1,2,3,5,8,11,20,22,36}

What can AI do at an arbitration hearing?

AI guidance lists transcription as a hearing use, often beside translation and interpretation. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) says AI tools “can generate hearing transcripts at a fraction of the cost of human stenographers” (para 1.7). The SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) lists “transcriptions” among uses to date (use (iv)). How AI is used across a case, and the rules on who decides, are in our guide to AI in arbitration.^30,32

• Transcripts: the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission’s February 2022 report on technology in arbitration says voice recognition gives “an impressive level of reliability” but may still need “substantial human editing”, for example to identify speakers (s 6.2.4(d)). It warned that free live transcription in videoconferencing tools “may not be sufficiently advanced to be relied upon for an accurate record” (s 6.1.4).
• Work on the transcript: AAA’s hearing services include AI summaries of testimony with citations and AI queries across transcripts and exhibits. JAMS says a provider in JAMS Next offers AI that can “detect contradictions” (February 2026).^5,10,14

AI-generated and deepfake evidence, including at remote hearings, is in AI document review and deepfake evidence. Using AI on the record to write an award is covered in arbitrators drafting awards with AI.

What AI transcription services do institutions offer?

AAA and its International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), together AAA-ICDR, and JAMS each offer AI transcription for arbitration hearings through outside providers, with a human check. The table gives each institution’s own figures on the dates shown.^3,8

AAA-ICDR says AI transcripts are “permissible under AAA-ICDR rules”. JAMS says “all parties must agree”, because its provider’s platform “replaces the existing videoconferencing platform”. More is in AAA and AI in arbitration and JAMS and AI in arbitration.^3,8

AAA said on 15 May 2024 that AI transcripts arrive about twice as fast as a court reporter’s, at less than half the cost.⁴

The ICC Hearing Centre in Paris offers virtual and in-person hearing services (ICC’s 1 June 2026 Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, Part III para 13). It can help parties hire stenographers and interpreters, and its page lists no AI transcription. The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) lists its own platform’s AI voice transcription among ways to lower AI risks, in guidance that is not part of its rules (AI Guidelines (Trial), 18 July 2025, para 5.3; our translation).^17,18,33

Do arbitration rules allow AI transcription of a hearing?

On our reading, yes, if it is set up the way the rules allow. The rules we checked say nothing about AI transcription. Under AAA’s Commercial Rules a party may arrange “a transcriber or transcription service” on seven calendar days’ notice, and pays for it. “No other means of recording” is allowed without the parties’ agreement or the arbitrator’s direction (R-29(a), (b)).¹

The 2013 rule, titled “Stenographic Record”, required “a stenographer” (R-28(a)). The 2022 rule is titled “Official Record of Proceedings”. We read it as covering AI transcription arranged on notice. An AI note-taker run without notice is another means of recording, needing agreement or a direction.^1,2

JAMS’s Comprehensive Rules give a party the right only to a “stenographic record”, a court reporter’s verbatim record. Other recording needs agreement or direction (Rule 22(k); International Rules art. 23.6). So AAA’s rules, on our reading, let a party bring in AI transcription on notice without the other side’s consent, while JAMS asks every party to agree.^1,8,11,12

A transcript is usually optional, and whoever wants one pays (AAA R-29(a); JAMS Rule 22(k)(i)). AAA’s expedited cases “generally” have no stenographic record (E-8(c); ICDR art. E-9), while JAMS’s optional appeal procedure needs a record if possible (Rule 22(k)(iii)).^1,11,13

Protocols for virtual hearings take the same line. ICC’s 2020 suggested clauses bar recording “unless authorised in advance by the tribunal” (Cyber-Protocol, Annex II s III). The Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration bars it “without leave of the Tribunal” (art. 8.1). The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) makes audio recording “subject to party agreement or tribunal direction” (Guidelines para 13). ICC’s 2026 Toolkit asks arbitrators in expedited cases to stay alert to “(AI-generated) transcripts” (para 62).^15,16,24,26

The law of the seat (the place whose arbitration law governs the procedure) matters too. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the tribunal decides procedural matters, including the language and translations of documents, unless the parties agree otherwise (Arbitration Act 1996, s 34(1), (2)(b)). See also arbitration in London, arbitration in Singapore, arbitration in India and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and AI.²⁹

Can an AI transcript be the official record of the hearing?

