AI in arbitrator selection: shortlists, conflict checks and disclosure

The short version

• The American Arbitration Association (AAA) says case managers using AAAi Panelist Search, its AI roster search, reported 55% less time preparing lists (17 August 2026).
• In AAA’s opt-in AI-led cases, the AI Arbitrator selects the human arbitrator; an objection on a listed ground, such as bias, removes them (R-7).
• In the other institutions we checked (how we search), people appoint, and none of their rules or notes mentions AI in appointments.
• The duty to disclose stays with the arbitrator, who under section 23A of the Arbitration Act 1996 (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) is treated as aware of what they “ought reasonably to be aware” of.
• Parties are expected to research candidates too; two US courts rejected objections based on facts a quick web search would have shown.
• Whether a tool that ranks arbitrators is high-risk under the EU AI Act is not settled.^{1,3,8,12,13,15,17,22,23,26,29,39,41}

What does AI arbitrator selection mean?

AI arbitrator selection usually means tools that help people find and check human arbitrators. In one process we found, the AI makes the appointment: under AAA’s AI Led Arbitration Rules, amended and effective 18 February 2026, “The AI Arbitrator will select a single human Arbitrator from the AAA’s National Roster” (R-7(a)(i)).³

An AI that decides the case is covered in AI in arbitration and AAA and AI in arbitration, and an arbitrator’s own AI use in arbitrators drafting awards with AI. Here, disclosure means an arbitrator telling the parties about circumstances that could cast doubt on their impartiality, not about their own AI use.

How do institutions use AI tools to select arbitrators?

At institutions, these tools search the roster to help case managers, and sometimes parties, build a shortlist; people choose. AAA is the only institution we found that publishes how it uses AI to build lists. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) describe a database and candidate profiles, not AI; the AI rules tracker summarises each body’s AI texts.^1,13,16

• AAA and its International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) announced AAAi Panelist Search on 10 October 2024 as an “internal beta launch” for case managers, after a beta test that began in March 2024. By 17 August 2026 AAA said the tool “allows parties and case managers” to match arbitrators to a case, searching “beyond simple keyword matching”. We found no published method for its 55% figure.
• It highlights matching CV sections so case managers “can quickly see why the AI suggested each arbitrator”, and they keep the final choice (AAA, 18 November 2024).
• AAAi Mediator Search (6 October 2025) lets both parties search together, with results “ranked by relevance”; mediation is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution.
• In AI-led cases the AI Arbitrator also picks any replacement (R-7(a)(iii)); the Rules state no criteria.
• The LCIA searches “an internal arbitrator database” and also considers candidates outside it (2025 report, printed pp. 7 to 8). The ICC gives the parties candidates’ CVs or ICC Case Connect profiles (2026 Note, paras 24, 25).^{1,2,3,13,16,26,27}

Who makes the appointment when AI builds the list?

The parties’ agreement decides who appoints; failing that, an institution or a court does. An AI-built list feeds that choice: in the texts we found, AI appoints an arbitrator directly only under AAA’s R-7, which applies only where the parties agree to the AI Led Arbitration Rules (R-2(a)). Under the Model Law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), a court or other authority that steps in must have due regard to considerations likely to secure “an independent and impartial arbitrator” (art 11(5)).^3,6

The ICC Secretary General and Court weigh factors such as experience and availability (ICC Rules 2026, art 14(1)); on joint request the Secretariat may propose names and check “possible conflicts of interests” (Note para 54). Parties nominated 58% of ICC arbitrators in 2025 (Statistics, p. 10). At the LCIA, “the LCIA Court alone is empowered to appoint” (art 5.7); in 2025 the Court itself chose the arbitrator in 42% of appointments (printed pp. 33 to 34). At the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), every nominee is subject to appointment by the President (r 19.4).^{12,13,14,15,16,17}

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a US securities arbitration forum, uses its “list selection algorithm” to generate lists “on a random basis” from about 8,100 arbitrators (SR-FINRA-2026-017, pp. 2 to 3). Neither FINRA text we checked calls it AI, and FINRA says an outside firm reviewed it in October 2023. A rule change filed on 12 August 2026 would give parties “greater input into arbitrator selection” when no listed arbitrator can serve or one must be replaced; FINRA has extended the time for action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to 26 November 2026.^34,35,38

Under the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on enforcing foreign awards, a court may refuse enforcement if the resisting party proves the tribunal was not composed as agreed or, failing agreement, as the seat’s law requires (art V(1)(d)). We found no decision on an appointment made by AI.⁷

How do arbitrator conflict checks work, and where can AI help?

