On today’s Legally Speaking Podcast, I’m joined by three fantastic guests from the world of disputes. 

First, Loukas Mistelis, International Arbitration Partner at Clyde & Co, Professor of Transnational Commercial Law and Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London and Co-Chair of London International Disputes Week. Next, returning guest Henrietta (Hetti) Jackson-Stops, mediator, Partner of IPOS Mediation, founder of Simply Resolved, former Allen & Overy litigator, former Government lawyer, and currently leading the LegalTech Showcase at LIDW. And also returning to the show, Emilie Jones, Legal Director and Barrister at Pinsent Masons, Co-Chair of London International Disputes Week, specialising in commercial litigation and leading Pinsent Masons’ Litigation and Regulatory practice development function.

This episode is all about the modern litigator and arbitrator, and how legal tech and AI are changing dispute resolution in practice, not just in principle. Because the real question is no longer whether change is coming. It is what has actually changed, what is genuinely adding value, and what still depends on human judgment. So today, we are getting into the realities of modern disputes practice, the opportunities, the risks and what great litigators and arbitrators need to look like in 2026.

So why should you be listening in? 

You can hear Rob, Loukas, Hetti and Emilie discussing:

– Artificial Intelligence Enhancing Efficiency In Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation

– Online Dispute Resolution Expanding Cross-Border Collaboration and Accessibility

– Document Review Technology Transforming Complex Case Management

– Human Judgment Remaining Essential Despite Rapid Legal Tech Adoption

– Legal Professionals Focusing On Practical Value Beyond AI Hype.

Connect with Emilie Jones here – https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilie-j-a32415162

Connect with Loukas Mistelis here – https://uk.linkedin.com/in/prof-loukas-mistelis-fciarb-0a736b1b

Connect with Henrietta Jackson-Stops here – https://uk.linkedin.com/in/henrietta-hetti-jackson-stops-2331482

Transcript

The way that I’m using tech and particularly AI at the moment to create content to develop brand voice is hugely beneficial for a small business such as Ipos not to have to go out to the external consultant for that marketing content. Justice delayed is justice denied. If we effectively use the available legal technology, I think we can accelerate matters quite a bit and get a better level of efficiency. If you look at where we are in the legal profession and you know something about that as well. Rob, there’s a bit more longevity and the technical literacy of users is problematic. There is that hype and I think it will continue to an extent because there is always something new, new things look great, everything demos well, but our job is to think what will really move the dial, what will help me to better serve my clients, what will help me to win new work, what will help us to be more profitable. And those are difficult questions which I think a lot of lawyers are still wrestling with.

On today’s legally speaking podcast, I’m delighted to be joined by three fantastic guests from the world of disputes. Firstly, Loukas Mistelis, International Arbitration Partner at Clyde Co., Professor of Transnational Commercial Law and Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, and co chair of the London International Disputes Week, L I D W. Next returning guest, Hetti Jackson-Stops, mediator, partner of IPOS Mediation Project.

Founder of Simply Resolved, former Alan and Overy litigator and former government lawyer, and currently leading the Legal Tech Showcase at LIDW. And also returning to the show, Emilie Jones, legal director and barrister at Pinson Masons, co-chair of the London International Disputes Suite, specializing in commercial litigation and leading Pinson Mason’s litigation and regulatory practice development function.

This episode is all about the modern litigator and arbitrator and how Legal Tech AI are changing dispute resolution in practice, not just principle. Because the real question is no longer whether change is coming, it’s what has actually changed, what is genuinely adding value, and what still depends on human judgment. So today we’re getting into the realities of modern disputes practice and

The opportunities, the risks, and what great litigators and arbitrators need to look like in twenty twenty six and beyond. So a very big warm welcome all. Hi Rob. Hello Rob. Hi Rob. Great to have all three of you with us today. And before we get into the serious stuff, we have three cheeky icebreaker questions. Firstly, what is your favorite beverage? And secondly, what is your preferred choice of footwear on a typical workday? Coming to you first, Loukas, then Hetty, then Emilie.

Thank you Rob. I mean my preferred beverage is always sparkling water, actually pretty cold sparkling water. If I’m not at work, I I do like ⁓ a gin and tonic. Now you you said the qualification of work and normally ⁓ as a male lawyer these days I still think that it’s better to have normal shoes. If I have the choice, I will have Birkenstock or Doctor Soul sandals. There we go. Good choices. Coming to you, Hetty, next.

And for me, a flat white every day. And on my feet, probably ⁓ trainers if I can get away with it on a work day. Like it. And Emilie? I’m a coffee one as well. ⁓ for me it’s a cappuccino, and don’t judge me, but any time of the day it’s a cappuccino. ⁓ and shoes, I still generally will wear heels when I’m in the office or in the city, but trainers if I can get away with it when I’m at home.

Hoping my Italian mother-in-law does not hear that early part of your response. And the ⁓ the third, of course, cheeky icebreaker question before we get into today, coming back to you, Loukas, what is one piece of legal tech or everyday technology you now rely on that would have seemed unthinkable earlier in your career? I often use working in ⁓ multilingual environment, I often have to resort to machine translations by Google Translate. ⁓

I don’t always like to use the copilot automated answers in Outlook, but some emails just just deserve them. Good response. And Hetty, what’s one piece you can’t of tech you can’t live without now? I think it’d have to be my smartphone because showing my age, when I started my career, it was the BlackBerry. ⁓ so yeah, I think it’s probably the smartphone. BBM Messenger, I think.

