Drafting arbitral awards with AI: what is allowed and what goes wrong

The short version

• No AI guideline we checked (how we search) lets an arbitrator hand the decision on an award or order to AI, and some say in express words that the reasoning stays with the tribunal.
• Help with editing and procedural drafting is accepted. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) lets a tribunal secretary draft procedural orders and an award’s factual parts for review.
• From 1 January 2027, California’s Code of Civil Procedure s 1282.1, added by SB 574, bars an arbitrator from handing “any part” of the decision-making process to generative AI.
• The opt-in AI-led process of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is the one model we found where AI drafts the award. The human arbitrator who signs it can rewrite any part.
• A Québec court annulled an award whose authorities did not exist or did not support it, finding that the arbitrator’s authority had been delegated. A US challenge ended without a ruling on AI.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12,17,18,25}

Can arbitrators use AI to draft awards and procedural orders?

Yes, arbitrators can use AI as a drafting aid for awards and procedural orders. Every AI guideline we checked allows AI support while arbitrators write, and none lets it decide the case or replace their own analysis. The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) says in terms that the tribunal must write the award’s reasons and result itself (Guidelines 4.2.3, our translation).^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}

The AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools, from AAA and its International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), says AI tools can “summarize and draft documents” (January 2026, introduction), but arbitrators “cannot delegate their duty of reasoned judgment” (Consideration 3). AAA calls a traditional case in which AI tools support tasks AI-assisted arbitration: the human arbitrator still analyses the case and issues the award, keeping a human in the loop. Its platform process is AI-led arbitration.^3,28

The 2025 Queen Mary University of London survey told respondents to assume the tribunal would oversee the process and review the output. On that basis, 60% thought it appropriate for arbitrators to use AI to draft procedural parts of awards and orders, 31% to assess the merits or accuracy of submissions or evidence and 23% to draft reasoning (Chart 21, printed p. 31). Among arbitrators, 80% object to AI drafting the reasoning parts of awards.¹⁰

How AI is used in arbitration generally, and the full rules table, are in the AI in arbitration guide. Mediation is covered in AI in dispute resolution.

What do the AI guidelines allow, and what do they forbid?

The AI guidelines agree on non-delegation: when arbitrators use AI, the decision, and the analysis behind it, stays with the arbitrator. They differ on how much drafting help needs disclosure, consultation or the parties’ agreement. All seven are guidance, not arbitration rules. The table adds the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO).^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}

• Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC): an arbitrator who drafts “any part of a decision or award” with generative AI “cannot simply reproduce the AI’s output” without making sure it reflects their own analysis (Guideline 6 commentary, p. 20).
• Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb): arbitrators should avoid delegating legal analysis, research or applying the law to the facts “if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions” (para 8.2), and are encouraged to consult the parties beforehand (para 9.1).
• SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC): tribunals “cannot delegate the decision or the reasoning leading to it to anyone or anything”.^1,2,5

The AI rules tracker links each text. Whether an arbitrator must disclose AI drafting, and who must disclose what, is in disclosure of AI use in arbitration. It is a different duty from an arbitrator’s duty to disclose conflicts.

What does the law say about who writes the award?

Arbitration laws and rules require a signed award with reasons, but none of those below says who may type it. California’s is the only statute we found that deals with an arbitrator’s own use of AI.^11,13,14

SB 574 (Chapter 858, approved and filed on 30 September 2026) creates section 1282.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force from 1 January 2027 (California Constitution, art IV, s 8(c)(1)). It keeps the arbitrator’s duties of neutrality, competence and diligence ((a)) and sets two limits. Under (b)(1), an arbitrator “shall not delegate any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool”. Under (b)(2), an arbitrator who wants to rely on generative AI information from outside the record must tell the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, let them comment. Both limits are close in wording to SVAMC Guidelines 6 and 7. The bill’s separate rule for lawyers is covered in AI legal tech.^1,11,12

Elsewhere, the general rules on signatures and reasons apply, and none of them mentions AI. A signed award with reasons is the default under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (art 31(1), (2)), the Arbitration Act 1996 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (s 52(3), (4)) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules 2020 (art 26.2). The ICC Rules 2026 also require reasons (art 35(2)), as does India’s 1996 Act unless the parties agree otherwise (s 31(3); see arbitration in India).^{8,13,14,21,30}

The cases on tribunal secretaries ask instead whose judgment the award reflects. Laws that require a human arbitrator are listed in AI in arbitration.^34,35

Is an AI drafting tool like a tribunal secretary, or a “fourth arbitrator”?