An arbitrator conflict check compares the names in a case (parties, affiliates, counsel, funders) with the candidate’s records, by hand or as an AI conflict check. In the texts we checked, parties supply the names and the arbitrator answers for the disclosure. In our reading, software mostly speeds up the matching.^29,32

• Parties supply the names. Under the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest (2024), they disclose relationships and “perform reasonable enquiries” (General Standard 7(a), (b)). ICC art 12(5) has each party file “a list of persons and entities”, but the lists do not release an arbitrator from disclosing others “of which he or she is aware” (Note para 40).
• Arbitrators keep the records. CPR Dispute Resolution Services (CPR), in guidelines it says set no standards, advises against relying “only on general recollection or memory” and for a searchable conflicts database covering at least five years. An assistant may run the check, but “Ultimately, the responsibility for the disclosure belongs to the arbitrator” (pp. 2 to 5).
• Some triggers can be searched for: the IBA Orange List (situations to disclose) covers two or more appointments by the same party or affiliate within three years (3.1.3) and a position publicly advocated on the case, including on social media (3.4.2). In India, a Seventh Schedule relationship makes a person ineligible unless the parties waive it in writing after the dispute arises (s 12(5); see arbitration in India).
• FINRA’s algorithm excludes known member-firm conflicts, and staff review for other known conflicts it cannot screen. AAA’s release notes for its AI-led platform mention an AI “conflict checklist analysis” without saying what it checks (Release 1.6, 9 July 2026).^{4,12,13,19,29,32,34}

No text we checked lets a tool take over the duty. Under IBA General Standard 7(d), a failure to disclose “is not excused by lack of knowledge” if the arbitrator made no reasonable enquiries.²⁹

Does AI searching change the arbitrator’s disclosure duty?

No text we found says AI searching changes an arbitrator’s duty to disclose conflicts. Where a text sets an enquiry standard, as section 23A, the IBA Guidelines and the ICC Note do, it turns on what an arbitrator ought reasonably to know or find. In our reading, that bar may rise as searching gets cheaper; no text we checked says if an automated search counts.^8,13,29

• Since 1 August 2025, section 23A of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires an arbitrator, and anyone approached about an appointment, to disclose circumstances that “might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to the individual’s impartiality”, including those they ought reasonably to be aware of (s 23A(1) to (3)). It is mandatory (Schedule 1) and applies to arbitrations started on or after that date (Arbitration Act 2025, s 17(4)). See arbitrator’s duty of disclosure and arbitration in London.
• The IBA Guidelines require arbitrators to “investigate any relevant information that is reasonably available to them” (Explanation to General Standard 7, para (d)).
• The Law Commission said an arbitrator in a firm may need a conflicts search that a sole practitioner does not, but did not recommend “requiring arbitrators always to make inquiries” (paras 3.96, 3.97).
• In Halliburton v Chubb [2020] UKSC 48 the leading judgment said an arbitrator is, “as a generality, not required to search for facts or circumstances to disclose”, but may sometimes have to make reasonable enquiries ([107]). A concurring judgment found an “ought reasonably to be aware” test “unexceptionable in principle” but left the enquiry question open ([162]).
• Disclosing the arbitrator’s own AI use is a separate duty, covered in disclosure of AI use in arbitration.^{8,9,10,11,29,37}

What must parties and counsel check themselves?

Parties and counsel are expected to research candidate arbitrators too. Under IBA General Standard 4(a), a party that does not object within 30 days of learning of a possible conflict generally waives it, and is deemed to know what “a reasonable enquiry would have yielded”. Commentary by an IBA Arbitration Committee subcommittee says “A rather simple enquiry across media publications and social networks may satisfy such test” (p. 8). Halliburton warned there is “no basis for assuming” such research is universal ([67]).^11,29,30

Challenge windows are short: 30 days under ICC art 15(2), 14 days under LCIA art 10.3 and, unless the parties agree otherwise, 15 days under Model Law art 13(2).^6,12,15

• Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works (3d Cir. 2013): contributions to the arbitrator’s earlier judicial election campaign could be seen “after a five-minute internet search”, so the court would not fault non-disclosure of information “readily available to the public” (slip op. p. 30).
• Hamilton Managing Agency v. ICI Mutual (D. Vt. 14 April 2026): a web or legal database search would have shown the arbitrator’s prior expert testimony, and the challengers did not object once they knew of it, so the objection was waived (pp. 23 to 25).
• On the other side, Monster Energy v. City Beverages (9th Cir. 2019) stressed “an arbitrator’s duty to investigate and disclose potential conflicts”. The arbitrator’s undisclosed ownership interest in JAMS, which had run 97 arbitrations for one party in five years, was not public, so there was no waiver; a majority vacated the award.^39,40,41

None of these US decisions mentions AI. Lawyers’ duties and tool evaluation are in AI legal tech, court sanctions in AI in law.