Back in the day. And Emilie, how about you? Yeah, I mean, I was also gonna say my my iPhone. I mean, I you know, I remember the the days of kind of bringing my clerk after court to say had anything has anything come in while I’ve been out and also having a BlackBerry. So ⁓ but I also, you know, I I nowadays use Copilot every day. ⁓ so yeah, lots of things have changed, right?

Absolutely. And with that, we’re going to get into ⁓ all of your ⁓ interesting stuff that you’ve been getting up to. But to begin with, Loukas, would you mind telling us a bit about your background and also your perspective you bring to when it comes to litigation, arbitration and indeed legal innovation? I haven’t done litigation for almost twenty or thirty years, but I do arbitration exclusively in the last twenty five, thirty years. And arbitration has embraced technology much, much faster than other parts of the law.

So video conferencing, sort of remote examination of witnesses ⁓ have been quite common over the years. So so during COVID the transition to online hearing seems to have been quite ⁓ simple. Of course, there was always the question about three hundred and sixty degrees cameras, there was question about sort of

quality of of connection. But arbitration has embraced technology ⁓ for a very long time. Now the problem of course with modern litigation and arbitration is that it is incredibly incredibly document heavy. So we started using ⁓ AI models because it simplifies the access to documents. We can identify repet repetitions, we can identify discrepancies.

And in the last perhaps I was quite a sceptic to be to be fair, but in the last twenty four months we have been using AEI platforms ⁓ for various stages in the drafting of of of pleadings, not for the drafting itself itself, mostly as a document management system and ⁓ as a check that we don’t miss details that are on the record.

Thank you for sharing that. And it’s it’s interesting, isn’t it, the amount of changes and and transitions we see over the ⁓ over the years. ⁓ Hetty, obviously returning guests to the show. We know a little bit about your background, but please do give us a bit of a refresher and also your perspective you bring when it comes to ⁓ those particular areas as well and and generally legal innovation. Yeah, absolutely. ⁓ it’s great to be back. ⁓ I started life as a l a lawyer practicing litigation and arbitration, ⁓ spent ⁓ a few years working for the government legal department.

And then started running IPOS mediation ten years ago now. I have since we last spoke, Rob, ⁓ also developed an online dispute resolution platform. So my part as a and my role as a mediator, I’m looking at how we can make the the process more effective in the run up to mediation. I still believe in the the the use of a human mediator, but I think there is a lot that can be done with legal tech to get

parties to mediation, particularly those who are unsophisticated users, ⁓ unrepresented litigants and such. Just describing me there, basically. And Emilie, yourself returning guest to the show as well. Great to have you back. But feel free to just give a mini refresher on your background and also your perspective when it comes to all things sort of litigation, arbitration, legal innovation. Yeah, so I’m a legal director in the litigation and regulatory team here at here at Pince St. Masons.

And I focus on more on the litigation side, so on sort of complex commercial litigation, often with a cross-border ⁓ element. My career path, I suppose, has been slightly unusual. ⁓ and as a result, I think I kind of bring a range of perspectives. ⁓ so I started my career as a self-employed barrister ⁓ at a commercial set, and obviously I now work in a ⁓ large international law firm, but also I have a rather

a different role from most lawyers in that my work is principally not that of a kind of traditional ⁓ fee earning lawyer. I ⁓ my focus instead is on things like horizon scanning, thought leadership, developing new client propositions and ensuring we deliver effectively for our client in disputes matters. And of course, in recent years, a lot of that piece has been around how we best use

⁓ tech and unilaterally AI. Absolutely. And obviously it’s going to be a rich part of today’s discussion. But I want to sort of start maybe with then versus now. And Loukas coming to you, because before legal tech became very much mainstream, how would you describe the day-to-day reality of litigation arbitration? Appreciate modern times, a lot more arbitration on your side and recent times, but what were the biggest structural pain points at the time? Thank you, Rob. I think that’s that that gives me more opportunity to go back a bit because I don’t think I’ve given enough about my background.

I have had a rather unusual legal career in the sense that I have I qualified as a lawyer several years ago. ⁓ and but then when I started practice, I mean when I qualified, I did not start practicing in a traditional sense, but I almost immediately started practicing as ⁓ as an arbitrator on the back of being a full time academic. And and I went back to being a counsel

After about 18 or 20 years of being being an arbitrator. And I remember particularly with the academic hat ⁓ and working at an institution that has always had the law and technology as as its DNA, the Queen Mary University of London, we were having some of you might know it, but ⁓ I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t. But they were from about 2000, 2001, ⁓ CyberWix, ADR Cyber Weeks organized by

calling Rule and Ethan Katz and Amherst ⁓ College of Law. And a lot of that seemed to be sort of very much science fiction futurology. Because the idea was how we get computers to make decisions. And I think that has been set aside to some extent for some time. And then because technology was so present, I remember being involved in working groups particularly in the International Chamber of Commerce

arbitration ⁓ system about writing protocols that arbitrators and and parties can use about the use of technology. ⁓ w the debate these days is do you say something about AI? But then was what is the compliance that parties have to do about using a a file transfer ⁓ platform or what sort of bandwidth you want to have if you commit to have sort of ⁓ sounds very silly these days when you don’t have an an an a remote

examination of witnesses. So so it was very, very basic and and archaic, but a lot of the debate and the discussion w was there. So I think the first things we’ve done is the online hearings and the remote hearings. That came interesting enough first. Then the big debate was about transcripts, hearing transcripts, which are can be very voluminous, especially if you have a a hearing which goes over a week or two weeks, sometimes three weeks.

