Many colleagues at the AALS ADR Section Works-in-Progress Conference focused on various aspects of artificial intelligence (AI).  Their papers included the following:

• The Bots are Coming: How Can Law Professors Stay One Step Ahead?, Hal Abramson (Touro)
• Detecting and Challenging AI Drafted Arbitration Awards, Rishi Batra (McGeorge)
• Data Resolution: How AI Agents Change Conflict, Simon Boehme (UC Law SF)
• Using AI in the Negotiation Classroom – Pros, Cons, and Learning, Jeanne Brett (Negotiation and Team Resources)
• Real Hypothetical Negotiations, Bernard Chao (Denver)
• Creating Bots and Avatars: How They Can Help Us Teach, and What We Learn as We Build Them, Dwight Golann (UC Law SF)
• Kicking the Can to AI: Contracting for AI-Selection of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, Jennifer Kenter (Quinnipiac)
• Maximizing Benefits and Minimizing Risks of AI in Legal Education, John Lande (Missouri)
• Shhh . . . AI Is Listening, Lauren Newell (Campbell)

Some papers focused on the use of AI in legal and dispute resolution practice.  For example, Lauren Newell considered ethical implications of negotiators wearing AI-powered recording devices during negotiations, especially without other participants’ knowledge or consent.  Jennifer Kenter hypothesized about contracting parties using dispute resolution clauses that delegate process decisions to specialized AI tools after a dispute arises.  Rishi Batra discussed legal issues when arbitrators allegedly use AI in drafting awards.  Bernard Chao critiqued courts’ use of “hypothetical negotiations” to retroactively value rights in patent disputes, arguing that courts often rely on unrealistic assumptions about what the parties would have agreed to if they had negotiated.  He described an intriguing experiment in which AI bots negotiated with each other to determine the value of patent rights.  Simon Boehme explored how AI agents perceive, reason, and act in negotiation – and what happens when they begin to negotiate not only with humans but with each other.

Several scholars examined the implications for legal education.  Hal Abramson asked what human law professors can uniquely offer as bots become capable of teaching core concepts and assisting students in negotiation and contract courses.  Dwight Golann examined the potential and challenges of designing bots to serve as “sparring partners” for students, noting bots’ ability to pick up subtle emotional signals even at this early stage of AI development.  Jeanne Brett described pros and cons of using AI to teach negotiation.  John Lande conducted a focus group about colleagues’ experiences and perspectives about use of AI in legal education.

Oh yeah – some colleagues talked about a couple of other ADR issues too. 🙂

Using AI to Help Produce High-Quality Scholarship

I talked with several people who use AI for some tasks but not for writing, and they were curious how I do it.  This post describes my approach.  Another post, Using AI to Improve Your Writing (Without Losing Your Voice), offers suggestions for how you might use AI in your own writing process.

For an excellent in-depth analysis, see Kevin Frazier and Alan Z. Rozenshtein’s article, Large Language Scholarship.  They discuss, among other things, how scholars’ use of AI will affect hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions.

A caution for pre-tenured colleagues: check with relevant faculty in your school about what would be considered appropriate or inappropriate use of AI in your work.  Note that AI may be acceptable to perform some tasks but not others.

Hosting the WIP

Finally, I want to express appreciation for the outstanding job that UC Law San Francisco did in hosting the WIP.  This included Hiro Aragaki, the director of their Center for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, Clark Freshman, Karen Grayson, Corey Linehan, and a great team of student volunteers.  They developed an innovative format for ideas-in-progress panels and used technology to provide immediate feedback.  They even seamlessly managed a day-long Wi-Fi blackout – gasp! – on Friday.

Maybe someday you’ll get a chance to be hosted at Mizzou’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution – smack dab in the middle of the country – now in our fifth decade.