DRS Conference: The future of ADR

The Future of Dispute Resolution: Innovation, integrity, and inclusion

• Who's in control when machines start thinking like experts?
• Are we still selling "expert judgement" or increasingly "curated outputs"? Are we letting co-pilot sit in the pilot's seat?
• Stripping off the mask - should AI use be disclosed?
• Does AI disrupt fees? How ethically can you charge when AI has done the work?
• Could AI undermine our credibility, independence, or privilege?

• Have expert witnesses become too biased?
  • How are tribunals responding?
  • What can be done to restore trust?

Can we trust experts when they act as dispute resolvers: expert determiners, conflict avoidance panels, dispute board members.

• Has adjudication become arbitration by another name?
  • Can adjudication be what Latham wanted?
  • Do low-cost adjudication models actually work?

• Is construction arbitration overdue a comeback?
  • If so, is institutional arbitration worth the money?

• This House believes that Dispute Boards are effective but underused
  • Do dispute boards really work, and if so, why are they underused?   

• This House believes that Mediation is neither in demand nor fit for purpose
  • What's wrong with mediation? Why after half a century is it still a fringe activity?        

• This House believes that ADR has a diversity problem
  • Is enough being done to broaden access and visibility? 
  • What are the risks of a closed and self-selecting dispute resolution community? 
  • What must change now to attract, develop, and retain a more diverse, future-ready cohort of ADR practitioners? 

Looking ahead to the next decade, this closing session brings together the leading voices from the conference to share their predictions on how they believe ADR will evolve.

Covering all topics from technology and globalisation to changing user expectations, what will define dispute resolution in 2035, and what must change now to stay relevant?