And and you have the adrenaline having made a cross cross examination, but you have to go back to the transcript to make sure that before you prepare for the following day that everything is is is correct. So this type of live note type structures and and became very parts very much part of our DNA. And then we there were things like document sort of management, sort of relativity and and document production platforms. So this started all very slowly, but

somehow they were not coordinated and I think there were different sort of pillars of technology, ⁓ but without without a without a foundation if you wish, or without perhaps even without a roof. And what we’ve seen in the last sort of five years, perhaps ten years when Law Tech has become a n not just a mainstream business but a very big business to support the law. We’ve seen that we try not to put the foundation and and and the roof which

engineers and architects would say that’s very bizarre. You normally start with the foundation and but we were putting pillars and the pillars have stood very very strong and now we we come to sort of to take a a bit of more of a holistic approach. So so that’s the what the at the very basic level collaborate or the like would do. But also systems that that ⁓ work on not a co or not on cost saving, not having to travel.

But on efficiency, how you use your time more effectively, how you don’t exhaust yourself by going through ⁓ one million pages of documents, because let’s let us be honest, no one can read one million pages of documents. And and a lot of the cases do have one million pages of documents.

Yeah, absolutely. And that’s where I think tech can be for for good and, you know, the overall well being and you know, hopefully lawyers getting out of the office to spend some more time with with with families and all of that stuff really really matters. So I guess coming to you then, Hetty, around sort of what’s genuinely changed, what developments over the last few years have have changed the way that you work and what now feels normal that would have perhaps seemed rather radical, you know, a good few years back. I think in them as a mediator, the key thing is and ⁓ reflecting what Loukas said is online mediation.

Which didn’t exist, you know, pre pandemic. That has completely changed our business in many ways. We’re now only at about nineteen percent of the mediations that we do are online. Everything went online in the pandemic and it meant that we could continue doing business. And it still has its place. ⁓ being able to to connect with parties who might feel more comfortable in their sitting rooms rather than in a in a ⁓ a shiny law firm’s offices means that they might

come to mediation in a more relaxed frame of mind or find the whole process more approachable. ⁓ But also the cross-border collaboration and the ability to to to to mediate across borders or to have speakers ⁓ you know joining from from overseas. You know, we’ve all seen hybrid events at, you know, ⁓ for example at L I DW there will be some speakers, you know, coming in

from abroad on on a screen and it will be like there in the room. You know, all of that has moved on massively. From our from a business point of view, the way that I’m using tech and particularly AI at the moment to on a marketing side to to to to create content, to develop brand voice is hugely beneficial for a small business ⁓ such as iPOS, you know, not to have to go out to the external consultant for that marketing content and to be able to create the the the brand voice and then and and then and then create the

the blogs or or the introductions or or whatever it is. website copy using AI is is hugely beneficial and and and time efficient. Absolutely. You know, I I I I tested it, I think done done well. You can be a huge amplifier through utilising these tools. Emilie, you’ve very patient there. There’s a lot of hype ⁓ around legal tech. You know, we’re seeing, you know, VCs chucking in a lot of money, multi billion dollar valuations, people hiring celebrities to get their legal tech noticed, et cetera, et cetera. So

You know, there’s a lot of noise in legal tech and AI and the CEOs of the big companies are telling you it’s a multi-trillion dollar opportunity, et cetera, et cetera. But from a sort of day-to-day perspective, beyond that hype, you know, what has genuinely moved from hype for you to become genuinely more useful in terms of your disputes practice? Yeah, it’s it’s a great question. And I think there is that hype, and I think it will continue to an extent because there is always something new.

You know, new things look great, things they you know, everything demos well, but our job is to think, okay, you know, what will really move the dial, what will help me to better serve my clients, what will help me to win new work, what will help us to be more profitable. And those are difficult questions, which I think a lot of lawyers are still kind of wrestling with. I think in terms of, you know, examples of where we have seen the most transformative impact. ⁓ you know, Loukas talked about the million documents that you often need to review in the context of a large dispute.

And that is, you know, that large-scale document review piece is the most mature area and you know where some form of AI has been in use for for years. ⁓ and now we’re starting to to feel the benefits of of of gen AI. ⁓ but that is genuinely transformative technology, which has changed the you know, the speed and the economics of those exercises completely. there are also ⁓ great tools which help lawyers.

kind of quickly digest and get to grips with factually what has happened. I think, you know, as disputes lawyers, frankly, any lawyers, everyone’s had the experience of kind of getting that dump of documents from a client who needs advice and they need it quickly because they’re dealing with business critical issues. And you’ve kind of got to really quickly marshal that information and work out a picture of what’s happened so that you can have a meaningful conversation with the client and start to develop a strategy.

