LCIA and AI in arbitration: what the 2020 Rules allow and what comes next

The short version

• We found no AI rules or guidance published by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) as of 28 October 2026 (how we search). Its Arbitration Rules 2020, Mediation Rules 2020 and Guidance Note do not mention AI.
• The 2020 Rules let a tribunal use technology to make the case more efficient (art 14.6(iii)). They bar it from delegating its decision-making to a tribunal secretary (art 14.8).
• “AI disclosure and guardrails” is a theme of the LCIA rules revision opened on 11 March 2026, and a committee covering AI was announced on 11 September 2026. Draft rules are due later in 2026; none had appeared by 28 October 2026.
• On 23 July 2026 the LCIA coordinated a joint letter from 16 arbitral institutions and bodies asking that, where the EU AI Act’s high-risk label applies, it attach to AI used by or for the tribunal, not to institutions’ administrative tools.
• The LCIA has an AI collaboration with a legal research technology company and ran a hackathon, but has named no AI tool in its own case administration.
• Guidance on “the ethical use of AI”, promised by its Director General in December 2025, had not appeared by 28 October 2026.^{1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,27}

What has the LCIA published or done on AI?

The LCIA has put AI on its rules revision agenda and coordinated a letter on the EU AI Act. It has also run AI events and a hackathon. In the texts we read, it has issued no AI rule, guidance or policy.^4,7,10,20,27

LCIA staff were listed to speak on AI panels at London International Disputes Week (1 to 5 June 2026). The LCIA’s China Arbitration Week programme listed a panel on AI and algorithmic tools (17 September 2026). Every institution’s AI texts are summarised in the AI rules tracker.^23,24

Do the LCIA Rules 2020 say anything about AI?

No. The LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 do not mention AI. Its rules revision consultation, opened on 11 March 2026, lists “AI disclosure and guardrails” among its themes, and the LCIA says draft rules will be published for comment later in 2026. Several articles still bear on AI use.^1,4

• Electronic by default: filings and written communications go by email or other electronic means (arts 4.1, 4.2).
• Technology: procedural orders may include “employing technology to enhance the efficiency and expeditious conduct of the arbitration” (art 14.6(iii)), under the tribunal’s general power to make them (art 14.5).
• Hearings may be virtual (art 19.2). Awards must give reasons unless all parties agree in writing otherwise, and may be signed electronically (art 26.2).
• Tribunal secretaries (art 14A), who assist a tribunal: “under no circumstances” may a tribunal delegate its decision-making function to a secretary, who works under its supervision (art 14.8). The parties must agree the secretary’s tasks and the person, and a party that does not object in time is deemed to agree (arts 14.10, 14.12). This is the non-delegation principle in LCIA form.¹

The Guidance Note does not mention AI either, and says it is not an authoritative interpretation of the Rules (para 4).³

The LCIA has not said that any of these articles applies to AI, so the links we draw are our reading. LCIA procedure, costs and caseload are covered in our guide to arbitration in London.¹

What does the LCIA expect of arbitrators, parties and mediators who use AI?

The LCIA has set no AI-specific expectations, and no rule stops arbitrators or parties using AI. The general duties in the 2020 Rules apply.¹

• Fairness: tribunals must act fairly (art 14.1), and parties in good faith (art 14.2).
• Agreeing terms: parties may make joint proposals (art 14.4) and the tribunal may make procedural orders (art 14.5). In our reading, an AI protocol in Procedural Order No. 1 is where an LCIA case can settle, for now, which tools may be used and whether their use must be disclosed. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ (Ciarb) Guideline offers a template (Appendices A and B), which applies only where adopted.
• Delegation: the decision stays with the tribunal. The LCIA endorses no particular tasks for a tribunal secretary, but a tribunal may propose, for the parties to approve, that its secretary summarise submissions, review authorities and prepare first drafts of awards on its specific instructions (Guidance Note paras 201 to 203). The Rules’ bar on delegation names only secretaries, not AI tools (art 14.8).
• Confidentiality: parties must seek a confidentiality undertaking from those they involve, including any “service provider” (art 30.1), and the duty extends to the tribunal and any secretary (art 30.2).
• Information security and data protection: early on, the tribunal must consider security measures and how personal data is handled (art 30.5), and its directions bind the parties (art 30.6). In our reading, these provisions (art 30A) are the natural place to set which AI tools may receive case material.
• Counsel: under the Annex to the Rules, parties’ authorised representatives should not knowingly make false statements or rely on false evidence (Annex paras 3, 4). The test is knowing conduct, and the Annex does not deal with hallucination, the invented citations AI tools can produce.
• Enforceability: everyone must make every reasonable effort to see that the award is enforceable at the seat, the arbitration’s legal home (art 32.2).^1,3,32

Lawyers’ duties when AI invents citations are covered in AI in law. Awards challenged over AI use, including the Québec annulment, are covered in awards challenged over AI use.

For mediators, the LCIA Mediation Rules 2020 do not mention AI either, though they allow electronic filing (art 3), virtual meetings (art 6.2) and electronically signed settlements (art 8.3). The rules revision covers the Mediation Rules too. AI in mediation and online dispute resolution is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution.^2,4

Must AI use be disclosed in an LCIA arbitration?