Yes, if the parties agree or the tribunal decides. Under AAA’s rules a transcript is the official record once “agreed by the parties or determined by the arbitrator” to be so, and the rule says nothing about how it was made (R-29(c)).¹

Certification is a separate step. JAMS says its AI transcripts are “certified accurate” by a certified digital reporter who is a notary. On our reading, even a certified transcript becomes the official record only once agreed or decided.^1,8

• The UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings (2016), which are guidance, suggest settling whether the audio is the official record and how parties check the transcript (paras 134, 135).
• ICC’s suggested clause makes “the written transcript as corrected or commented upon by the parties” the official record (Annex II s III).
• In ARB/24/46, PO1 orders sound recordings of all hearings and, except procedural sessions, verbatim transcripts in the procedural language (the language the case runs in), by default in real time with same-day copies (ss 22.1, 22.2). ICSID Arbitration Rule 29(4)(i) has tribunals ask the parties how recordings and transcripts will be made.^15,20,21,22

The tribunal can record the choice in Procedural Order No. 1, its first order on how the case will run. Whether the tribunal or a party must disclose an AI tool is in disclosure of AI use in arbitration.

What happens if a party disputes the transcript?

Where a text sets a correction step, the parties try to agree corrections first and the tribunal decides if they cannot. In ARB/24/46 they have 30 days from receiving the later of the recordings and transcripts (PO1 s 22.3), and the UNCITRAL Notes give the same model as an example (para 135). Where the seat has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, each party must have “a full opportunity of presenting his case” (art. 18).^20,22,23

• Keep a fallback record: ICC’s 2022 report suggests one in case of technical problems, such as a parallel audio record (s 6.2.4(e)).
• Argue from the final transcript: AAA said in May 2024 that rough drafts are 96 to 97% accurate and useful for preparation, but to argue a point “you need the final transcript”.^4,14

Court challenges to awards over alleged AI use, and the grounds to set aside or vacate them, are in awards challenged over AI use.

Can AI interpret witness testimony or translate evidence?

Guidance says AI may be able to do both, but we found no institution offering AI interpretation of witnesses. Ciarb says AI tools “have the potential to” translate documents and “perform simultaneous translation” of statements, including witness examinations (para 1.6). AAA-ICDR’s interpreting service uses “fully accredited interpreters”.^5,30

• Simultaneous (while the witness speaks) or consecutive (after each answer): the UNCITRAL Notes say simultaneous “is less time-consuming” but consecutive “allows for a closer monitoring of the accuracy” (para 22). The Seoul Protocol prefers consecutive for video testimony (art. 7.2).
• Who pays: under AAA’s rules, the party wanting an interpreter (R-30). In ARB/24/46, the parties’ deposits towards costs, subject to the tribunal’s costs decision (s 12.3.4).
• Machine translation of exhibits: ICC’s 2022 report calls AI translations cheaper but “potentially less accurate”. It suggests agreeing their use with the other side, with “a protocol for a supplemental human-generated translation” (s 5.2).
• Translations of documents: where the International Bar Association’s (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence (2020) apply, translations need only be “marked as such”, unless the parties or tribunal decide otherwise (art. 3.12(e)). In ARB/24/46 translations need certifying only if disputed and the tribunal orders it (s 12.2.3).^{1,14,20,22,26,27}

What confidentiality and data rules apply when hearing audio goes to an AI tool?