Can AI selection tools make tribunals more diverse, or repeat old patterns?

Either, and in our reading a tool that learns from past choices learns their patterns. The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) says biased training data can perpetuate discrimination “in the search and appointment of individuals as arbitrators”, urges “extreme caution” and asks users to “use AI tools that control for biases” (Guideline 1 commentary, p. 16). The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) warns of algorithmic bias from the choice of dataset, and of “affirmational authority bias and cognitive inertia” in those who rely on AI (para 2.4).^20,21

In ICC cases in 2025, women were 23% of party nominations against 44.6% of Court appointments, and 28% of confirmations and appointments were repeats (pp. 11 to 12). At the LCIA, women were 27% of parties’ selections against 49% of the Court’s, and 22% of appointments went to first-time LCIA appointees (printed pp. 39, 43). In our reading, a tool trained on past party nominations would learn the lower figures.^14,16

In November 2024 AAA said its case managers aim for lists with at least 30% diverse names where party qualifications are met, “a practice unchanged with AI”. The LCIA’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Guidelines, which are not mandatory, suggest checking that “Alternative sources/databases” and “Varied and creative search terms” were used (paras 2.2.2, 2.2.4).^27,31

Is an AI arbitrator selection tool high-risk under the EU AI Act?

An AI tool that ranks arbitrators may be high-risk under Annex III point 4(a) (recruitment and selection) or point 8(a) (administration of justice) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, and no source we found says which. Point 8(a) covers AI that helps a court research, interpret and apply the law to facts, “or to be used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution” (high-risk AI in the administration of justice). Recital 61 limits this to ADR outcomes with legal effects for the parties and excludes purely ancillary administrative activities.²²

The European Commission’s draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, not yet adopted, say advanced search tools that only retrieve legal sources are “in general, not covered” by point 8(a), but tools that interpret them likely are (paras 421, 422). AI “assigning cases to judges” by specialisation and workload is “ancillary administrative” (printed p. 137), and ADR examples “can be derived” from the court ones (para 434).²³

Point 4(a), the employment heading, lists AI for the “recruitment or selection of natural persons”, including to “evaluate candidates”. The draft guidelines read it as covering independent professionals where AI systems “mediate or condition their access to work opportunities” (para 241), and count shortlisting and ranking as selection (para 245). A listed system that profiles people is always high-risk (art 6(3), last subparagraph).^22,23

On 23 July 2026, writing to the European AI Office on point 8(a), 16 arbitral institutions and bodies said institutions administer cases, for example by “assisting with the constitution of the tribunal”, and do not decide the merits (p. 1). Annex III obligations apply from 2 December 2027 (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, art 1 point (40)(b)) and differ for providers and deployers. Systems placed on the market or put into service before then are covered only after a significant design change, or by 2 August 2030 if used by public authorities (art 1 point (39)(a)). The rest of the Act is in the AI in arbitration guide.^22,24,25

What should institutions, arbitrators and counsel do about AI selection tools now?

• Institutions: publish what the tool searches and who decides. The AAAi Standards ask administrators to “mitigate bias, and preserve control over critical decisions” (Standard 1) and to let staff and participants “understand and trust their outputs” (Standard 4).
• Institutions: keep a human in the loop who also searches outside the tool, as the LCIA’s diversity guidelines suggest, and check AI-built lists against your figures for women and first-time appointees.
• Institutions: before 2 December 2027, check each selection tool against point 4(a) as well as point 8(a), remembering that a tool which profiles people cannot use the art 6(3) exemption.
• Arbitrators: run every name on the parties’ lists through a searchable conflicts database, note what you searched and when, and remember the disclosure stays yours.
• Counsel: give complete entity lists, including affiliates and funders (ICC art 12(5), (6); Note para 39), and run your own searches before the challenge window closes.^{5,12,13,22,24,29,31,32}

What is still unsettled about AI in arbitrator selection?

• How far cheap automated searching raises what an arbitrator “ought reasonably to be aware” of (s 23A(3)(b)) or must find by reasonable enquiries (IBA General Standard 7(d)).
• Who besides the arbitrator answers for a conflict a tool missed: the institution, the tool’s maker or no one.
• How a court would treat an appointment the AI Arbitrator made under R-7.
• Which EU AI Act heading, point 4(a), 8(a) or neither, covers a ranking tool.
• Whether AAA publishes a method for its 55% figure, and what the SEC decides on FINRA’s August 2026 proposal by 26 November 2026.^{1,3,8,22,23,29,32,35,38}