by Grâce Yohann N’GUESSAN and Clara Faravel
On Wednesday, 9 April 2025, as part of Paris Arbitration Week 2025, Jus Mundi, in collaboration with Eversheds Sutherland, hosted the Jus Mundi AI Summit, a conference addressing the impact of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on international arbitration.
The event kickstarted with Mr Jean-Rémi de Maistre (CEO and co-founder of Jus Mundi), who set the stage by outlining the program of discussion, structured around two panels. The first panel delved into the technical intricacies of AI, and the second shifted focus to the ethical implications surrounding AI.
Mr De Maistre introduced Jus Mundi, a global legal tech company founded in 2019, which collaborates with over 70 institutions to provide seamless access to arbitration-related information through its extensive legal database. The platform is designed in a user-friendly structure, ensuring easy navigation and accessibility, thereby facilitating everyday research for legal professionals. At the heart of his presentation was Jus AI, an AI-powered legal assistant crafted to enhance legal research in arbitration. This tool accelerates the research for arbitral awards, provides detailed summaries, translates legal documents, and assists in drafting legal arguments, all through an intuitive interface that simplifies complex tasks. Mr De Maistre also unveiled a new feature: the ability to reconstruct the timeline of key events in complex disputes.
Mr De Maistre further elaborated on key AI concepts, including Large Language Models (“LLMs”) and the systems that influence output results. He distinguished between three levels of AI autonomy: the basic level, known as “Chain”, where autonomy is limited; the intermediate level, referred to as “Router”, where the AI can determine potential courses of action; and the advanced level, termed “Agentic”, where the user sets an objective, and the AI autonomously determines the steps to achieve it. Following the introduction of agentic AI, he illustrated the potential risks associated with unsupervised AI use by presenting a film excerpt and a real-world AI prompt example.
The floor was then given to Mr Claude Kirchner (the President of the National Digital Ethics Advisory Committee in France (C.C.N.E.N)), who presented the work of the Committee and highlighted the importance of ethics in the development and utilisation of AI.
The first panel, moderated by Mrs Gillian Forsyth (Senior Partner at Eversheds Sutherland), featured Mrs Marina Stavrinides (General Counsel at Centric Software), Mr Romain Lerallut (Vice President and Head of the Criteo AI Lab), and Jean-Rémi. Together, they explored the theme: “Agentic AI: The Next Frontier for Legal Professionals?”
Mrs Forsyth initiated the discussion by asking panellists how AI has impacted their respective sectors. All agreed that AI has been transformative. Mrs Stavrinides highlighted its role in optimising business operations, enhancing client experiences, and serving as an effective management tool. Mr Lerallut, who specialises in digital advertising, discussed the use of AI in improving ad appeal and helping retailers monetise their products. Mr De Maistre compared AI’s impact to the significant influence that Excel has had in the field of accounting.
The discussion then navigated towards the challenges posed by AI. Mrs Stavrinides pointed out the paradox of adaptation, where companies, in their quest to integrate AI, might find themselves facing more work rather than less. Mr Lerallut shed light on the complexities surrounding data disclosure and its economic value, observing a shift from outright opposition to a more nuanced approach of defining fair economic compensation. In this regard, Mr De Maistre noted three key challenges: confidentiality, security, and regulation. He illustrated how Jus Mundi safeguards data through the employment of advanced encryption protocols that ensure and maintain confidentiality. He introduced the “Bug Bounty” system, a clever initiative where ethical hackers are financially rewarded for uncovering and reporting software vulnerabilities, turning potential threats into opportunities for fortification.
Agentic AI returned to the forefront of the discussion when Mrs Forsyth inquired as to whether it was already making a tangible impact within their organisations. Mrs Stavrinides affirmed that there is a growing interest from clients, particularly in the luxury sector, where AI is being employed to personalise marketing strategies and refine product offerings to better meet customer preferences. Mr Lerallut discussed how Agentic AI is fostering creativity by allowing teams to focus on innovative solutions while automating routine tasks, such as summarising meetings, thereby improving efficiency and productivity.
Mrs Forsyth then raised the issue of AI hallucinations (false outputs) and the question of liability in the event of errors. Mrs Stavrinides stated that the quality of AI output depends largely on input quality. Mr Lerallut agreed, stressing the need to educate users on technological limitations. He compared AI mistakes to human error, suggesting that they should be understood and managed rather than expected to be completely eliminated.
The topic of AI replacing human resources was also addressed. Mr Lerallut explored the potential of using AI to carry out tasks typically handled by junior engineers, with senior professionals overseeing its work. However, he cautioned that this could in fine hinder the professional development pipeline by reducing opportunities for junior staff to gain experience and grow in their roles.
The panel concluded with a discussion on AI’s role in dispute resolution. Mr De Maistre acknowledged that while the legal field has been slow to embrace AI, it is now rapidly catching up. He emphasised that AI significantly boosts efficiency and productivity for legal professionals, but pointed out that some roles, particularly those of arbitrators, necessitate human judgment and cannot be entrusted to AI systems.
The second panel, moderated by Mr Alexandre Vagenheim (Vice President of Global Legal Data at Jus Mundi), featured Mrs Claire Morel de Westgaver (Partner at Ontier), Mrs Chiann Bao (Arbitrator at Arbitration Chambers), and Mr Louis Degos (President-elect of the Paris Bar Association and Managing Partner at K&L Gates). They addressed the topic: “The Rise of a Global AI Governance Framework”.
Mrs Morel de Westgaver introduced the Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration 2025, developed by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”), highlighting the risks associated with AI use and emphasising the importance of applying AI in a way that considers the specific context of every situation. However, she noted that this context-specific approach makes it difficult to implement universal standards.
Mrs Bao, taking a more optimistic stance, envisioned a regulatory framework akin to a “traffic light system” to guide arbitration practitioners. She pointed to China, where digital systems are already highly integrated, as a potential model for AI adoption in dispute resolution.
Mr Degos compared AI-generated errors to human mistakes, referencing cases where lawyers were sanctioned for using ChatGPT. He argued that these errors are not “ordinary” and raised the issue of professional secrecy, affirming that confidential legal information shall not be disclosed.
A video presentation from Mr Kilian Gross (Head of Unit for AI Policy Coordination and Development at the European Commission) outlined the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024/1689). The regulation seeks to strike a balance between fostering innovation and managing risk, aiming to ensure the ethical adoption of AI technologies.
The closing remarks were delivered by Mr Wesley Pydiamah (Head of the International Arbitration Practice at Eversheds Sutherland), who reflected on the coexistence of lawyers and AI. In his view, while AI will not replace international legal professionals, those who fail to adopt these tools risk being outpaced by those who do. He concluded by affirming that AI presents a substantial opportunity to promote efficiency and control costs in arbitration.