How AI has supercharged dispute resolution and arbitration

Colin Ruhl: The American Bar association believes in equality

Victor Lee: and fairness for every person.

Colin Ruhl: Together we can fight for greater access and transparency in the justice system. Let's champion human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. The American Bar Association. The strongest trial attorneys never stop learning.

Victor Lee: One of your most valuable resources is the Jury is Out, the podcast that brings together veteran litigators, constitutional scholars, patent experts and nationally recognized practitioners to sharpen your courtroom skills, deepen your strategy and strengthen your practice. The verdict's in. This is must listen on demand, game changing access, all guided by high level attorneys John Simon, Tim Cronin and Eric Veith. The Jury is Out as a production of Simon Law and is found on Legal Talk Network and wherever you get your best podcast.

Narrator: Welcome to the AVA Journal, uh, Legal Rebels podcast where we talk to men and women who are remaking the legal profession, changing the way the law is practiced and setting standards that will guide us into the future.

Victor Lee: The use of arbitration as an alternative to litigation has been rising for a while. While now, fueled by favorable Supreme Court rulings and long delays in the court system, arbitration has emerged as the faster, more streamlined option for parties looking to resolve disputes. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has supercharged arbitration even more, allowing for automated dispute resolution without the need for human experts to preside over matters. The American Arbitration association has been at the forefront of this, launching an AI arbitration tool which uses AI to summarize claims, analyze evidence and and generate draft awards and construction disputes. The tool is voluntary and is used mainly for document only cases. Arbitration, however, has its critics. Some claim it favors companies, while others point to its speed as insufficiently protective of parties, especially individuals. And of course, AI. Automated dispute resolution brings up a lot of other issues, including distrust of technology and consumer protection. My name is Victor Lee and I'm Assistant Managing Editor for the ABA Journal. My guest today is Colin Ruhl. Colin is President and CEO of ODR.com, a for profit subsidiary of the American Arbitration Association International center for Dispute Resolution. He co founded Modria, an online dispute resolution provider and was director of Online dispute resolution.

Colin Ruhl: Ah.

Victor Lee: At eBay and PayPal. Colin is here to talk about how AI has impacted dispute resolution and where things might be heading. Welcome to the show, Colin.

Colin Ruhl: Thanks so much, Victor. I appreciate the invitation.

Victor Lee: Of course, anytime. So obviously I just gave a very quick version of your bio. Could you tell me a little bit more about yourself and your background?

Colin Ruhl: Sure. Uh, I am a dispute resolution nerd. Um, I got originally trained in mediation when I was undergraduate, uh, back in the late 80s and I said you know what? This is what I want to do with my life. So I wrote my thesis on collegiate mediation programs and then got an unpaid internship at the National Institute for Dispute Resolution in Washington. So that was long before there was any technology in dispute resolution. And I practiced as a mediator and a multi party facilitator for a couple of years. But then the Internet appeared and, you know, as a nerd and a lover of dispute resolution, I thought, you know what, this is me. This is what I should do. So I started one of the first online dispute resolution service providers called online resolution in 1999. And I wrote a book called Online Dispute Resolution for Business. And one day, ebay called me up and said, hey, we need you. And that's what brought me out to Silicon Valley. So my whole career has been at the frontier of technology and dispute resolution. And it's interesting because, you know, back in the late 90s, early 2000s, there really was no overlap. But, uh, you know, we had the pandemic and the rise of zoom, and now we have artificial intelligence. And technology is a big topic in the world of dispute resolution. So my best friend, who's my CMO here@odr.com, he says, you're like the dog that caught the car. It's like, I certainly didn't create any of this. I just sort of said, hey, I'm going to plant my flag here. And, uh, sometimes they say Mohammed goes to the mountain, and other times the mountain comes to Mohammed. And this is a case of the latter. So, uh, you know, everybody keeps looking to me like, hey, what's this going to look like when, when, uh, AI is fully permeated into the world of dispute resolution? It's like, gee, I don't know, but let's figure it out together. That's kind of the way I feel.

Victor Lee: Yeah. I mean, sometimes you have to be in the right place when the opportunity hits, right?

Colin Ruhl: Yeah. My grandfather always used to say to me, colin, don't build your business where the highway is. Build your business where the highway is going. So I guess I did that somewhat unintentionally. I'm not rooting for a lot of this disruption, but I care a lot about dispute resolution and access to justice and providing fast and fair resolution. So, uh, the question is, how do we civilize these technologies and put them to work achieving the same objectives that we've had in the dispute resolution field since time immemorial, which, as I say, is fast and fair resolutions for all.

Victor Lee: Gotcha. Well, so I Mean, obviously a lot of people who listen to this program are lawyers and they'll understand the difference. But for people who might not or people who don't really practice in these areas, how would you describe the difference between dispute resolution and your classical litigation, lawsuit adversarial system?

