Digital Dispute Resolution and Adjudication: What’s Next?

Introduction

Dispute resolution has undergone a transformation in the last decade, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID) and the adoption of digital technologies. The rise of Zoom and other virtual platforms has not only altered the technical requirements of mediation but has also reshaped its substance, accessibility, and human dynamics. Looking ahead, artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to further redefine how disputes are managed, resolved, and even predicted.

The Shift to Virtual Mediation

Before 2020, mediation was usually a face-to-face process, valued for its personal connection. The onset of COVID forced everyone to pivot almost overnight to virtual platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. What began as an emergency measure has since evolved into the norm of modern dispute resolution.

This transition brought with it a host of technical adjustments. Mediators had to master new digital tools—from screen-sharing and breakout rooms to virtual whiteboards and secure document sharing. Parties, too, had to adapt—ensuring reliable internet connections, access to devices, and conferencing etiquette. These demands elevated the role of the mediator from not just a facilitator of dialogue, but also a digital conductor, responsible for managing both the human and technological aspects of the process.

Substantive Changes in the Mediation Process

The change has not just been logistical; it has also changed the substance and psychology of mediation. Communication—the lifeblood of mediation—has been both enhanced and constrained by technology.

On the positive side, virtual mediation has expanded access to justice. Parties separated by geography or hampered by mobility or cost can now participate with ease. Scheduling is more flexible, reducing the time and expense of in-person sessions.

However, the loss of physical presence can also dilute the empathetic and emotional dimensions that often drive resolution. It is more difficult to read nonverbal cues—body language, eye contact, and subtle gestures —that signal openness or resistance.  

Steven Pinker, in “When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life”,  argues that in person, common knowledge is established through direct, non-verbal signals like eye contact, blushing, and laughter, which make feelings and intentions self-evident. Virtually, individuals lack the immediate visual feedback of seeing the same exact content as everyone else, which can distort or complicate the creation and denial of common knowledge, leading to phenomena like "echo chambers". 

In family law mediations, where there are many family violence concerns, this dilution can sometimes be an advantage. It may help reduce the risk of re-traumatization and allow for more joint sessions, rather than “shuttle” mediation.

Virtual mediation also raises new confidentiality concerns: participants can record sessions, share screens inadvertently, or face interruptions in their home environments that challenge the privacy of the process.

Despite these challenges, experienced mediators have adapted creatively. Virtual “breakout rooms” simulate private caucuses. Digital tools such as shared documents facilitate consensus-building, and clear protocols for confidentiality and etiquette have become standard practice. In most cases, parties, counsel, and mediators report that the efficiency and convenience of online mediation outweigh its limitations, suggesting virtual mediations will become the norm.

Technical and Ethical Considerations

The shift to online mediation has introduced a new layer of technical and ethical responsibility. Mediators must now ensure that their chosen platforms comply with data protection and privacy laws. Established platforms like Zoom and Microsoft teams have essentially taken care of those concerns for their consumers.

Training and accreditation bodies have also begun incorporating digital competency into their education. A mediator’s effectiveness increasingly depends on their ability to manage online dynamics—controlling participation, maintaining virtual neutrality, and troubleshooting disruptions. This is an evolution from a purely interpersonal discipline into one that blends human empathy with technological fluency.

What is Next? The Role of AI in the Future of Mediation

How will AI transform dispute resolution and adjudication? At this stage, the extent to which AI will be transformative or disruptive is unclear. While the human element cannot be replaced, AI systems are already infiltrating the process in several ways:

• Pre-Mediation Analysis: AI tools can analyze large volumes of information to identify key issues, emotional tone, and potential areas of agreement. This allows parties and mediators to enter sessions better prepared and focused.
• Predictive Insights: Machine learning models trained in past outcomes could help estimate likely resolutions or settlement ranges, offering parties data-driven perspectives without dictating results.
• AI-Powered Platforms: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal already uses digital triage tools to guide parties through negotiation and early resolution.
• Language and Accessibility: AI translation and transcription tools can break linguistic and accessibility barriers, enabling inclusivity.

However, these advancements raise ethical and philosophical questions. Can AI truly understand the emotional and relational nuances of human conflict? Who bears responsibility for bias or errors in AI-generated recommendations? The challenge will be ensuring that technology remains a tool for empowerment—augmenting, not replacing, the adjudicator or mediator’s human judgment and empathy.

Conclusion

Virtual mediation has proven that justice and collaboration need not be confined to physical spaces. Technology has broadened access, improved efficiency, and redefined professional practice—while also demanding new technical skills and ethical vigilance.

As AI and digital platforms continue to advance, the essence of mediation must remain rooted in dialogue, trust, and human connection. Technology will undoubtedly change the way mediations are conducted, but its true potential lies in supporting—not supplanting —the mediator’s role as a facilitator. The future of dispute resolution will be neither purely human nor purely digital, but a hybrid of empathy and innovation —where justice is as accessible as it is humane.

(Footnote: the author employed the use of AI in formatting and creating a structure for this article. He then edited significantly to add his voice and also cull numerous inaccurate references)