WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL ROLE AND IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY IN DISPUTE
RESOLUTION?
Word Count: 3236
, When the role, and resulting impact of technology within the complexities of our dispute resolution
system is considered, the words of the man spearheading its modern upheaval, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
Master of Scrolls, Head of Civil Justice, describe it best: “Many lawyers think that the highest
pinnacles of digital justice are achieved by using Teams, Webex, Google Meet or Zoom for a dispute
resolution hearing, perhaps even involving arbitrators located in different countries. They might also
think that the use of e-filing and PDF bundles or a digital document disclosure programme will turn
the current systems into state-of-the-art automation of the dispute resolution process. I respectfully
disagree. These things are, of course, all fine. But what I mean by digital justice is an entirely smart
system that operates online, or even on-chain, to identify and resolve the issues between the parties in
a far more streamlined and efficient way than the current pleading-based processes. Judges,
arbitrators, or experts will still be responsible for the ultimate decision making, but routine or interim
processes may be automated and resolved by algorithms, always provided that the parties know what
AI is deciding and retain the right of appeal to a human judge”.
In that vein, while this response will mention how technology has borne the fruits of electronic
bundles, online courts, and more in passing, its focus will remain on changes to e-discovery in light of
cloud solutions, hearings post-pandemic, and the newest developments owed to AI and machine
learning, particularly ChatGPT. It will describe the role these technological advancements have
played, or the pushback thereof, in the realm of dispute resolution, and whether such roles have been
capable of levying a positive impact.
E-discovery—The Cloud, Artificial Intelligence
E-discovery is a novel concept in itself, at least in comparison to traditional modes of evidential
interchange. Electronic storage of information (ESI) has only been implemented as recently as 2005,
in both the US and UK,1 and has allowed the discovery process to not only become efficient, but
effective. Mathewman describes the previous regime to have “no concern for cost, proportionality, or
burdensomeness”, as attorneys would put in requests for virtually all they could, and the opposing
party would respond by submitting constant objections.2 The switch to an electronic means of storage
allowed a linear, structured paradigm to replace the last. With time, nonetheless, it came to be that e-
discovery became cost ineffective, with firms often needing bulky hardware and pricy software to
sustain it. E-discovery based in the cloud may present as a one-stop solution to this, providing
essentially unlimited storage, and the magnified ability to keep client data in-house. However, because
of rapidly developing technology, and the ardent use of social media leading to information
transforming rapidly, the correct storage solution is needed to preserve documents suitably. Fast v.
GoDaddy.com proves as a caveat, where critical Facebook posts were not preserved. Cloud storage
would be able to rectify a matter such as this, all the while, allowing greater collaboration between
advocates. The 2022 E-discovery Innovation Report by Everlaw found that cloud options were
increasingly being adopted, with 66% more participants agreeing it to be the standard approach from
the report’s findings in 2021.3 Those who had not welcomed change, reported 37% more issues, often
complaining more about speed than their cloud-investing counterparts. 4
To take it a step further, Womble Bond Dickinson reports that of all the areas AI is optimising,
lawyers are most familiar with that associated with e-discovery, or particularly, Technology Assisted
Review (TAR), whereby software assesses a high volume of documents for the purpose (predictive
coding). This is such a popular use, that even the High Court sanctioned it in Pyrrho Investments v.
MWB Property. The suit was over concerns of accuracy, but the ruling ultimately decided that
predictive coding was not only cost-saving, but more reliable than a human review process. It should
1
The Growth of E-Discovery, All About Law
2
Towards a New Paradigm for E-Discovery in Civil Litigation: A Judicial Perspective, William Mathewman
3
2022 E-discovery Report, Everlaw
4
Ibid