Colin Ruhl: Sure. Well, if you think writ large about, uh, dispute resolution, just by being a human on earth, we encounter disputes. You know, our self interest collides with other people's self interest. So we have to figure out how are we going to resolve those problems. And if you look back through human history, I mean, I've got a great image on my computer of a dispute from ancient Sumeria over copper ingots, where, uh, you know, somebody bought some m copper ingots and they weren't as high quality as they thought they were going to be. So they used their cuneiform clay tablet to complain about, you know, these are low quality ingots and I want a refund, which essentially is the exact same thing I did 60 million times a year when I was at ebay, resolving disputes between buyers and sellers. So, you know, sometimes we, I talk to law professors who act as if the civil code, you know, came down off the mountain, you know, on stone tablets. But this is a relatively modern invention. There are many, many ways that people can resolve their disputes. And if you look at human culture all around the world, every human community, every human society's had to find a way to resolve disputes in a peaceful and fair way. And I think actually the mechanisms we use mainly in dispute resol, which I'm thinking about negotiation and mediation and evaluation, which is arbitration, is one form of evaluation. Those things predate modern judicial systems and litigation systems by thousands of years. So essentially the question is, and uh, there's a great quote from Carl Llewellyn, uh, in a book called the Bramble Bush, which was, uh, a book he wrote, I think it was back in the 20s or 30s, um, talking to new law students. And he said, what's this law business about, really? And he said, fundamentally that the business of law is about resolving disputes, preventing disputes arising, and then resolving them once they do arise. And I think that the litigation system, the judicial system, is one very complex and sophisticated dispute resolution mechanism, but it's not that hard to envision many others. And now that we're in the world, you know, we're in a world that's digitizing and so much of our lives are moving online, well, that opens up really exciting new possibilities for how we can resolve disputes. You know, the judicial system just by dint of the fact that it was created in a prior era, is very tied to geography because at that time, m when it was being designed, geography was an immutable fact. It's like, well, where you are dictates the laws that govern whatever dispute arises. But of course, online, any of us can pull out our phone and go swipe, swipe, swipe, and engage in a transaction with any person in any other area of the world. The Internet doesn't really care about geography. So that makes the judicial system kind of a tough fit with the way our new online lives operate. So online dispute resolution really is an attempt to think about how can we build a justice system that works the way the Internet networks, where you don't really have to tie it to geography. It's not tied to the coercive power of the nation state to enforce your outcomes. There are other ways that you can do that. And that, you know, we think about, you know, virtual currencies and blockchain and bitcoin and domain name disputes. These are disputes that transcend geography. And we have a lot of experience building resolution systems that work for those kinds of new online stateless disputes. So what we're seeing, obviously the judicial system, litigation is not a monolith. It evolves in response to pressure and, and cultural change. And these are, you know, huge, huge tides of change that are coming in as a result of technological innovation. And the judicial system will continue to innovate and evolve in response to some of those changes. But I think a lot of the ideas that are coming into the courts and coming into the practice of law have already been hashed out out here in silicon Valley. You know, at ebay, we had to build a justice system. I, um, mean, we had 250 million users, and at the time, we would have been the 8th largest country in the world. Now, I think ebay is a lot bigger than that, But I really thought about it as building a justice system for a virtual country. And I think some of the ideas that we crafted at ebay have now made their way into the courts and the judicial systems around the world. So I'm sorry, I probably over answered your question.

Victor Lee: Yeah, well, so, yeah, I did want to ask about ebay specifically because, I mean, obviously, you know, that's something that a lot of people use. I use it, knock on wood. I haven't gotten into a dispute with anybody in a while now. But, um, it has happened in the past. So I have gone through your system,

Colin Ruhl: say to people, is, did you get your money back? And if they say, yeah, I got my money back, I say, yeah, I built that system. And if they say, no, I didn't get my money back, oh, I left a long time ago.

Victor Lee: Yeah, yeah, they really changed things.

Colin Ruhl: Exactly.

Victor Lee: It's totally not the same. I think I heard you talk about it like a while ago, like one of those conferences I went to. But the concept seemed very, you know, I don't, I don't want to kind um, of denigrate what you did, but it seemed, it seemed, the concept seemed kind of obvious. Right. It's like, like, did you pay or not?

Colin Ruhl: Sure.

Victor Lee: Like, is there documentation for this or not? But the idea that it could be done without like an actual like, you know, human referee or somebody, you know, got like a human overseeing it. I think maybe that gave a lot of people some pause or people were like, wait a minute, what's going on here? So like, how did you bridge those two, you know, kind of competing streams and kind of, you know, make it so that, okay, well, you take this kind of, you know, pretty easy way to prove whether or not you did something or not, but then kind of merge it with something that maybe m people weren't, weren't comfortable with.

