Abstract
Can parties appoint an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) platform to serve as an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)? Can a United States court invalidate an arbitration provision in a contract that specifies the resolution of a dispute through an AI platform? Can a U.S. court refuse to recognize an arbitral award that was rendered by an AI platform? Intense lobbying efforts by business organizations led to the enactment of the FAA in 1925. While the business community lobbied for lower-cost litigation, the lawyer organizations, including the American Bar Association, were bystanders in the drafting of the legislative proposals. Nearly a century later, lawyers remain bystanders to innovation. Changes must be made to the current model of legal education and the practice of law to make it more interdisciplinary. Lawyers fail to innovate because our educational and practice models are based on the study of the past (“precedent”). Lawyers are not trained to look to the future and have different goals than scientists and venture capitalists who drive the innovational targets. We must adopt emerging technologies that will lower the cost of legal services as we risk being forced out of the marketplace by AI platforms that will act as arbitrators. History will repeat itself as was the case in 1925 with the enactment of the FAA.
Last Page
595
Recommended Citation
Dimitrios Ioannidis,
Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Arbitrators Under the Federal Arbitration Act?,
28
Rich. J.L. & Tech
505
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolt/vol28/iss3/3