AI in Arbitration – A Perspective from Singapore

Singapore is a leading hub for international arbitration, and its approach to incorporating artificial intelligence (“AI”) is grounded in thoughtful and responsible adoption of AI tools.

Legal Research

AI tools are increasingly being explored in arbitration for legal research, particularly for their enhanced search capabilities and ability to generate usable case law summaries. These tools can help users quickly grasp the “flavour” of a case, improving research efficiency. In Singapore, LawNet AI Summaries developed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority’s GPT-Legal, offer AI-generated case summaries for unreported judgments.

However, the use of AI output carries “health warnings” due to concerns about the technology’s accuracy and reliability, including the risk of hallucination. The Singapore Court Registrar Circulars reminds users of the State Courts to continually assess the suitability of generative AI tools for preparing legal documents. It recommends that lawyers and self-represented individuals using generative AI ensure that all information submitted to the court is appropriate, accurate, true, and independently verified. 

In arbitration, the CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) permits the use of AI for legal research but advises arbitrators to treat it as a supportive tool rather than relying on it at the outset, thereby ensuring that independent judgment is preserved.

Translation & Transcription

In international arbitration, where it is common to encounter documents in multiple languages, AI tools are already utilised to assist with translation, thereby improving efficiency and reducing costs. For instance, most leading translation companies based in Singapore now offer AI-assisted translation services, where AI programs initially translate documents before being reviewed and verified by a translator. AI may also help harmonise the interpretation of materials across different languages.

Apart from the translation of documents, AI tools are also increasingly used in arbitration to generate real-time hearing transcripts more cost-effectively.

Whilst the technology is still being developed, AI-assisted translation and transcription is clearly a useful way to support the procedural aspects of multilingual arbitration proceedings.

Case Management / Document Review

AI continues to be used in arbitration to support case management, especially in handling large volumes of documents. In one case administered by the SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre), an AI tool reportedly reviewed over 750,000 documents in just four weeks by identifying similar terms and clauses. Whilst it remains imperative to check for accuracy and any omissions, such AI programmes are useful for at least a first-pass review – as arbitration practitioners would know, such a task would have taken months to be completed manually. 

Arbitrations administered by the SIAC also frequently utilise the SIAC Gateway, its cloud-based case management platform, which offers a secure and integrated interface for filing, communication, and evidence management. These case management capabilities are particularly useful for expedited or document-heavy arbitrations. This commitment to technology is also reflected in the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025.  

AI Governance in Singapore

As AI tools are increasingly used in legal processes, there is a growing need for robust governance frameworks to ensure accountability, transparency, and data protection. The protection of confidential information is especially important in arbitration. This is where Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) plays a critical role.

The PDPA establishes clear rules for how personal data must be collected, used, and disclosed, which is especially relevant when AI systems process large volumes of confidential and commercially sensitive information during arbitration proceedings. Ensuring compliance with the PDPA helps mitigate risks such as data breaches and over-reliance on automated outputs. In this context, the PDPA not only supports ethical AI deployment but also strengthens public trust in Singapore’s AI-enhanced arbitration landscape.

Rule 61 of the 2025 SIAC Arbitration Rules promotes a balanced approach to data protection by encouraging parties and tribunals to proactively discuss and agree on suitable information security protocols—including cybersecurity and cyber resilience—either during the initial case management conference or at any other appropriate stage of the arbitration. This provision reflects the increasing significance of safeguarding digital information in light of the growing reliance on technology throughout arbitral proceedings. 

Building on the importance of responsible AI use in Singapore’s arbitration and legal landscape, the Singapore Courts have developed a Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users, effective from October 2024. This Guide provides crucial governance principles to ensure AI is used ethically and transparently in court proceedings, and these principles are likely to be similarly applicable to arbitration hearings. For instance, the Guide makes clear that users are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the contents of the documents submitted are accurate, relevant and do not infringe intellectual property rights. Further, it is unacceptable to use Generative AI tools to fabricate evidence.

Conclusion

It is clear that AI offers valuable support in arbitration by enhancing efficiency, document handling, and research. However, while harnessing the benefits of AI, one should be aware of the risks associated with its use, and human supervision remains essential.

Singapore’s legal and arbitration sectors are therefore taking a measured and practical approach in adopting AI tools to support, rather than replace, human expertise, while maintaining a strong focus on procedural fairness and integrity.

This article was originally published on Daily Jus on Friday 5th of September, with thanks to Jus Mundi & Jus Connect.