Colin Ruhl: Well, you know, when ebay first called me, I thought the same thing that you thought, Victor. I had spent a couple years resolving large multi party environmental and energy related conflicts in the Northeast. I was resolving disputes over, you know, putting 160 Windmills in Nantucket Sound, you know, and it was, it was complicated. There was a lot of scientific and technical information, lots of stakeholders and they said, hey, we want you to come out to ebay and resolve buyer, seller disputes. Is this really interesting? You know, like I bought my item and it didn't show up. Like, is this. But then I got out to ebay and I realized the scale is uh, really the challenge. You know, if you have 60 million of these disputes a year, it starts to get really interesting again because you're designing, you know, this is what, what we now call ddsd Digital Dispute Systems Design. Who are all the stakeholders? And it's not just, I mean most people when they think of ebay, they think of buyer initiated disputes because that's the experience most people have. I bought my item and it never showed up. Or I bought my item and it showed up and it's not what I thought it was going to be. And you know, there are lots of those cases, but there's many, many other kinds of disputes. At ebay, for instance, if someone leaves a feedback uh, for another user that they think is misleading or false or defamatory, or if one user steals the images from another use in selling an item and makes it look like, you know, they created it. So there's IP related disputes. We had trademark takedown disputes. We had feedback disputes. We had payment disputes where somebody would bid on an item and win it and then never follow through and pay. So suddenly, it got kind of interesting again. And as I said, the volume of the cases that we were handling, this is in 13 different languages all over the world, is in excess of the US civil court system. So. And we only have 25,000 employees. So, as you said, we had to automate this at a high scale, and nobody had ever done that before, but ebay willing to spend millions and millions of dollars on building the software to do that. And I think because we got to that point where 90% of those 60 million cases could be resolved without a human from ebay touching the case, it really got the interest of the courts and said, wait a minute, how could we leverage some of these tools as well to deliver online resolutions? And that was long before we had artificial intelligence in our toolbox.

Victor Lee: Yeah. So how did you go from that to Modria then?

Colin Ruhl: Yeah, well, they had an internal innovation competition both at eBay and PayPal, because they were the same company at that time. And, uh, we created something called the Community Court, which was a crowdsourced jury process. So if two users on eBay or PayPal had a dispute, they could take it to the Community Court. They'd each be able to make their case and respond to the other side's arguments. And then we brought in a panel of users, people that we tested to make sure they'd never interacted with the parties in the case. And they had a very high reputation for trustworthiness on the site. And they would all vote, and, uh, whoever got the majority of the jury, um, would win, and ebay would enforce the outcome. So we brought this to the internal skunk works competition both at eBay and PayPal, and we won a bunch of awards. And I essentially said to my friends in the innovation team, you know, look, this, there's a business here outside of just ebay. I mean, everybody needs these community Courts. Will you let me spin out this technology and create a company? And eventually they said yes. So I spun that out, and I got some funding. My partner, who I worked with very closely at PayPal, Chitu, uh, Nagarajan, was at the PayPal office in Chennai, India. And we decided to start this company Together, that's when we created Modria. So really, we, we took that ebay and built on top of it to build essentially a digital dispute systems design toolbox to resolve any kind of dispute. And over the next six years, you know, we dealt with many, many other kinds of cases, not only e commerce cases. I mean, ebay obviously is a marketplace for tangible items. But we started to deliver services to, you know, places like Airbnb or Lyft or TaskRabbit, uh, or Upwork, because they all had similar kinds of cases. And then we moved into offline. We did property tax assessment appeals. We worked with courts, we worked with consumer protection agencies. So there were lots of applications for that core eBay technology outside of ebay. And that's what we built at Modria.

Victor Lee: Gotcha. And so how did you end up with AAA then?

Colin Ruhl: Well, a couple more steps there. We got acquired. Modria was acquired by a company called Tyler Technologies, which is kind of the Microsoft of cord tech in the U.S. 50% of U.S. citizens live in an area where Tyler runs some aspect of the courts. And they saw the courts were getting much more interested in odr. So I spent three years at Tyler, and then I took the job as CEO of Mediate.com and Mediate.com is really the number one online community for mediators. Um, I had worked there before in the mid-90s, but it was started in 1996. And then we started odr.com under mediate.com so we were building again, targeting this market, the growing market for online dispute resolution and online case management for dispute resolution organizations. And then, uh, Bridget took over as CEO of AAA. So inspiring. Obviously. Bridget McCormick, former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme. She was a real visionary on technology. She and I gave a talk at the ALI conference in Washington, D.C. and had lunch afterwards, and we started to realize there was a lot of synergy. So, um, that was when we agreed to be acquired by AAA in, uh, June of 2024. So we've been close, uh, partners with, uh, AAA and ICDR ever since, and it's been a wonderful relationship.

Victor Lee: Gotcha. Before generative AI became generally available to the public and whatnot, where did you see sort of the future of ODR heading? How much did it. You did see generative AI come into the picture? Yeah.

Colin Ruhl: So there's a core concept in the field of online dispute resolution. Not only do we have a practitioner community, there's also a very vibrant, uh, academic community. And the father of online dispute resolution is a guy named Ethan Katz, who's An Emeritus professor at UMass Amherst, Ethan wrote the first book in ODR titled Online Dispute Resolution with his, uh, with his co author Janet Rifkin, who was another ADR pioneer. I wrote the second book, which is Online Dispute Resolution for Business, which came out right after Ethan's book. But Ethan and Janet introduced a concept called the fourth party. So if you think about party one and party two are the disputants, Party three is the human neutral that could be a mediator, an arbitrator, an ombuds, a conflict coach, and then technology is a fourth party. So even back in the late 90s, early 2000s, you know, we had a clear idea, what is the fourth party good at? We didn't have AI at the time, but, you know, we thought, well, maybe m. It could help us manage documents, maybe it could help us process payments, maybe it could help us schedule meetings. And now, of course, technology is the only way those things are done. Nobody would want to go back to the old days of, you know, putting the carbon paper and the ka Chunk. Ka chunk in the credit card reader or whatever. You know, it's just. You can't even imagine going back to that world. But slowly but surely, more and more capabilities are being added into the fourth party. And for instance, when Zoom came out, actually, Zoom started right across the hallway from my office in San Jose. And I met these couple engineers who had left Cisco because they'd been working on WebEx, and they were sort of frustrated at how inefficient the process had become. And they started this company, and I told them, tough business, you know, you're competing against Microsoft and Google. Well, we think we have some things to add. Actually, one of the questions they said to me is, what do you do? I said, I do dispute resolution. They said, well, would you use video conferencing for it? Sure, maybe one day. Maybe one day we'll do that. And, uh, they said, is there anything we could build into our platform that would make it more helpful for dispute resolution? And I said, yeah, you know, what would help us is there's something we do called caucusing, and it's a breakout room, and no video conferencing platform does that, but be very helpful. So they went and they built it and they came back and they said to me, hey, we built your. Your discussion rooms, your breakout rooms. And they came in and showed it to me. I was like, wow, okay. So, you know, unfortunately, they didn't offer me any options because I wouldn't be talking to you if they had. I'D be on my private island in the Caribbean.