And that sort of ⁓ you know, developing that chronology ⁓ used to be a really time consuming exercise. And I think that’s something where we’re seeing AI deliver, you know, really marked benefits so that the lawyers can more quickly get to the point of being able to, you know, think about the the the strategy, ⁓ which after all is what our clients really need from us.

Yeah, absolutely. It’s that sort of, you know, tech tech for good, but actually, you know, it’s that strategic thinking, it’s that human judgment, all of that, risk balancing where you really add the the value as the legal legal counsel. And so we’ve touched on a couple of use cases, but we’d love to come back to you, Loukas, in terms of, you know, legal tech particularly used well. We’ve talked about hype, but now let’s actually move to a more positive lens around sort of things that have been used really well. Is it in disclosure, case strategy, evidence management, hearings, collaborations, client reporting?

Tell us what are some of the best use cases you’ve seen, Loukas? Almo almost all my cases have a cross border element and often my clients are hundreds of miles or thousands of miles perhaps away. So the the collaborative approach is is very important, but ⁓ I I my concern has always been that we are very clear in engaging clients whenever we use technology.

So that they’re very much aware of of what use of technology we do and also we are clear as to what work product is ours and work produ what product is is not ours. ⁓ I found I mean in in my last three bigger cases in the last sort of twenty four months, we used to three different sort of ⁓ technology platforms. ⁓ I suppose I suspect ⁓ I haven’t

had any sponsorship, so will not mention any of them. But in in in one of them it’s advertised itself as being particularly good in setting the story, the factual background. And and I have to say they were particularly superb. In a case with a lot of documents, I were I was asking I was act I’m acting for the defendant. We fed ill on the documents. ⁓ and and effectively we also added the documents that we have in our possession. And it completely gave me a very

sort of detailed chronology in a closed system so there’s no fakes or problems. But but also it gave me discrepancies between the other side’s case and and the documents. And these were about, I think in this particular case, maybe 524 discrepancies. Which meant that somebody had to spend perhaps a couple of days to go through all of them. But it was much, much quicker than having to to go and review all of these documents independently. Because so this tunnel

vision meant that we did that very well. When it came to writing, ⁓ because it was so detailed, we haven’t used the cut and paste the function of the factual background. It would not have worked. We also have as a firm I suppose most lawyers have their own style and and we didn’t want that to interfere. But but it identifies sort of issues that we can raise and issue we can raise very effectively.

The in the other system we use our internal agentic copilot, which had a similar function, and which was prepared to go a bit further even to say what are the likely counterclaims on the basis of the facts. Or or or or I know that there’s a particular individual who’s key in some negotiation, so that will type the name and say, Can you please give me the interactions of this ⁓ person with the the client? And then as a matter of I mean I could have asked a trainee who has read all the documents.

or a junior associate. But I could do that for my own computer and get a response within sort of a couple of minutes. And and the response will be accurate and then I will take it to my team and then just have a very focused discussion. The third system we used, we used it very late and and and the question was whether we use it for cross examination purposes, s especially for experts. I mean some of the experts ⁓ reports are notoriously esoteric and

difficult to understand for most lawyers who are simple minded. But and and then so the we fed the ⁓ the expert reports and said which are the questions you would ask the expert on the other side. We came with a list of questions. Now of course when you get the list of questions it gives you also the list of likely answers which are pro one side and pro the other side. And again we we did that exercise once we have done our sort of

⁓ sort of ⁓ roadmap of the questions we’re going to ask the witnesses to see whether we’re missing something. We did not use the questions in that particular format because we thought the the counsel on the other side, a very big a very good firm as well, might have used the same system. It would be very much a scripted sort of ⁓ cross-examination. But I found that you going through the documents, the the evidence and and sort of ⁓ and also sort of preparing sort of questions

very, very effective. So the all the document management and they are integrated with other document management systems that everyone is using these days for that worked incredibly well. But also the collaboration, the fact that we can use sort of ⁓ very simple sort of ⁓ technological sort of platforms to exchange vast amount of documents with a client or or be on opposing sides on computers and feel like that we can w create a momentum, that’s very important.

I do have a bit of hesitation as to whether online hearings are ⁓ as good as one thinks. particular perhaps I’m treading in Hetty’s waters here. I think if there is a chance that the parties could settle the case, the the settlement would be easier if the parties are in the room, have seen the faces of the arbitrators and the reactions and

Over coffee they might just soften up a bit and sort of trying to engage in direct negotiations, which perhaps is an area where the logist would not be involved. But if all of that is being remoted, all it remains is that anger and the feel that you did not say what you have to say. So yes, it works very well for hearings, but I don’t think it always achieves the the whole range of of of opportunities. ⁓ but everything which is pre hearing and post hearing in my view is is absolutely excellent.

We really had ⁓ we have made our life quite a bit easier. without saving perhaps as much time as one thinks we do, but certainly saving maybe ten, fifteen percent of the time that we would have spent. Today’s legally speaking podcast episode is proudly sponsored by Clio.

If your legal management software feels more frustrating than helpful, you’re not alone. Many solicitors across the UK delay switching because moving client and case data sounds like a headache. CLIO makes it simple. As the intelligent legal work platform, Clio combines context-aware AI with trusted legal research to power your practice. And when you switch, their dedicated migrations team supports you every step of the way, ensuring a smooth transfer of your data.