The general rules for confidential material apply, since the AI guidance we checked does not single out hearing audio. Ciarb warns that data put into third-party AI may be stored, used for machine learning or shown to other users (para 2.2). The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) says no confidential information goes into an AI tool without appropriate vetting and authorisation, and “special attention” goes to its policies on “recording, storage, and use of prompt or output histories” (Guideline 2).^30,31

• ICC’s 2022 report flags confidentiality and data protection concerns with free live transcription (s 6.1.4). For recordings held by a videoconferencing provider it points to access controls, “the location of the host server” and auto-deletion (s 6.2.4(b)).
• The 2022 cybersecurity protocol of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), the New York City Bar Association and CPR says transcription services should know the security measures, be able to comply and agree to follow them (Principle 3, commentary (d)).
• ICC’s privacy notice covers witnesses’ oral testimony, “which may be transcribed”, and lists “professional transcribers” among recipients (sections II, IV). Its 2026 Note points tribunals to a model data protection clause where the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or similar laws apply (Part I para 77).
• CIETAC warns that confidential data put into third-party AI can leak or leave the country unlawfully (para 2.1; our translation).
• AAA’s preliminary hearing checklist covers cybersecurity, privacy and data protection (P-2(a)(vi)), and ICDR tribunals “shall discuss” them (art. 22(3)).^{1,13,14,17,19,28,33}

How to check an AI tool before buying it is covered in AI legal tech, and mediation in AI in dispute resolution.

Is AI transcription high-risk under the EU AI Act?

Not on the European Commission’s draft reading of its court example, as long as the tool only transcribes or searches. Annex III point 8(a) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 covers AI that helps a court research and interpret facts and law and apply the law, “or to be used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution” (ADR). Recital 61 limits the ADR part to outcomes with legal effects for the parties.³⁵

• The Commission’s draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, not yet adopted, put a court’s speech-to-text system outside point 8(a). That its transcripts may later become evidence, and that errors “may affect fundamental rights”, does not by itself change this (printed pp. 136 to 137).
• That “could be different” where transcripts are further processed “to summarise or select the key arguments or produce further evaluations of relevance for the judicial decision-making”. ADR examples “can be derived” from the court ones (para 434), so applying this example to arbitration is our reading.
• Any high-risk obligations would apply from 2 December 2027 (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, art. 1 point (40)(b)). The wider AI Act analysis is in the AI in arbitration guide.^36,37

What should tribunals and parties agree before using AI at a hearing?

• Settle early what form the record takes, and who arranges and pays for it (AAA P-2(a)(xvi), R-29(a); JAMS International art. 22.2; ICSID Arbitration Rule 29(4)(i)).
• Name the method, including any AI tool, and get every party’s agreement or a tribunal direction before anything is recorded. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) 2026 rules encourage tribunals to raise AI tools with the parties as early as the first case management conference (art. 16.5; KCAB Rules 2026 in the tracker).
• Say which version is the official record: the audio, the live feed or the corrected transcript. Set a window for corrections (PO1 s 22.3).
• Get the audio right, with enough microphones to transcribe each speaker, interpreters included (Seoul Protocol arts 5.2, 5.3). Keep a backup record and each language feed (ICC 2022 report s 6.2.4(e); HKIAC para 13), and give the transcriber everyone’s name and role (s 6.2.4(a)).
• Settle which witnesses need interpretation and in which mode (PO1 ss 12.3.1, 12.3.2), and agree any machine translation of exhibits with a human fallback (s 5.2).
• Before audio goes into a tool, check who can access it, where it is hosted and when it is deleted (s 6.2.4(b)), and if the provider uses case data for machine learning (Ciarb para 2.2). Put security terms in the provider’s engagement (s 3.4).
• For institutions: sort hearing tools by the draft guidelines’ line between transcribing and summarising, and disclose fees received from providers, as JAMS does.^{1,8,12,14,20,21,24,26,30,34,36}

What the rules leave open on AI at hearings

• Whether an AI transcript no person certified meets a seat law requiring a record in a set form (ICC 2022 report s 6.2.4).
• How equal treatment applies where only one party uses AI to analyse the transcript, for example to flag contradictions (Model Law art. 18).
• How the AI Act treats machine translation and AI interpretation, for which the draft guidelines give no point 8(a) example.
• What the ICC Commission’s AI task force will say about hearings. The AI rules tracker lists what is published so far.^{5,10,14,23,36,38}