Victor Lee: Trademark. You should have trademarked that.

Colin Ruhl: Should have trademarked it. Actually, it didn't work exactly. I wanted to be able to knock on the door of an individual breakout room. They didn't build that for me. But you can broadcast all the breakout rooms. So, you know, I mean, just being around the technology like that, video conferencing was not really a thing in dispute resolution in 2012. Like maybe we had done some proof of concepts, but you know, uh, the courts tell me that, you know, Covid was a 30 year shove into the future because we had to try this. And a lot of mediators, who are my heroes, they had said to me for years, you can't do this online. You have to see the tapping foot, you have to smell the pheromones in the room. There's no way you can do that. But then Pandemic forced them to do it. And now we know that 80% of mediations that happen, at least in the United States, are happening online first. So face to face is the exception rather than the rule. So this is the way technology happens. You know, uh, in the ODR field, very few of these technologies were created specifically for us. They're created more broadly, but then they go into our digital dispute systems design toolbox and then we can utilize them in our platform. So AI to me, uh, again, when we were at ebay, I was trying to automate, but we didn't have AI, so we were just using rules, you know, we were using really a complicated set of if then rules to triage cases into the appropriate resolution channels. And most people, when they talk about AI, they uh, think that they're talking about LLMs, they're talking about Gemini or Claude or ChatGPT. And of course those are very powerful. LLMs are very powerful technologies. There's many, many other kinds of machine learning that could be useful. And many of my friends are exploring some of those techniques, you know, that don't have the same challenges with hallucination. And you know, they aren't dependent on giant third party companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. So, you know, innovation had been happening all the way along. I attended the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the law back in 2000 and there was some really interesting research going on. It's just we didn't have the computing power to realize the potential. And now we do. And again, you just have to look out a couple years when we hit, you know, what they call the singularity. When we have quantum computers and the power of a computer processor far exceeds the power of the human brain. So if you know what's going on in terms of the innovation on the back end, you'll realize that these are kind of the very, very early days of AI, and we have an inkling of where this is going. But if you, if you follow the arrows in the direction they point, much greater disruption lies ahead. So we in the ODR field are constantly trying to think, how do we integrate these technologies and preserve the core aspects of dispute resolution, which is accessibility, impartiality, neutrality, security, confidentiality. So we actually created an organization, the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution. And, uh, and we've created ethical standards for the use of technology, especially AI, in dispute resolution. And we, we share those for free in 16 different languages. So, you know, that's the big challenge now is these waves of disruption are hitting us, and everybody's going, oh, my gosh, what's the field going to look like in five years? And having lived through prior waves of technological disruption, we just got to sit down and figure out what are the downsides of these technologies and what are the promises and potentials in the benefits of these technologies, and how do we minimize the former and maximize the latter? That's the challenge that we have in the ODR field.

Victor Lee: Yeah. All right, before we continue, let's take a quick break for a word from our sponsor.

Colin Ruhl: After talking to more than 1,000 legal clients, we found out that the things

Victor Lee: that have the biggest impact on satisfaction scores are the things that law firms most often overlook. For example, the data proves that your

Colin Ruhl: skill with technology is more important to

Victor Lee: clients than your competence at practicing law. See the hard data in InfoTrack's ACE report, Achieving Client Excellence. Get it at, uh, infotrack.com ACE.

Colin Ruhl: You like legal podcasts because you're curious and want to be the best attorney you can be. I'm Dave Scriven Young, host of Litigation radio, produced by ABA's litigation section with Legal Talk Network. Search in your favorite podcast player for Litigation Radio to join me and my guests as we examine hot topics in litigation and topics that, uh, will help you to develop your litigation skills and build your practice. I hope you'll check out Litigation Radio and join the ABA Litigation Section for access to all of the resources, relationships, and referrals you need to thrive as a litigator.

Victor Lee: And we're back. So let me ask generally about the arbitration process. So how would you describe it, and what are some advantages of it compared to litigation? And what are maybe some Drawbacks of it.