You’ll also get award winning support twenty four five via live chat, phone and email. So help is always there when you need it. Ready to leave frustration behind? Visit Clio.com forward slash UK to learn more and discover why so many UK solicitors choose Clio. Now back to the show. Be coming to you now, Hetty, on some common mistakes really. you know, where do firms or teams or practitioners still get it wrong and what are the common blunders or overreaches you are seeing?

I think that in when I see parties come to mediation, ⁓ there are there are two things linked actually. ⁓ one is a failure to prepare properly for mediation and that is a failure to put your to to change from that that that adversarial mindset into a collaborative one, putting parties in putting yourself in the shoes of the other party and working out what you need to say to get them to say yes to what you’re asking.

‘Cause essentially you’re trying at mediation. You’re not going to you’re not going to persuade them that you’re right. ⁓ that’s never happened at mediation where a party comes in and says, ⁓ you know, yes, I’ve now listened to your arguments and I now absolutely agree with everything you say. No, that absolutely isn’t what happens. It’s about getting to a position where they can say yes to what you’re offering, and in order to do that, you need to really prepare and really put yourselves in the push shoes. And I know one in-house counsel who actually

gets her teams to roleplay mediations and plays the devil’s advocate and and one po one one team member plays the other side. ⁓ so I see that. I mean in perhaps less than than than previously as people become more familiar with mediation. You know, most most ⁓ lawyers are sophisticated users of mediation, but it does surprise me at times of the the the attitude of of of of some who come to the mediation table and are still worrying they’re very much

adversarial hat and you know if you shout across the table at the party on the other side you are not ⁓ going to get very far towards settlement. And that the second thing really is the the the human judgment, the human element of dispute resolution. You know, ignore that at your peril. ⁓ There is ⁓ and it’s a particular ⁓ favourite of ⁓ subject of mine, topic of mine, is you know, the psychology of negotiation, the psychology of dispute resolution.

⁓ you’ve got to, you know, r read Dale Carnegie’s ⁓ you know, How to Win Friends and Influence People before you come to mediation. It is it is a little dated, particularly in a chat about women in the in the home, and men in the workplace. But but but the principles are the same, you know, smile, ⁓ you know, ⁓ make friends with people. ⁓ we do deals with people we like, so you need to build rapport across that table.

⁓ and and and and try and build that trust and rapport across the table so that people are willing to s to say yes to what you’re proposing. ⁓ so I think I think it’s those those two things. I’m I’m o often surprised by the the failure to grasp the basics of hu human nature and and psychology of negotiation. Yep.

Smiles go for miles and war the rapport wins the war. I remember a mentor told me that, you know, rapport wins the war, and it’s so true. If you can get that rapport going, you absolutely will get influence and hopefully get, I guess, mediations settled. there’s a big London challenge though, Emilie. So want to come to you. You know, given London’s legal heritage, the legacy systems, what are some of the practical barriers that still exist to adopting new technology, particularly in dispute resolution? And how should firms and indeed tribunals think about accountability as they look to modernise?

I mean there’s a there’s a lot in that. I mean I think ⁓ to sort of try to unpick it a little bit the the the kind of the legal heritage points in relation to London. ⁓ one of the things I think is really ⁓ brilliant and exciting about London is that you do have this ⁓ you know these sort of preeminent dispute resolution ⁓ institutions and and and professions which are very long standing and and and highly regarded ⁓ internationally.

But we also have this kind of very leading legal tech industry which, you know, by and large go really well hand together, hand in hand. And I think that’s one of the things that makes it a great place to to practice and a great place to to resolve disputes. ⁓ you know, the other thing I I I would say just about about barriers is when we talk about things which hold us back, whether as practitioners or or institutions ⁓ or systems, you know, we shouldn’t necessarily think of those as

You know, in a negative sense, sometimes those are just really important things that we need to think about relating to you know risk and integrity. ⁓ you know, in commercial disputes, we’re dealing with you know lots of sensitive information, ⁓ large sums of of money often, ⁓ and and often with you know with parties that have chosen to resolve their disputes in a particular forum ⁓ because of ⁓ their view of the

process and the expertise that will lead to them getting an outcome in in that forum. So those are all things to be, you know, respected and and and protected. I think obviously there are some areas where there is room for improvement. You know, our courts are a public function and there are legacy systems and older buildings. So things like online dispute resolution platforms and

the kind of ability to sort of plug and play trial technology in in court buildings, you know, those will be things that will inevitably continue to evolve. And I do believe we will see that. I suppose moving on to the kind of accountability piece, I think the most important thing to say about accountability, ⁓ whether you’re a practitioner or a or a tribunal is that it can’t be

outsourced, we need to all be thinking about that whenever we are, you know, selecting or designing a tool, when we’re engaging with clients or users about a tool, when we’re reviewing the output of of AI tools. So yeah, really, you know, we’ve all seen the cases about hallucinated case law authorities and the need to check that your submissions don’t contain those. But I think it goes beyond that. You know, we we need to be able to explain and and justify the approaches that we’ve taken.

Yeah, no, and thank you for ⁓ for for highlighting that. And like you say, the system’s there to be respected as well. I think it’s a really valuable ⁓ and important point. ⁓ Loukas, coming to you now with a two part question. Hetty was touching on before the human judgment side of things, but also sort of want to look at impact on clients. You know, as these tools are getting better, where does the human judgment become even more important rather than less important? And perhaps as an extension of that, how have clients’ expectations changed in the advent of this sort of tech revolution?

