AAA Announces Resolution Simulator At Legal Week

Dubbed a "Dispute Revolution," the American Arbitration Association is launching its Resolution Simulator. Expanding the utility of the previously launched construction AI Arbitrator, the Resolution Simulator uses the same reasoning and analysis as the AI Arbitrator to provide simulated decisions based on the user submissions and feedback. Designed for single party use in documents-only AAA commercial and construction disputes, it promises explainable, informational insights grounded in structured legal reasoning, analysis, and decision logic. Parties may use it to understand how an arbitrator may resolve a dispute, develop their legal or negotiation strategy, or level-set internally with clients or counsel. It may also inform alternative paths to resolution, such as settlement or mediation. Ultimately, AAA hopes the product brings legal teams insight before escalation, empowering strategic decision-making and informing a path to resolution. The latest product launch underscores the AAA's commitment to responsible AI adoption, with governance, transparency, and auditability guiding the design and deployment of all AI-enabled tools. According to the AAA, this effort builds upon their 100-year history of helping parties navigate conflict through fair, transparent, and trusted processes. AI Arbitrator's Resolution Simulator responds to user demand for practical evaluative and decisioning tools, particularly in the early stages of a dispute, by illustrating how an arbitrator might analyze the dispute. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/4azzjb57 and https://feature.adr.org/LegalWeek2026

Back to Basics in 2026

In this age of AI and virtual attendance, it might be time to reflect on what works and has been working for our 3000-plus year-old profession of peacemaking. Despite the advances in tools we utilize, human nature remains unchanged and getting people to a deal is fundamentally the same. Likewise, even with all the platforms to enhance our marketability as mediators, the choice is still made by those who engage us based on trustworthiness and word of mouth. You are only as good as your last mediation some say. Working a case as a neutral is no different in our digital world when it comes down to the basics. Understanding the nub of a dispute is key and recognizing the usual cast of characters to gain rapport with them and get to the signed settlement agreement is paramount in any negotiation, whether virtual or in person. Mediators have more information available to them in this day and age, but that gut feeling from experience and the ability to stay versatile cannot be substituted with artificial intelligence. Parties also have more data than ever, but are seemingly providing less information on the way into a conference than they once did. Having to dig through a docket as a neutral to gain an understanding of the underlying case is fine, but we would still appreciate learning the parties’ positions identifying any overlap in interests from briefs or summaries which might be of better use if exchanged in advance. Saving things for trial went away long ago because there really are so few trials that if a party has a smoking gun, etc., they need to leverage it during the settlement negotiation. Confidentiality that mediation affords must be used to share information for properly evaluating cases in advance of the actual day so that proper authority can be obtained without last minute surprises. Most cases turn on risk tolerance and what a party is willing to do instead of going to court. The courts are where they lose control over the outcome. So even with the overlay of practice going into 2026 and all the coming tech glory, the essentials of getting to resolution endure.

Future of AI in ADR

For Mediation Week 2025, I will recount my observations from attending the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) Future of Dispute Resolution Conference in New York, dealing with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Taking place at Cardozo Law School in conjunction with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and sponsored by the Practising Law Institute (PLI), this dynamic conference with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) professionals, lawyer advocates, in-house counsel, programmers and developers explored how AI is transforming arbitration, mediation, and online dispute resolution (ODR). Legaltech innovators, institutional leaders and practitioners had quite interactive debates, a live demonstration of AAA's upcoming AI-trained construction arbitration product being launched next month (still requiring human oversight), and some real-world case studies. Humans are not being replaced, rather augmented in their skills and time management. Experience in the field cannot be simply replaced by machine, though AI's influence on dispute prevention cannot be understated. It will impact process, integrity, ethics and certainly case resolution outcomes. At the conclusion of the program, online dispute resolution pioneer, Colin Rule, opined that AI was really better suited as a tool to help both parties and neutrals in mediation, moreso than arbitration. The Future Dispute Resolution New York Hackathon the following day was hosted at AAA in Manhattan and included the Wolters Kluwer Arbitration digital experience team. This collaborative workshop paired neutrals with staff technologists and coders. Guided by product designers, engineers, and user experience (UX) experts, we collaborated forming interdisciplinary teams to identify practical pain points in the dispute resolution lifecycle and to rapidly prototype technology solutions from dispute prevention alerting tools to court service portals for self-represented entrepreneurs. Building on the success of the Future Dispute Resolution Hague Hackathon, our teams brainstormed in the morning and developed next-gen ADR demos in the afternoon, aiming to make dispute resolution processes faster, more equitable, and less expensive. The presentations from nine teams at the end of the day were quite impressive, given the compressed time to develop apps. Our team created "NeutralLens" an AI product for more efficiently distilling document submissions. For accuracy, our team utilized a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) an AI framework that enhances a large language model (LLM) by allowing it to retrieve relevant information from an external knowledge base to produce more up-to-date and trustworthy responses. It was all very inspiring and we hope will lead to a better experience for those utilizing ADR to get better access to justice outside the court system. See more here-- https://go.adr.org/2025-future-of-dispute-resolution-hackathon and https://www.adr.org/news-and-insights/ai-in-construction-disputes/

Will AI Settlements Spawn More?