The rules on tribunal secretaries, the assistants some tribunals appoint, are the nearest existing texts on who else may draft for a tribunal, so the comparison with an AI tool is ours. A secretary may draft procedural orders and factual parts of an award for review, but never takes the decision. The English and Dutch courts that reviewed a secretary’s drafting asked whether the arbitrators’ own judgment was intact.^{8,9,21,22,34,35}

• ICC: a secretary works “under the arbitral tribunal’s direction and control, without delegating its decision-making authority” (art 44(1)), and the tribunal keeps its duty “to personally review the file and/or draft itself any arbitral tribunal’s decision” (Note para 210). SVAMC’s commentary to Guideline 6 uses almost the same words for arbitrators using AI. See ICC and AI.
• LCIA: no delegation of decision-making to a secretary (art 14.8). The tribunal may propose that a secretary prepare “first drafts of awards, or sections of awards, and procedural orders” on its specific instructions (Guidance Note para 202), and the parties must agree the tasks (art 14.10). See the LCIA explainer.
• The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules bar the tribunal from delegating any of its decision-making functions to a tribunal secretary (r 24.3). JAMS says the parties must approve a clerk or secretary after disclosure, and that a clerk or secretary may “at no time” engage in deliberations or decision-making on behalf of an arbitrator or tribunal. See SIAC and JAMS.
• The Young ICCA Guide on Arbitral Secretaries, from the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), lets an arbitral secretary draft procedural orders and “appropriate parts of the award” under the tribunal’s direction and supervision (art 3(1), (2)(g), (j)).^{1,8,9,21,22,23,24,37}

In P v Q [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm), the English High Court refused to remove two arbitrators over the tribunal’s use of a secretary (Arbitration Act 1996, s 24(1)(d)(i); [1]). For the court, the “critical yardstick” was that no arbitrator may give up or weaken their “non-delegable and personal decision-making function” ([65]). To keep secretaries from becoming “fourth arbitrators”, it said, the safest course is not to ask them for a view on the merits ([68]). See arbitration in London.^15,34

In the Yukos annulment proceedings, the Hague Court of Appeal assumed, without deciding, that the tribunal’s assistant had drafted parts of the awards. It found no unwritten rule against that, as long as the parties have not agreed otherwise and the arbitrators take the substantive decisions themselves and check the text (18 February 2020, paras 6.6.10, 6.6.14.1, our translation). The Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed this complaint without giving reasons (paras 5.6.1, 5.6.2). It quashed the appeal court’s judgments on a separate ground, Russia’s fraud allegations, and sent the case to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (paras 5.1.12, 7.1, 7.2, 8).^35,36

Where is the line between drafting help and the reasoning?

The AI texts draw the line between drafting help and reasoning at the analysis. Secretary rules allow drafting of procedural orders and factual parts of an award, and most survey respondents accept AI help with procedural drafting and with summarising submissions. The reasons and the result stay the arbitrator’s own.^5,6,9,10,37

• AI and procedural orders: drafting an order differs from deciding what it orders. Ciarb’s limit is on delegating analysis that could influence procedural or substantive decisions (8.2), and in P v Q the court held that using a tribunal secretary to analyse submissions and draft procedural orders is not an improper delegation, absent contrary agreement ([70](1)).
• Routine sections, by analogy: DJP v DJO, a Singapore case about copying, does not mention AI. The Court of Appeal said copying uncontested, relevant facts may be acceptable ([44]).
• A published order: in International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Case No. ARB/24/46, the tribunal may use AI tools “to perform its tasks, such as preparation of summaries, searching and organizing the record and legal research”, and “will not delegate any decision-making functions to such AI tools” (Procedural Order No. 1, s 28.1).^2,20,29,34

AI summaries of transcripts and the hearing record are in AI transcription and interpretation at hearings. AI analysis of evidence is in AI document review and deepfake evidence.

Can AI write an arbitration award if a human arbitrator signs it?