Let me perhaps start with the second question because I I think is im I mean we have a c a key role as lawyers to engage with clients at all different levels and and especially even given the option of using technology where is appropriate. ⁓ therefore I think it’s good to be clear to clients. I mean we had ⁓ a client recently who ⁓ told which ⁓ who told us

that they have the an another firm that they have used in another case, they have used technology, they were very happy with the technology. So when the matter was raised ⁓ about certain uses of AI was absolutely no problem whatsoever. But ⁓ but because they’re hesitations, we also need to reassure them that strategy so drafting is ours, not so not ⁓ l left to the technology. Now ⁓ the other question about the human judgment, I I

We have seen development of platforms that do an automated dispute resolution ⁓ scenario ⁓ so effectively no human intervention for the judgment in smaller consumer cases, unpaid invoices, unpaid park fines, challenging park fines. ⁓ and and and that and and I think for these simpler legal matters ⁓ that will work very well.

The in the simpler cases where the problem might be is empathy. Think not perhaps of ⁓ not somebody having paid a p a park fine where of course everyone would be empathetic, but think but think about sort of an elderly person who ⁓ relies on the on a small state pension and does not meet a payment in sort of a loan that they have had put from the bank. I think there, for example, you could have a bit of a range of of of judgments depending on how much empathy

you can put on the system. Now, for the cases I would normally work, unfortunately I don’t do these ⁓ cases, although if I had time I would I will be spending a bit more time and doing a bit of this proponent work. Some of the judgments are very complex. Some of the cases are very complex. There are contractual matters, there’s legal matters, there’s issues of interpretation of the law, interpretation of the contract. You could in some of the simpler questions, is that a straight sort of

I don’t know, unjust enrichment or breach of contract, you might get the judgment. ⁓ auto automated, but what is the impact of that, making that assessment? I would like to ⁓ use somebody with a bit more of a of a of of a range of feelings if you wish, because it’s not just an automatic application of the law. The law says that, it’s not a sausage factor, you put the facts, that’s the outcome. So there’s the judgment somehow is I use the word empathy.

Perhaps that’s not the right term. ⁓ Hetti I’m sure will correct me on that. But but is is the range of feelings and and perhaps a lot of the cases that fall into some sort of a grey zone, which are not ⁓ one or the other, and that’s where the lawyer is. and I think for that we n we are effectively perhaps a gen a couple of generations away. But for the simpler matters, d well would declutter sort of the courts from very simple issues.

I I I see no reason why we we we have not moved a bit faster in that respect. The human judgment is not critical then. No, thank you for sharing that. Thank you for highlighting empathy and sort of touched on Hetty Hetty, did you do you have anything you wanted to to share there or a sort of a I guess extensional view or a a contradictory view on that? Yeah, I mean I think I think it’s I I agree with Lee because I think we need the human element of a judge you know, taking everything in con into consideration. as you said it the the law is not black and white and

So many times at mediation you have parties coming, you know, with completely different perspectives on the same facts. The facts are the same, but this their perspectives of who’s right and who’s wrong are completely different. ⁓ and I think that I that does apply even when you’re going before an arbitrary tribunal or or or a court as well. I think it I think it’s really important to retain that that that human element, ⁓ the empathy and the and the judgment, ⁓ I think ⁓ is particularly important.

No, absolutely. And other things that are important, coming back to you, Emilie, of course, are around trust fairness and and and risks. So as legal tech, you know, which we’ve talked a lot about is becoming more and more embedded. ⁓ what do lawyers and arbitrators need to be keeping front of mind when it comes to trust confidentiality, explainability and perhaps procedural fairness as well? Yeah, well I’ve I think I’ve touched a little bit on the kind of transparency, explainability points

⁓ those are really important. We’ve also obviously seen some dispute resolution institutions around the world developing rules and guidance about the use of AI, both in some instances for judges and tribunals, other times for users, parties, legal representatives. And often the focus of those is on that transparency piece. It’s on being able to explain as the court or the tribunal requires what you have.

Done, how you have used AI. And there are variations between those different rules. So, you know, we all need to make sure that we are across what the rules and guidance in the different forums in which we operate are, and that we have the kind of understanding and technic technical literacy to be able to explain clearly what we’ve done and why we’ve done it. So I think those are really important points for practitioners and tribunals.

Picking up on your point about confidentiality, confidentiality and legal professional privilege and maintaining those in the context of AI use are really important. There have been some cases recently, both in the US and here, on the kind of risks to confidentiality and privilege of clients’ data where it’s put into public AI tools. And so obviously that’s something that everyone needs to be really careful to avoid.

those are issues which have to be treated very, very seriously and very carefully. and of course, from a practitioner perspective, there might be some clients that simply say, I’m not comfortable with you putting my data into AI at this point in time. ⁓ and you know, obviously that needs to be respected as well. So there are a lot of things that we we all need to be thinking about, but also a lot of opportunity. And opportunity is the word which is