Colin Ruhl: Sure. As I say, arbitration predates litigation. Uh, I actually was in the lobby of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London and they actually have arbitration awards from the time of the Magna Carta, where lords were arguing about who's, you know, if sheep from a neighboring lord can come over and graze on their land. So arbitration has been around for a long time. It's actually an extension of what they call lex mercatoria. So it's, it's a stateless form of evaluative dispute resolution. And again, uh, you know, the American arbitration, we're, we're celebrating our hundredth anniversary this year because there was a time back in the early part of the 20th century when the vision was that arbitration could be the basis of world government in essence and establish world peace. Open agreements openly arrived at. So, you know, the AAA came out of that and there were a couple very large organizations that similarly emerged in that era. The International Chamber of Commerce, which is very prominent in international arbitration organization. Even the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service came out of that time period. So the vision was if, if two people have a dispute, they can come to a neutral forum and get a hearing and a fair resolution to that dispute. And AAA has provided that, that uh, faithfully. And that's one of the reasons why it's specified in more than a billion contracts per year because, uh, people rely on AAA to provide those kinds of services. But it's not just aaa. Obviously there are other institutions, uh, within the US that deliver fast, fair, transparent arbitration services. I think about jams, I think about, you know, we have a bunch of them out here in California, do really great work. But AAA really sets the standard and I think for a long time established practice standards for how to do arbitration. Right now there are, as you say, you noted in the introduction, there are critics of ar. My good friend Tom Stepanowicz, who runs, uh, the Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University, he's talked about arbitration is sort of the new litigation. You know, sometimes these arbitrations, they, you know, they can bring in all of the same procedural protections as uh, a court. So it starts to look more like a private court system where you can have motions and you can have e discovery. And a lot of the goals in creating arbitration in the early days was to create panels of experts that didn't require as much time to get up to speed and render, render a fair decision. So, you know, again, it's really, the parties have a lot of control in working with the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators to design the process appropriate to their needs. We have what we call European style documents only arbitration, which is an expedited process where there aren't motions, there aren't hearings, everything's on the page and that can go a lot faster. Or you can design a, ah, really in depth arbitration. You know, that has a lot of those same uh, procedural steps that you have within the courts. But arbitration strength is its flexibility. And a lot of times parties prefer arbitration because it's confidential process. So obviously if you have a sensitive commercial matter and you go to the courts, that's going to be released publicly because that's the way the courts work. So many parties mutually agree, hey, let's do this in arbitration. Because not only do we have a little bit more control over the process, we can also, you know, agree to keep this information private. So arbitration is really, and the Supreme Court has reinforced again and again the primacy of arbitration. You know, there were big decisions like AT&T. Concepcion that actually greenlighted the inclusion of arbitration clauses in contracts. So when you get a credit card or you get a bank account or you get a new cell phone, odds are there's a clause in those contracts that say we will never go to

Victor Lee: court over this arbitration.

Colin Ruhl: Yeah, so, so again, I think even the judicial system, the highest court in the land, is pushing many more cases towards ARB because they know that it's a better way in most cases for people to get, to get resolution to get justice in those cases.

Victor Lee: Do you think those clauses actually kind of work against arbitration? Because I mean a lot of people, they see like those, you know, those long contracts with like these mandatory arbitration clauses and they're like, you know. Yeah, like by signing here you waive all like civil, uh, relief. Do you think that that actually kind of makes people not trust arbitration or distrust it or dislike it?

Colin Ruhl: Yeah, I think it is a problem. I've actually talked to some of the lawyers that pioneered the use of what they call pre dispute binding arbitration clauses with class action waivers. And oftentimes they'll, they'll be in the agreement in all caps, as if somehow that makes it more likely that an individual consumer is going to read them because they never read any of that stuff. They just click yes and, and continue. I personally am not a fan of those. I don't know if anybody cares about me. I'm not even a lawyer. But you know, the American Bar association dispute resolution section, uh, came out against the use of those pre dispute, um, bindings arbitration clauses with, with class action waivers, but they remain in use. Um, and it's, there have been a couple times the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actually got very close to issuing, um, a regulation that would have prevented their regulated banks from using those kinds of clauses. And lawyers started to advise their clients, hey, you better get ready to take these things out of your agreements. But it didn't happen. It didn't happen. So we still have a lot of those clauses. And I do think, you know, when you talk about some of the perception of bias, bias in arbitration, any study of arbitration reveals that a lot of that bias is not true. The resolutions that people get, it's not like arbitrators are just, you know, splitting the baby. In every case, that's one stereotype. And it's not that they're just deciding for the business. In every case, that's another stereotype, that's actually not the case. And I work very closely at aaa. I know these neutrals and I know people work very hard to deliver fair outcomes in those processes. But a lot of those misapprehensions remain because of, I think, abuse of dispute resolution. Frankly, that's what I think it is for these pre dispute binding arbitration clauses with class action waivers. And uh, again, AAA does not greenlight the inclusion of any of these clauses in agreements. It's general counsels that are putting these in the agreements. And it's only when the dispute arises, the AAA is notified that that language was even included in the contract. So again, I don't want to speak, I'm not an arbitration expert. So there's a lot of complex law around all of this stuff. I understand there's also a lot of abuses within class action.

Victor Lee: Sure.

