Balancing Justice and Technology: AI’s Role in Commercial Dispute Resolution Progress

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping commercial dispute resolution, with leading institutions such as the World Bank, University College London, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Africa Judges & Jurists Forum at the forefront of research into its opportunities and risks. The World Bank’s B-READY data reveals a strong correlation between a country’s income level and the degree of digitalization in its dispute resolution processes, suggesting that AI’s benefits may flow disproportionately to wealthier economies. This imbalance could see advanced nations surging ahead while developing countries struggle to keep pace, creating a pressing need for inclusive strategies in the deployment of legal AI technologies.

AI’s Expanding Role in Legal Practice

Goldman Sachs estimates that up to 44 percent of legal tasks could be automated, more than in almost any other profession except clerical and administrative support. AI’s strengths are most apparent in document review, legal research, due diligence, discovery, and predicting litigation outcomes. Generative AI tools like Harvey, based on OpenAI’s GPT-4, can craft complex, multi-language legal memoranda in seconds. Meanwhile, specialized systems such as ChatLaw aim to assist bankruptcy lawyers in navigating unfamiliar case law. Judicial systems in the United States, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom have already validated AI-assisted methods like Technology Assisted Review and predictive coding. Academic research reinforces AI’s promise: University College London achieved 79 percent accuracy in forecasting European Court of Human Rights rulings, and a separate study recorded 70 percent accuracy for U.S. Supreme Court cases, giving litigators a valuable strategic advantage even when uncertainty remains.

Barriers to Adoption: Culture, Costs, and Incentives

Despite its promise, AI faces resistance within the legal profession, where reliance on human judgment and ethical reasoning remains central. Surveys highlight this skepticism: Thomson Reuters found that up to 70 percent of in-house lawyers were uninterested in purchasing AI tools, and a Wolters Kluwer survey of 700 legal professionals in the United States and Europe revealed that although 58 percent anticipated AI’s impact within three years, fewer than 30 percent felt they understood it well. The entrenched billable-hour model also disincentivizes efficiency gains, as time-saving technology could reduce revenue. One study predicted that AI adoption might cut partner hours by 5 percent and non-partner hours by 20 percent, leading to a 13 percent drop in revenue and a 7 percent reduction in profit margins for large firms. Costs are another formidable hurdle: implementing AI in a mid-sized firm can require an initial investment of around US$250,000, plus monthly subscription fees of about US$299 per user. Ongoing expenses for maintenance, updates, and specialized staff add to the financial strain, giving large firms a significant advantage while leaving smaller practices, and particularly those in developing economies, at risk of being left behind.

Ethical and Security Concerns

The legal profession’s caution toward AI also stems from ethical and security issues. Professionals worry about algorithmic bias, opaque decision-making, and breaches of client confidentiality. Many AI systems retain user queries and may share inputs with third parties, creating risks of data leaks, especially when tools lack robust encryption. In response, some corporations and financial institutions have banned employees from using public generative AI tools such as ChatGPT for work-related tasks. UNESCO and the IMF have stressed the need for strong governance frameworks to ensure transparency, accountability, and ethical safeguards in AI deployment. Without such protections, even the most advanced tools could erode trust in legal processes and compromise the integrity of justice systems.

The Digital Divide and the Road Ahead

From a development perspective, AI threatens to widen an already significant digital gap. The B-READY report shows high-income economies averaging 69 percent digitalization in commercial dispute resolution, upper-middle-income countries at 50 percent, lower-middle-income countries at 24 percent, and low-income economies at just 13 percent, once Rwanda’s exceptional score of 82.87 is excluded. Rwanda’s example demonstrates that income level alone does not dictate success, but such cases are rare. The IMF’s AI Preparedness Index paints a similar picture: advanced economies score 0.68 out of 1, emerging markets 0.46, and low-income economies 0.32, meaning poorer nations must more than double their readiness to compete. Closing this gap will require major investments in infrastructure, human capital, technological innovation, and enabling legal frameworks. Without coordinated global action, AI in law could amplify inequality rather than bridging divides.

 AI is set to accelerate its penetration into the legal sector, promising substantial gains in efficiency, speed, and strategic capability. From automating document review to predicting case outcomes, its tools could revolutionize commercial dispute resolution. Yet the challenges, cultural resistance, misaligned incentives, high implementation costs, and pressing ethical questions are real and immediate. Equally urgent is the need to address global disparities in readiness, ensuring that developing economies have the resources, skills, and governance structures to adopt AI effectively. Without deliberate, inclusive strategies, the next wave of technological transformation risks entrenching existing inequalities in access to justice and legal innovation, leaving large parts of the world on the sidelines of AI’s legal revolution.