No LCIA rule requires anyone to disclose AI use as of 28 October 2026. AI disclosure is a theme of the LCIA’s rules revision.^1,4

• Existing disclosure duties cover impartiality, independence and availability, and none mentions AI. They sit in arbitrators’ and tribunal secretaries’ declarations (arts 5.4, 5.5, 14.9, 14.14). For seats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, s 23A of the Arbitration Act 1996 adds a statutory duty (arbitrator’s duty of disclosure).
• Parties or the tribunal can set a standard by joint proposal or procedural order (arts 14.4, 14.5). The Ciarb Guideline, where adopted, lets the tribunal require parties to disclose AI use (paras 4.4, 7.1 to 7.7).
• LCIA symposium topic lists ask if tribunals should disclose AI used for case management or the procedural history (London 2025, topic 8), and if parties should disclose AI review of the other side’s documents (topic 9). Melbourne asked if tribunals should disclose all AI use, only material uses or only uses that could affect their reasoning or the outcome (2026, topic 20). None is an LCIA position.^{1,17,19,31,32}

Does the LCIA use AI itself?

The LCIA has announced no use of AI in its own case administration. It says its partner’s AI will “support LCIA workflows”, but in the texts we read, as of 28 October 2026, it had named no AI tool and offered no AI product.^9,13,27

• The LCIA’s AI collaboration with a legal research technology company (3 December 2025) covers events, AI training and joint research, and will explore AI projects for “legal research, case analysis, and arbitration processes”.
• The 2024 casework report promised investment in digital infrastructure, and the 2025 report speaks of “practical tools”, but neither names a tool.
• Its AI hackathon, run with an arbitration news publisher, sought ideas “capable of being deployed in real cases”, in the Director General’s words. We found no results on lcia.org.
• The Data Privacy Notice for LCIA Proceedings, last updated November 2021, does not mention AI or automated decision-making. It lets the LCIA share personal data with service providers such as third-party data hosts (para 4.2.3).^{9,10,13,14,26}

How to assess an AI tool before using it on case material is covered in AI legal tech.

What has the LCIA said about regulating AI and the EU AI Act?

The one LCIA statement on regulating AI that we found is a joint letter on the EU AI Act. On 23 July 2026, 16 arbitral institutions and bodies sent a joint submission, coordinated by the LCIA, to the European Commission’s AI Office on its draft guidelines for classifying high-risk AI systems. They asked that, where the EU AI Act’s high-risk label for alternative dispute resolution (Annex III point 8(a)) applies, it attach to AI used by or for the tribunal when it decides, not to the tools institutions use to administer cases (s 5).^7,8,27

The LCIA coordinated and signed it. A second ask is that the Commission revisit how it characterises investment dispute bodies (s 5(ii)). The LCIA says AI governance “is also being considered” in its Rules Revision Programme. What the letter asked, and why, is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in Europe.^7,8

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, can treat AI used in alternative dispute resolution as high-risk (Annex III point 8(a)). The Commission’s draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 had not been adopted as of 30 October 2026, when the Commission’s guidelines page, last updated 19 October 2026, still presented them as draft; the LCIA says adoption is expected by the end of 2026. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 set 2 December 2027 as the date these obligations apply (art 1 point (40)(b)).^8,28,30

Recital 61 of the Act keeps AI intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases out of the high-risk category. We found no LCIA statement on whether it would be the provider or the deployer of any AI tool it adopts, or on AI regulation in the UK. How the EU AI Act applies to arbitration is explained in our guide to AI in arbitration. The full role-and-duty read is in the EU AI Act and dispute resolution.^8,27,29

Will the new LCIA Rules cover AI, and when?

AI is on the LCIA’s rules revision agenda, but no draft is public. The LCIA says draft rules will be published for comment later in 2026.^4,27

• Timeline: phase 1 of the consultation ran from 11 March to 11 May 2026. The page, last updated on 27 May, says phase 2 is in progress and that drafts of both sets of Rules will go out “for a second round of community feedback later in 2026”.
• The Director General’s letter frames theme (ix) as “the impact of AI on arbitration”, naming disclosure and safeguards, due process, evidence integrity and enforceability among its parts (para 5(ix)).
• Committees: of 13 announced on 11 September 2026, “The Digital Record: Electronic Communications, AI, and Information Security” covers AI. Another covers arbitrators’ disclosure, challenges and tribunal secretaries, and a Rules Steering Committee does the final drafting.
• Technology: a July 2026 news item ties the revision partly to “advancements in technology”.^4,5,6,25

We found no AI guidance published by 28 October 2026, and the LCIA has given no date for the new Rules to take effect.^4,27

How does the LCIA compare with ICC, AAA-ICDR, JAMS and SIAC on AI?

Of these five, only AAA-ICDR has guidance on arbitrators’ own use of AI and rules for AI-drafted awards. JAMS has rules for disputes about AI systems. ICC, the LCIA and SIAC have no AI provision in their arbitration rules, and ICC and the LCIA have work under way. How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration. See also the SCC, VIAC, SVAMC and Ciarb explainers.^{1,4,33,34,36,37,38,39}

What is not settled about the LCIA and AI?

• Where the LCIA deals with AI: in the revised Rules themselves, or in guidance instead.
• Who would have to disclose AI use, and when, if the new Rules set a duty.
• Whether a tribunal’s AI tool should be treated like a tribunal secretary, with the parties agreeing its tasks (art 14.10(i)).
• What the art 30.1 confidentiality undertaking means for putting case material into an AI tool, and what information security or data protection directions under art 30.6 should say about AI.
• Whether the Commission adopts the joint letter’s reading in its final guidelines, which the LCIA expects by the end of 2026.
• What the technology collaboration delivers, and if the promised guidance on “the ethical use of AI” appears.
• How the English courts would treat a London-seated LCIA award challenged over AI use. Our guide to arbitration in London found no English judgment on any award challenged over AI use as of 26 October 2026.^{1,4,5,8,9,12,28}