Colin Ruhl: I mean, I know at ebay we had so many frivolous class actions filed against us. I even was included with the, uh, class action settlement that was filed against ebay. They sent me a check for one penny because they actually owed me like 14 cents and they spent 44 cents for a stamp to send me a check for one penny. But you know, the law firm that certified the class made $30 million. So there are abuses on the other side too. But I really think that online dispute resolution can provide a better path to justice for most consumers than the options that are available either through the mass claims class action process or in these pre dispute binding arbitration clauses. And I did a book for the ABA a few years ago with my friend Professor Amy Schmitz talking exactly about that.

Victor Lee: So what would like an automated, uh, online dispute resolution with AI, what would that look like if I were to go through it right now?

Colin Ruhl: Well, as you say, Victor, the dust has been kicked up by these new innovations, and I'm not sure it's settled yet. So the first wave of AI kind of break it into two waves. Well, there's many more waves than that, but the first wave was kind of the chatbot era, uh, of AI. And that's what most people are still comfortable with, going to ChatGPT and asking it a question and it gives you an answer. And that's kind of the assistant area, where the driver of dispute resolution is still the human neutral, the mediator or the arbitrator, or maybe in a negotiation, the parties themselves. So AI, the third party in that context, powered by AI, becomes an assistant. And you can ask it questions. It can, it could help summarize a bunch of documents. If you have a very document intensive case, it can help you with intake. Like you could drag a couple files into a box and it can analyze those files and say, okay, it seems like you have this kind of case and, you know, here's how we proceed. It can do, you know, tone monitoring where, you know, if the parties get into it and they start throwing threats and insults at each other, you know, an AI can kind of say to somebody, hey, before you post this, you know, the tones here seems pretty aggressive, and the other side might not respond very well to this. Here's a redrafting of what you said that takes out some of the edge. I mean, you can post what you originally wrote if you want to, but nine times out of 10, you know, that little nudge will change the behavior of the party. So AI can do some of the things that human mediators had to do in the past, past in terms of reframing, helping people understand their batna and their watna, their best alternative to a negotiated agreement or their worst alternative. So there's a lot of ways that AI can be an assistant in the dispute resolution process to increase the likelihood of success, especially as parties. You know, I'm seeing parties come into mediations now with printouts from ChatGPT. Yeah, saying, well, ChatGPT said I should get a thousand dollars. It's like, okay, well, let's look at your prompt, you know, So I think that, uh, it's already that AI is playing a role because almost everyone. And it's amazing to see how quickly this cultural change has happened. But whenever somebody confronts something complicated or difficult in their lives, they pull out an AI and say, hey, what are my options? Here. So I think that was kind of the first wave and I think we're doing a pretty good job digesting that and figuring about how to pull that into our dispute resolution processes. Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, ombuds, coaching to help our parties be at their best and get the best resolution they can, maximize the chance of successful agreement. But now I think we're talking about phase two. You know, we say in Silicon Valley, the future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed. So I may be living in this soup a little more than some people that are not, you know, in the, the cradle of technological innovation. But the agentic AI innovation is well underway and I feel like the, the vanguard. A lot of people have heard of Claude code, you know, where you can go into Claude code and say, hey, go build me a complex website. And it will do it. It will spin up multiple agents, it will segment tasks into chunks and assign it out to agents and bring it all back together. So now Claude code has made its way into Claude cowork, and you can see people using this on their desktop. OpenAI and Gemini are both hard at work trying to emulate that. And we had the open Claw Multbot innovation where, you know, some guy just released open source software that essentially would take over your computer and respond to all your emails and, you know, just do everything for you. So we are still in the middle of that agentic revolution. And agentic is where you see individuals kind of ceding the action to, um, AI agents. So we're still kind of getting a sense of how that's going to play out. But I could see in the future that disputants, instead of going into negotiating directly with the other side, they can go to an agent and say, hey, I need to resolve this issue. Here's all the information. Go get me a resolution. And the agent will go off and make its own choices, maybe checking back with its sponsor, its, uh, client, and saying, hey, I'm about to do this. Is that okay with you? Yep. Okay. And then it runs off and does it again. But that agent may go off and negotiate, maybe mediate, maybe even arbitrate. And are they, are they participating with a human on the other side or are they negotiating against another agent? And are they making an argument in arbitration in front of a human arbitrator? Or are the two agents representing the parties going to make an art, make their arguments in front of another agent, which would be from the arbitrator? So I know a lot of this sounds kind of crazy, like science fiction with all these AI robots running around resolving our disputes. But you can already see on a nascent basis how this is playing out. And we had a website out here in Silicon Valley called Do not Pay.

Victor Lee: Yeah.

Colin Ruhl: And essentially, if you get a parking tick it, you just give them the information and they'll make the phone calls and try and get your resolution. And they come back and say, hey, I got you 80% of what you wanted. Is that good enough? And you can say, yes, thumbs up, write it up, or nope, not good enough, keep fighting. So I can see that that may be where things are headed a little bit as we seed our agency to these agents, but that's. That one's still kind of in the mists for me, how it's all going to play out.

Victor Lee: Well, it's almost like then the agent becomes the lawyer. Right. Represents someone in a sense.