Only in one model we found. Under AAA’s opt-in AI Led Arbitration Rules (18 February 2026), AI writes the draft award, brief reasoning included, when both parties choose the process. The AI makes “a preliminary decision” that the human arbitrator reviews, revises as needed, validates and finalises (R-2(c)). The arbitrator “can approve, edit, or rewrite any part of the draft award”, then signs it (R-8(a)).²⁵

• After the award, a party has 10 business days to ask the human arbitrator to fix clerical, typographical or calculation errors, and the arbitrator cannot revisit decisions on the claim (R-8(c)).
• AAA says the tool “does not make case decisions on its own”, and that the parties “do not see the AI’s key issues analysis or the draft award, only the final award”.
• AAA’s Release 1.6 notes of 9 July 2026 say binding arbitration on the platform is not available in California.^25,26,27

Procedure, fees and reported results are in AAA and AI in arbitration.

What happens when an award drafted with AI goes wrong?

We found one award annulled after a challenge over AI use, in Québec, for delegation. One US challenge ended without a ruling on AI. The nearest drafting precedent we found, from Singapore, was about copying from earlier awards, not AI.^17,18,20

In ARIHQ c. Santé Québec, 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026), the Superior Court of Québec annulled (set aside) an award under articles 646 and 648 of Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that parties are entitled to a decision by the arbitrator they chose, so the decision cannot be delegated ([75], [81] to [86]). Researchers, clerks and help with citations are allowed if responsibility for the drafting stays with the arbitrator ([87]). Each authority the award relied on was non-existent or did not support the point cited ([102] to [113]), and the court found delegation ([114] to [116]). Using a reliable AI tool is not a fault in itself, the court said ([94]), and the judgment does not say which tool, if any, was used.^16,17

The LaPaglia v. Valve Corporation petition to vacate an AAA award argued that the arbitrator had handed the decision to AI. The federal court dismissed the case on 9 December 2025 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so it never decided the AI argument (Order, pp. 7 to 12).^18,19

In DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2 (8 April 2025), at least 212 of the award’s 451 paragraphs came from two earlier awards in parallel cases ([2], [73]). Because those awards were the starting point for drafting, the Court of Appeal found that a fair-minded observer would suspect anchoring bias ([74]). Relying on material from the parallel cases that had never been put to the parties breached the fair hearing rule ([82]), and the court upheld the setting aside of the whole award ([84], [87]). See arbitration in Singapore.²⁰

We found no ruling yet on whether an AI-drafted award can be enforced under the New York Convention; the grounds a challenge would rely on (art V(1)(b), (d), V(2)(b)) are in AI in arbitration. The cases in full are in awards challenged over AI use, and lawyers’ invented citations in AI in law.³¹

What should a tribunal do before drafting with AI?

Agree at the start which drafting tasks AI may help with, and check everything it produces.

• Say in Procedural Order No. 1, or terms of reference where the parties use them, which drafting tasks AI may support. AAA-ICDR’s sample wording on “administrative or drafting efficiency” (Consideration 4) and the ARB/24/46 order (s 28.1) are published starting points.
• Consult the parties and, on a panel, the other arbitrators before using a tool, and refrain if the parties disagree (Ciarb paras 9.1, 9.2).
• Use the tool for editing, procedural history and orders, and have the tribunal write the reasons and the result itself (CIETAC 4.2.3).
• Verify every authority and fact and note the checks (AAA-ICDR Consideration 1; Ciarb 8.3), since AI tools can produce hallucination, meaning invented sources or evidence (Ciarb 2.6).
• Keep draft decisions and deliberations out of AI tools unless clear, verifiable safeguards are in place (WIPO section 4).
• On a panel, make sure every arbitrator considers the draft diligently against the contract, the submissions and the evidence, not only the one who prepared it (DJP v DJO [63]).^{2,3,6,7,20,29}

What is not settled about AI and award drafting?

• What counts as delegating “any part” of the decision-making process under section 1282.1(b)(1), including drafting help. The section also does not say if it reaches arbitrations governed by the Federal Arbitration Act or international cases.
• How a reasons rule such as Model Law art 31(2) applies to an award that AI drafted, brief reasoning included, and a human arbitrator then reviewed and signed, as under AAA’s R-8.
• Where the line on the amount of AI use falls. The Québec court said minimal use, or use on a minor issue, may not justify annulment ([117], [118]).
• Applying the tribunal-secretary cases, such as P v Q and the Yukos judgments, to AI drafting help. We found no judgment that has done so.
• How AI drafting would be proved. The LaPaglia petition relied on circumstantial signs, such as a remark the arbitrator was said to have made about a generative AI chatbot and the award’s speed and content, which the court never tested.
• What comes of Ciarb’s 2026 call for feedback on its Guideline, which closed on 26 May 2026, and what ICC’s AI task force will publish.^{11,13,17,18,19,25,32,33,34,35}