Really helpful for me to go next to Loukas because you know, where do you see the greatest potential for legal tech to really add value in disputes in the coming years? I think we are very close to getting to the right level of efficiency ⁓ and expedition. ⁓ I mean we’ve always been saying that justice delayed is justice denying. If if we can effectively use the available l legal technology, I I think we can accelerate

matters quite a bit and and get a better level of efficiency. Of course at the same time that’s also a challenge because if you look at where we are in the legal profession and and you know something about that as well, Rob yourself, there’s a a bit more longevity and the word has been mentioned already sort of the technical literacy of of of of users is problematic. I I think it could squeeze in the long run the mid tier of the l legal profession. You need a young

⁓ lawyers who are much more technologically astute. You need people to apply the judgment which are people with with a lot of experience. But I I think we’ll get the efficiency and I think perhaps any real any reluctance to use technology is very much in this senior associate mid tier level where they think the role and the direction of travel ⁓ might be is as as the the carpet falling under the legs. Sort of it’s like the the turkeys and and Christmas as we

Used to say. Yeah, and again, thank you for for for for sharing that and sort of want to stick on this, you know, and it’s an area I’m passionate about, legal careers, and have been around the world of legal careers and my own recruiting business for over a decade now and seeing things change. And the sort of modern disputes lawyer coming to you, Emilie, if you were advising the next generation of litigators and I guess arbitrators, what skills do you think they need beyond legal analysis, legal technical excellence to stay effective and basically relevant?

I would make two key points. One is around tech and one is again around the human piece, the human element. So I think, you know, an understanding of AI and tech, enthusiasm for tech and creative thinking about how it can be used is a huge asset. ⁓ and I think it’s really exciting for the new the next generation of of legal practitioners because ⁓ you know, frankly, and

No doubt with some exceptions, but you know, they know more than most of us and are more comfortable than than most of us in this area. So there’s a real opportunity for them to, you know, educate others and drive change and be at the at the forefront of it. ⁓ and I’ve definitely seen that here, you know, some really exciting examples of of juniors coming up with great ideas about the use of tech, and I find that really, really exciting. ⁓

The human element is really important though, I think, and we’ve touched upon this a little bit, but you know, I think it’s it’s almost more important than ever because what we have to think about is what are the aspects of our work that AI and tech can’t do. And for me, those aspects are about understanding clients, understanding their business objectives, what they’re really trying to achieve, ⁓ and thinking creatively about how to achieve those objectives.

Professional judgment. ⁓ and frankly, just ⁓ being the kind of person that someone is happy to work with in a high-stakes situation or up against a deadline on a business critical issue. So, you know, my advice to ⁓ junior lawyers would be to grab all of those opportunities that present themselves to you to do things like go on to comments, ⁓ go to events where you have in-house lawyers.

speaking or even just ⁓ present so that you really make the most of all those opportunities for for client engagement and to get client insight. Great advice. And talking of events, that leads very nicely to come back to you, Hetty, because we are recording the week that London International Disputes Week’s 2026 is taking place. So how does the forum like L I D W 26 help actually move the conversations from this sort of experimenting to best practice? And what discussions are you most looking forward to

In the legal tech showcase. Tell us more. I think what LIDW does is it brings together practitioners from around the world and thousands of them. ⁓ previously we’ve had 10,000 ⁓ delegates in London for the week. we’re hoping that this week we will see that, if not more. But practitioners from the world sharing thoughts, learning from each other, leading the way. And I think my

Previous co-chair colleague Luke had put it up, ⁓ it described it as putting up a big marquee under which everybody can come and have their discussions. And I think that is such a vital part of of of LIDW, but a vital element to LIDW because we’re all learning from each other. We’ve also got hundreds of member hosted events, you know, and these are all free events put on by law firms talking about topics that they believe are.

relevant and and interesting to audiences. And it amazes me the spread of those topics and the discussions being had. Yes, there’s a lot of talk about legal tech, ⁓ but from all sorts of angles, you know, how do we use it? How should we be using it? Some of the topics that we’ve covered in this conversation today, ⁓ the practicalities and the ethical issues arising from from from legal tech. ⁓ And then we also have a next gen

⁓ which used to be called Young and Young at Heart, but but has been rebranded as the LIDW Next Gen. And I and and as Emilie says, you know, bringing young practitioners into the room to learn from those who are more seasoned is is a really valuable part of LIDW. ⁓ I am particularly excited about the Legal Tech Showcase where we’ve got Sarah Sackman, KC MP, Minister of Court, Minister ⁓ for Courts and Legal Services, in a far side chat with

Shruti Ajitsera, who runs Fuse, ⁓ which was ⁓ based at ⁓ Alan Novry, sorry, ANO Sherman, as it’s now known, ⁓ was the first permanent incubator of legal tech in a in an international law firm. And that they started that up in 2017, and in their in their time they’ve had 90 legal tech firms through through that. ⁓ and I think that conversation between Shruti and ⁓ and the minister will be really interesting.

⁓ and then I also love we do three minute Dragon’s Den style pictures for our exhibitors, sponsors and and and startups who have legal tech products and I think getting your product into three minutes and demonstrating it brings ⁓ brilliant energy and innovation into the room. ⁓ so I’m particularly looking for forward to that.

Let’s say it’s fairly jam-packed, lots going on, a huge value add. And and yeah, and just talking of Dragons Den, folks should check out our episode with Piers Linny, who is former Dragons Den ⁓ investor and lawyer who’s been on the show, who talks a lot about the value pyramid, which is very relevant to today’s discussion, actually, when it comes to technology. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant, you as a service provider need to find a way of staying ahead of technology, which is exponentially getting better.