Colin Ruhl: In a sense. But, you know, um, my friend Richard Susskind in the uk, who's a big thinker on law and it, he said, you know, look, do we want to be the ambulance in the bottom of the cliff, or do we want to be the railing at the top of the cliff? And one of the challenges we have as dispute resolvers and lawyers and judges is that we're reactive. It's after this dispute arises that we're invited in to help. But we've always known in dispute resolution, the most effective form of dispute resolution is early dispute resolution. At ebay, I would get millions of, uh, disputes over returns because people didn't know what's the return window, what's the restocking fee, who pays return shipping. There just wasn't clarity. So there's a lot of ways for disputes to arise. So I actually went upstream to the team at ebay that did the sell your item form, and I said, look, we need to collect information about return policies at the point when the item is listed. And we saw millions of those disputes go away because they had clarity. So you knew what the rules were when you bought the item. You knew what the return policy was. So this is an opportunity for all of us to go upstream and say, how can we use these tools to do dispute prevention? Aaa, interestingly, has launched this AI arbitrator. I mean, it's an amazing technology. I don't know if you've seen demos of it, but it's incredible. But we actually have not had that many digital arbitrations where a digital arbitrator has decided the case. What we're finding is the real interest is for parties to use the digital arbitrator before they have an arbitration and they go in and submit all their information and get an assessment of what their case is. Because once they have that assessment, they have an idea, uh, of essentially what the ZOPA for the agreement is, the zone of potential agreement, agreement. And then they approach the other party and say, look, I put it through this and got this outcome. How does this look to you? And the other party can say, yeah, that's pretty good. So you know, what we may be doing with this technology is inventing something so powerful, so inexpensive, so convenient that we don't even have to go through the litigation process. We don't even have to go through the arbitration process because we can get this fair assessment that's so high quality. I mean, an agent will write you a 25 page decision over a hundred dollar dispute, which no human would ever do because it's just too time consuming and complicated. So we might be seeing a fundamental shift in the way we resolve these disputes because the technology can engage with the case so much earlier, which, which means you don't have to deal with all the escalation and the low intensity warfare of a grinding litigation or arbitration process which nobody wants to get into. It's not in anyone's interest. So as I say, the culture is changing in front of our eyes. And right now I think there's still kind of an ick factor of having, uh, algorithms come in and play these roles. But we're seeing that change, Victor. And especially when you look at Gen Z and Gen A, they have no misgivings about an algorithm first approach to dispute resolution. So, you know, it may be that the technology is ready, but the people are not. But the people catch up to the technology and I see that happening right in front of us.

Victor Lee: We'll talk more about that after this next commercial breaks for a word from our sponsor.

Colin Ruhl: Imagine getting a free marketing consultation or workshop for your law firm every month without ever booking a meeting or paying a dime. Sounds too good to be true, right? They don't have to imagine it, Conrad, because they can actually experience it. Our podcast, Lunch Hour Legal Marketing, which you can watch right now on YouTube, has dozens of episodes explaining how to update your Google business profile, what kinds of campaigns are working for lunch, and what SEO strategies you should implement. And that's just scratching the surface. Now there are a lot of people out there who think they know the ins and outs of, uh, SEO, social media and paid marketing, but in reality they're just greedy or grifters or faking it. Most of the Time as agency owners. My co host Guy and I know what we're talking about and would love for you to be part of our growing community. Check out our library of episodes and subscribe to the Lunch hour legal marketing YouTube channel or wherever podcasts are found.

Narrator: I'm Kat Moon, co host of Talk Justice. Did you know that low income Americans don't receive meaningful legal help for 92% of their civil legal problems? This crisis is called the justice gap. Whether it's employment, consumer or medical debt, divorce and child custody, or landlord tenant disputes, these are serious problems. But there simply aren't enough legal aid lawyers to help everyone. So we must innovate. The Leaders Council of the Legal Services Corporation invites you to get in the know about all things access to justice by listening to Talk justice, where leaders and innovators come to discuss life changing projects, new technologies and big ideas. Hear how lawyers, technologists and other professionals are helping address medical debt, neighborhood blight, natural disasters, domestic violence, and so much more by subscribing to Talk Justice.

Victor Lee: And we're back. So we started talking a little bit about what we can expect in the near future and whatnot. So let's talk about courtroom proceedings though. Uh, I mean, do you see this technology ever even being used by court, by actual court courts in the litigation process? Or do you think that might be a bridge too far, at least for the near future?

