Across Europe, Latin America, and beyond, courts and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) institutions are facing the same challenge: how to deliver justice that is faster, more accessible, and more trusted in an increasingly digital world. During the FutureLaw 2026 panel discussion "The New Age of Justice: AI-Powered Court and ADR Systems in a Hybrid Legal Landscape," moderated by Maya Markovich of the AAA-ICDR®, judicial leaders, legal innovators, and ADR experts explored how artificial intelligence, digital courts, and online dispute resolution are reshaping justice systems while raising important questions about transparency, legitimacy, and human oversight.
Throughout the discussion, moderator Markovich challenged panelists to consider not only how AI can improve efficiency, but also how it may affect trust, legitimacy, and participation in justice systems. The conversation made clear that the future of justice is unlikely to be fully human or fully automated. A hybrid model is emerging, combining technology-driven efficiency with human accountability and judgment.
AI Is Expanding Access to Justice
One of the strongest themes throughout the discussion was the role of AI in improving access to justice. Judges and legal professionals increasingly face overwhelming caseloads, while many individuals cannot afford legal representation or struggle to navigate complex procedures.
Estonian Judge Ruth Prigoda explained that AI can help courts manage large volumes of documents and make it easier for self-represented parties to engage with the legal system. Similarly, Dr. Benedikt M. Quarch noted that, in Germany, AI tools are helping individuals pursue social welfare claims in areas where legal representation is scarce. These developments illustrate how AI can lower barriers to participation and make justice systems more accessible to underserved populations.
Importantly, panelists emphasized that expanding access is not solely about automation. It is about creating practical pathways for people to pursue legitimate claims that might otherwise go unheard.
Digital Transformation Is Primarily a Cultural Challenge
While technology receives most of the attention, the panel repeatedly emphasized that the biggest obstacle to modernization is often cultural rather than technical.
Nicolás Lozada Pimiento, CEO of Latin America's first digital justice startup, argued that changing long-established habits and institutional mindsets is frequently more difficult than deploying new technology. Even in highly digitized jurisdictions such as Estonia, courts continue to grapple with legacy processes and resistance to change.
Prigoda observed that many courts are still digitizing paper-based processes rather than redesigning procedures for a truly digital environment. Likewise, Quarch pointed to examples where promising digital initiatives reproduced traditional procedural requirements, creating unnecessary complexity for users. Successful court digitization requires more than new tools—it requires reimagining how justice services are delivered.
ADR Has Become a Laboratory for Innovation
The panel highlighted how alternative dispute resolution has often moved faster than courts in adopting technology.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many court systems struggled to maintain operations, while mediation and arbitration providers rapidly transitioned to virtual hearings and digital case management. Lozada Pimiento noted that in Colombia, ADR institutions continued operating online while courts experienced significant disruptions.
This flexibility positions ADR as a valuable testing ground for legal innovation, particularly in high-volume disputes where technology can streamline processes while preserving procedural fairness. As institutions continue experimenting with hybrid models, lessons learned in ADR may help inform broader judicial modernization efforts.
Throughout the session, Markovich returned to the question of trust, asking panelists to consider not only whether AI can improve outcomes, but whether individuals will engage with justice systems that incorporate it. As she noted, “Whether you choose to take your problem to a neutral decision-maker depends on whether or not you trust the process.” Individuals frequently decide whether to pursue a claim based on whether they believe the process will deliver a meaningful result. Access to justice depends not only on technology, but also on confidence that the system will work.
Trust Depends on Transparency and Human Oversight
Perhaps the most important takeaway was that technology alone cannot create trust. Panelists agreed that AI-generated recommendations should never operate as a "black box,” though as Pimiento noted, “The ultimate black box is the human brain.” Courts, practitioners, and parties need to understand how systems reach conclusions, what data they rely on, and how decisions can be challenged.
Prigoda emphasized that if AI contributes to a recommendation or conclusion, users must understand how that result was generated: “If AI suggests something, you should know how it’s made.” Transparency is essential not only for accountability but also for ensuring meaningful appellate review and procedural fairness.
The discussion reinforced the importance of maintaining a human in the loop, particularly in matters involving evidence evaluation, procedural fairness, and judicial discretion. In a hybrid justice system, technology may assist, but accountability must remain clear.
Efficiency Is Also a Form of Justice
A recurring theme was that delays can undermine confidence in legal institutions as much as incorrect outcomes.
As Lozada Pimiento observed, "efficiency is also a form of justice." He shared examples from Colombia where disputes can take decades to resolve, citing cases lasting more than forty years. In such environments, improving speed and consistency is not simply an operational goal—it is a justice imperative. For jurisdictions struggling with lengthy delays, speed and consistency are not merely operational goals—they are essential components of a fair system.
Quarch echoed this point, arguing that faster and more predictable outcomes can strengthen public confidence in legal institutions. Delayed proceedings often discourage individuals from pursuing valid claims, while more efficient systems can improve trust and participation.
Looking Ahead: Balancing Innovation and Accountability
As courts, policymakers, and ADR providers continue to explore AI-enabled justice systems, panelists agreed that governance frameworks must strike a careful balance. Regulation should protect procedural rights and accountability without unnecessarily constraining innovation.
Several speakers emphasized the importance of involving judges, dispute resolution professionals, and justice-sector stakeholders in conversations about AI governance. Because technology is evolving rapidly, regulatory frameworks must remain flexible enough to accommodate innovation while maintaining public trust.
The panel ultimately suggested that the most successful justice systems will be those that embrace experimentation while preserving transparency, fairness, and human oversight. As Markovich observed throughout the discussion, technological advancement alone is not enough. The success of digital courts and AI-enabled dispute resolution will ultimately depend on whether users trust the process, understand how decisions are made, and believe that justice remains accessible, transparent, and fair. For courts and ADR providers alike, the challenge is no longer whether AI will play a role in justice systems, but how to deploy it in ways that strengthen both efficiency and legitimacy.
Practical Takeaway
The future of justice will likely be defined by carefully designed partnerships between people and technology. Courts and ADR providers that successfully combine AI-powered dispute resolution, transparent governance, and human oversight will be better positioned to expand access to justice, improve efficiency, and strengthen institutional trust.
For practitioners, policymakers, and dispute resolution professionals, the challenge is no longer whether AI will influence justice systems—it is how to implement AI responsibly while preserving legitimacy, fairness, and public confidence.
Maya Markovich is Vice President of the American Arbitration Association®-International Centre for Dispute Resolution® (AAA-ICDR®), where she leads initiatives focused on dispute resolution innovation, legal technology, and the responsible integration of artificial intelligence into justice systems. She regularly convenes global leaders from the judiciary, ADR institutions, academia, and industry to explore the future of justice.
Panel Title: The New Age of Justice: AI-Powered Court and ADR Systems in a Hybrid Legal Landscape
Date: May 15, 2026
Moderator: Maya Markovich, Vice President, AAA-ICDR®
Panelists:
- Ruth Prigoda, Judge, Tallinn Administrative Court (Estonia)
- Dr. Benedikt M. Quarch, Head of the German Legal Tech Hub
- Nicolás Lozada Pimiento, CEO of Latin America's first digital justice startup and Professor of Legal Innovation, Colombia