And what we’ve touched on throughout this conversation, that is that strategic thinking, it’s that value add, it’s that human judgment, because technology is is is is coming in. And I think that’s a really nice way of sort of bringing it full circle. And then coming back to you, Loukas, ⁓ perhaps one thing you would change, if you could change one thing tomorrow about how disputes world thinks about or indeed adopts legal tech, what would be that one change and why? I will say something with the risk of being possibly

publicly prosecuted by by lawyers. I I think there are two problems about the legal profession. First is generally quite conservative as a profession. And second, there’s quite a bit of focus on profit and and ⁓ billing. ⁓ I think these two ⁓ factors make onboarding technology a bit more complicated. So every time we suggest anyone suggests to any CTO at any law firm

in the city ⁓ that we need to buy this or have that that platform. The questions you get back not let’s explore it. So we get sort of ⁓ with a very long list of questions, cyber security, data, data privacy, GDPR. So you get five hundred answers for a what seems to be look a very good pro product. So I think they we need to be a bit more technophiles and and for and and accept that

the savings or the the the the impact on the fees and the billing ⁓ is not something that is immediately going to change. So that perhaps will reassure a lot of people. But but my view is that if you if you have efficiency and you complete a case quicker than otherwise, then you free your time, you d do go back to business development, you bring another case. And the reputation you get by turning cases around quickly and perhaps a bit more economically than others.

in the long run would be positive. So so I I would I wish that people are a bit more open minded, a bit more adventurous, prepared to sort of experiment with technology a bit more. but I know that th the norm in in the legal profession is a bit of a tradition and looking at the risk more rather than the opportunities. We we that’s why you always call about risk and opportunity at the same time.

I think it’s a really good point. And, you know, we’re we’re sponsored by Clio, the world’s largest sort of, you know, AI legal tech company. And they talk a lot about Jevron’s paradox and actually that, you know, to your point there, Loukas, that this is gonna increase demand for legal services. Just because you can do the job better, that is gonna free up a lot more time. So actually coming to the access to justice point that I think the cost of legal services potentially will go down, but the demand will go up.

So as a result of that, there’s still going to be very busy people doing perhaps slightly different tweaked roles in terms of the the modern legal professional, but definitely there’s going to be a need for you know, f and that’s why I’m very excited about the future of legal careers and people coming in. I don’t think there’s a better time to to to be involved. And maybe to bring this full circle then to some quick fire, quick close questions. I’ve really enjoyed hearing all of your insights today. It’s been great. Coming to you, Hetty, in one sentence, what does the modern litigator or arbitrator look like in twenty twenty six to you?

In a sentence, if you can. I think they are someone who can weigh things up, make sense of messy information and exercise clear judgment. I think where judgment judgment will be the differentiator because knowledge becomes le just creases in value what where where we have AI. So it’s all about exercising good judgment. Love that. Did that pretty well. Emilie, to you, same question in a sentence or two, if you can.

I would say they are embracing the opportunities that tech and evolving tech offer, but also really doubling down on the strategic value ⁓ that they bring by understanding their clients’ businesses and ⁓ the o the markets in which those clients operate. It’s a really important point, isn’t it? Becoming exceptionally client centric, even more so, and that builds up that trust.

And you know, all of the other things on the relationship capital side of things. Loukas, to you, in a sentence, if you can, what does a modern arbitrator look like in 2026? Somebody with a very high level of ⁓ emotional intelligence and common sense, perhaps more than traditional ⁓ intelligence, and someone who is very good at networking and connecting with people. So I I think the legal skills should be taken for granted. So it is all of the soft skills which make

You are both the head of soldiers and the rest, I think. Yeah, great great point. And I’m a big advocate, particularly on the emotional intelligence side of things as well. Emilie, gonna l pass it to you to to close it out. If our listeners want to follow ⁓ the work that’s being done or indeed get more information about LIDW, where can they go to find out more? We’ll also include any relevant links in this show for you too. Well, the main place is the L I DW website.

So no doubt you’ll include the the link to that. And we have there our full ⁓ program for the week ⁓ so people can look at what’s going on this week. and of course all of us have our you know websites and LinkedIn profiles which showcase the work that we do as individuals as well. Absolutely. And I encourage all of our listeners to go and give Loukas, Hetty and indeed Emilie a follow on LinkedIn.

And indeed, check out L I D W 2026. It’s going to be absolutely amazing. Just leads me to say thank you so much to all three of you for taking the time to join me. And welcome back, Hetty and Emilie. Loukas, hope you’ve enjoyed your first visit to the League of Steam podcast. It’s been a really valuable conversation, particularly around how litigation, arbitration’s evolving, you know, what modern disputes professionals need to look like in the world that is ever changing, in the world of legal tech, AI, and of

Course, those rising client expectations. So, from all of us here on the League of Speaking Podcast, sponsored by Clio, wishing you all continued lots of continued success. I’m hoping a very successful LIDW 2026. But for now, from all of us, over now. Thank you for listening to this week’s episode. If you like the content here, why not check out our world leading content and collaboration hub, the Legally Speaking Club, over on Discord.

Go to our website, www.legallyspeakingpodcast.com. There’s a link to join our community there. Over and out.