You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 11, 2023

Automated Justice: Use of AI in the Resolution of Disputes

Subscribe to Updates

Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law.

Litigation Outcome Prediction

The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools.

Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations. For example, France has passed legislation prohibiting the use of AI tools to analyze judicial behavior. Lawyers may also need to consider if their liability insurance covers negligence or malpractice claims arising as a result of their use of AI.

Robot Judges

A more controversial matter is the use of AI by courts to make decisions. Last month, Sundaresh Menon, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore, gave a speech stating that Singapore is unlikely to use AI in adjudication, whereas in the UK, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has suggested that in time certain judicial decisions may begin to be made by AI.

For now, there are few, if any, courts that use automated decision making. However, the use of AI to assist judges is not uncommon. In the US, many courts use the COMPAS system to help determine criminal sentences, a practice that has been upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Malaysian courts have experimented with similar AI systems. More recently, judges in Colombia and Pakistan have used ChatGPT to assist with preparing judgments. By far the most advanced case study is China, where AI is used in a number of “smart courts” to automate transcription, analyze evidence, recommend decisions, and monitor the consistency of judgments with past case law.

Benefits and Risks

The use of AI to help resolve legal disputes could have several potential benefits for the parties. A large number of legal disputes are small in value and involve relatively simple issues. The ability of AI to resolve such matters quickly, cheaply, and consistently will save costs, broadening access to justice, and time, cutting court backlogs. Even in higher-value disputes, the use of predictive AI may assist the parties in reaching an earlier settlement, avoiding the cost and risks of a full trial.

There are, however, reasons for caution, which explain why courts in most jurisdictions have been slow to take up AI. First, the development of reliable AI tools depends on the digitization of large volumes of legal precedent. Many jurisdictions, including some in Southeast Asia, lack well-managed depositories for court judgments. Where tools can be built, training AI models on existing datasets creates the risk of perpetuating bias and could hinder the development of the law through the application of precedent to new facts. There is also the risk that private parties using AI tools to settle disputes could seek to adjust the AI in such a way as to benefit their claim, although legislation, such as the Computer Crimes Act in Thailand, may protect against this.

More broadly, AI tools do not engage in legal reasoning. Lex Machina, for example, makes accurate outcome predictions using information about cases, such as the judge, the lawyers, and the issues, rather than by analyzing the text of past case law. The lack of transparency and understandable logic may inhibit parties and judges from challenging automated decisions. The removal of judges from the decision-making process could also lead to a loss of human discretion, which is key to ensuring that judgments are both fair and seen by the parties to be so.

Lawyers and parties to legal disputes should keep updated on new AI tools that they can use to their advantage. However, for now at least, it seems human judges and physical court rooms will continue to be the norm.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More