A federal judge presiding over a class action earlier this summer said Anthropic made fair use of many authors' work to train its AI, but said the company violated copyright law by saving pirated books to a central library not necessarily used for AI training. That proved to be too many potential liabilities facing Anthropic, which just settled before an upcoming trial in December. Likewise, in the case against Eleven Labs, the defendant allegedly copied the voices of plaintiffs without consent and removed technical protections and copyright management notices from audiobooks in order to train their models. A stipulation staying the case was filed pending settlement. Legal scholars are wondering if these settlements facilitated by mediators signal how the industry will navigate the dozens of similar lawsuits pending nationwide. While settlement details remain confidential pending court approval, the timing reveals essential lessons for AI development and intellectual property law. With almost fifty other pending cases, Professor Edward Lee opines an increased probability of settlement (with which ChatGPT agrees), though they involve different companies, different types of works, various judges, and potentially enough variety in the training of the AI models to matter. Meta’s use of copyrighted works to train Llama was considered a fair use, even where Meta had obtained those works from piracy websites. However, the Meta decision was solely based on the record before the court and not a broad holding that all of Meta’s actions were fair use as to all possible plaintiffs, with other parts of the decision less favorable to the defendant. With those fair use precedents, some defendants in the other cases could feel they have decent defenses in their litigation. Anthropic was in "a unique situation," according to Professor James Grimmelmann, with as much as $1 trillion in piracy damages at stake in its worst-case scenario. "It's possible that this settlement could be a model for other cases, but it really depends on the details," he said to Reuters. Reportedly, Professor Chris Buccafusco was surprised Anthropic chose to settle, saying Anthropic was "in a position of decent strength" because of its fair-use determination, despite the piracy decision. The fate of the pending generative AI lawsuits could hinge on fair use, a still-evolving concept that no court had addressed in the cases until June. He also said Anthropic's settlement removes an early opportunity for a federal appeals court to consider fair use and issue a decision that would be binding on other cases and likely send the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court (where a bad precedent might ensue). See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/ydkynvmp and https://tinyurl.com/527phxkw and https://tinyurl.com/yn5rdruz and https://tinyurl.com/2z7nfwps and https://tinyurl.com/ayaswu8s

AI Hallucinations Abound

Since the advent of generative artificial intelligence and its ever-evolving use in the legal research arena, there have been troubling episodes of hallucinations with fake case citations catching both lawyers and judges off guard. We started scratching our heads a couple of years ago following the wide public release of large language models and a well-publicized federal aviation case resulting in $5,000 of sanctions. Dozens more expensive examples of false statements to courts followed, though recently America's largest injury firm was only hit with a grand. Some got pleadings stricken, public reprimands, disqualification or joint and several sanctions under Rule 11, while others were referred their state bar for disciplinary proceedings and of course, all were embarrassed. This summer, a state appellate court even caught a trial judge who decided a case based on fake law and a federal judge in a securities case had to be told by a white shoe law firm that her opinion contained hallucinated cases resulting in a withdrawn opinion. As Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wisely said, "Any use of AI requires caution and humility." It is interesting to note that we are not alone in the world with this problem, though the USA leads with at least 136 such incidents to date. Some counsel fared better by being contrite and falling on their proverbial sword, being bench-slapped with smaller sanctions. Many more seemed rather recalcitrant and argued mistaken briefs were filed or that their work product (despite being vendor checked through subscription with well-known legal service providers) should somehow save them from the same fate. Now these cases have been conveniently catalogued-- on an almost daily basis-- by Damien Charlotin at this handy hallucination link-- https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

Join Me at DRC on 8/1 for AI!

Registration is now open for the 32nd Florida Dispute Resolution Conference where over a thousand certified mediators gain continuing education and the latest info on the profession. The Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is a unit of the Office of the State Courts Administrator under the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida, through the DRC, certifies mediators in the areas of county court, circuit court, family, dependency, and appellate. The DRC also provides staff to its boards and committees, certifies mediation training programs, provides basic county mediation training and advanced continuing mediator education, and assists the local courts throughout Florida with alternative dispute resolution. I have the honor of being asked by the DRC to join some of my esteemed colleagues from the Executive Council of The Florida Bar's Alternative Dispute Resolution Section to give the 2025 opening plenary session. We will introduce the manner in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved generally for dispute resolution and how it is employed specifically in mediation. Along with my distinguished panelists, we will share advantages and disadvantages that arise with the use of AI, as well as specific ethical and pragmatic challenges mediators face in this rapidly-evolving environment. This year's conference will be held virtually on Friday, August 1, 2025 from 9:00 am until 5:15 pm. On the day of the conference, you will be eligible for up to 6.3 hours of continuing education, with 1.2 hours of mediator ethics for certified mediators. Virtual attendees will be able to view all conference recordings for 60 days post-conference and will be eligible for additional hours of continuing education. See more here-https://drcconferences.swoogo.com/2025conference/sessions

Join us for AI in Mediation 9/7 at noon!

We'll be giving a free CLE/CME online September 7th at noon in conjunction with the University of Florida Levin College of Law Institute for Dispute Resolution looking at the current state of artificial intelligence as used by legal professionals. We will also discuss the reaction AI is garnering and how it is not necessarily all good or all bad news for the 3,000 plus-year-old tradition of mediation. Mediation is almost as old as conflict itself. The best mediators can resolve disputes discreetly, effectively, and, most importantly, with fairness to both parties, but there is no doubt AI is a negotiation-changing and career-changing tool in the law. Along with my colleague at UWWM, mediator Michelle Jernigan, with whom I serve as Emertius Member of The Florida Bar ADR Section Executive Council and our guests Christy Foley and Christina Magee (current and former chairs of the ADR Section), we also survey the pros and cons of AI in the legal field and ethical issues associated with the use of AI. Panel members will draw conclusions and make recommendations based on their research and personal experience. The Florida Bar has accredited the Webinar 1.0 hours of Technology Continuing Legal Education (CLE). You may submit questions in advance and register here-- https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/3125289667036333659 Replay available here-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYjgRL4UUA8