Colin Ruhl: No. 100% of our focus@odr.com now is the courts. We're working hard with the courts and we're launching online dispute resolution services in courts across the United States. So what I believe, and again, when I first started working in the courts, when Tyler acquired Modria back in 2012, there were no court ODR programs in the United States. It was talk about it, but there were done. Now I think there's about a hundred courts in the United States that have deployed odr. Some of those are statewide, you know, like unified systems. Some of those are just individual counties. And there's many different approaches. Obviously Modria is a big court ODR platform. It's used by many courts. But there was Matterhorn, which was another big one. There was RDO and Turbo. Court eventually launched an ODR product. So uh, and many courts are building their own technology now too. Especially now that we have vibe code coding. You know, it's possible to build some pretty sophisticated systems. And CIOs are getting smarter and smarter about this technology. So you know, the way that we built Modria, it integrates seamlessly into the court case management system. So if a case is e filed in and there's a little triage that's done, is this, uh, the kind of case that can be resolved through an ODR process? Well, yes. Then you can move it into essentially an online collaborative workspace where the parties can work together to try and get a resolution by mutual agreement, either through negotiation or mediation. And you know, that's a perfect place to integrate in AI to do a, uh, non binding evaluation of the case as well, to say, well, the AI has analyzed your case and you know, it suggests based on other court cases that look like yours, that a fair resolution would be this and the parties don't have to accept that. If they both accept it by mutual agreement, fantastic. But they can easily say, nope, we want to go to a human hearing. But as I say, watching the norms change, especially with the younger generation, I believe that our not, I used to say our grandkids, but now I would say our kids are going to prefer that their case be heard by an algorithm as opposed to a human. The more we learn about implicit bias and, you know, all those sorts of things, weaknesses in the human justice system, the more people may gravitate over time. Kind of like how we've shifted from Lyft and Uber drivers to Waymos, you know, sort of. Because now we have data, we have millions of hours of Waymo driving that shows that it's 80% safer than human driving. So if we get that, you know, million of k million cases resolved and we can see that the algorithmic resolution options do a better job dealing with bias, ah, providing fairer outcomes, I think again, the culture will shift and people will want to use these algorithms. So that's down the road. Right now what we're doing is we're trying to use AI and ODR technology to streamline the process for litigants so they can come into a facilitated, as I say, collaborative workspace where they go through a workflow. There's information that's gathered, shared with the other side, and it maximizes the chance that they can work it out. So we think we've gotten 60 to 80% resolution rates of the case and civil cases we've tackled through ODR and the courts. And I think that number is going to go up as the AI gets more sophisticated as well.

Victor Lee: Gotcha. Well, and you know, you talk about the younger generations whatnot, but what about, you know, the crusty folks like myself who, you know, maybe, uh, oh, you're not crusty, Victor. Come on, come on. There are days I feel it, though, as I'm sure we all do. But, uh, yeah, I mean, don't we all? Here's an example. My wife says she'll get in the way over her dead body. So how do you convince people like that to kind of buy into this technology?

Colin Ruhl: Well, again, I think the technology moves fast and the people move slower. But to me, there's a little. There's, uh, sort of a title inevitability to all of this. I remember the first time I explained ebay to a friend. They were like, so let me get this right. You send money to a stranger you've never met on the hope that they're gonna send you an item?

Victor Lee: Yeah, that is true. That is true. The first time I heard that, I was like, yeah, yeah, okay.

Colin Ruhl: Yeah, that's never going to work. And then, I mean, I knew that the Airbnb guys, when they were just getting started, I helped them think through there just be resolution stuff. And again, I had a friend who said, so you go to a stranger's house and you sleep in their guest room, and you just presume that they're not going to knock on your door or just come in uninvited at 3am I said, well, yeah, that's kind of the vision. But you know what? 99.99% of the transactions on ebay and Airbnb work out fine. Um, and yes, there are disputes that arise, but most of the time it's not bad actors. It's misunderstandings, or there's just unfortunate events that occur, and you got to work out those issues. Certainly you can't just say, well, just going to sweep all the problems under the rug. But I do think that, as I say, when I first started doing odr, I had a policy. No family disputes. I don't do family disputes. That's in person. You have intimate partner violence, you have coercive control. I just don't want to do it. I'm going to deal with transactional cases, like ebay stuff. But now that is the hottest area of ODR. We have weverse.com we have bliss divorce.com. we have, you know, hello, divorce.com. we have common sense divorce. And they all are using technology. And now I'm doing it, too. And my friend says to me, you know, it's so creepy that you help people get divorced online. I said, well, how do you think people find their spouses in the first place? It's all swiping right and swiping left and match dot com. I. I mean, the world is Changing, the culture is changing and that's the pace at which the humans get their heads around this stuff. Technology may make all this stuff possible today, we could build an agent based court system tomorrow and the technology would all work, but nobody'd use it because the people aren't there yet. But what you're seeing is piece by piece people are getting their heads around it. They're starting to trust this technology, they're starting to see the results, they're starting to see the data. And that's why I think there's a tidal inevitability to all, all of this just based on efficiency and access and cost inevitably. That's why I say our, our kids are going to prefer an algorithm powered justice system over a human powered justice system. So what does it look like between here and there? Well, I can't answer that question for you, but we're all working to try and figure out how to civilize this tech and minimize some of the possible downsides. Because there's a lot of downsides, right? You can have bad guys come in, build kangaroo courts and the parties have no way to know that they're in a system where somebody is putting their thumb on the scale. But that's why we all have to work together at the aba, at ah, Icoder, at the national center for Technology and Dispute Resolution. You know, let's get the bad actors out, let's do our audits, let's create practice standards, let's put in guardrails so that we can eventually build that system that we know is coming and we can say, you know, just like Waymo, hey, this is 80% better than what we had before. And here's the data to back that up.

Victor Lee: And finally to wrap up, if our listeners out there want to ask you questions about this or get in touch with you, what's the best way to do that?

Colin Ruhl: Yep, email C-R-U-L-E d r.com come to ODR.com check it out. We'd love to show you a demo, but we're also having a conference, um, at Harvard in mid June. ODR2026.ORG and we have a conference at Harvard. We have a conference at Suffolk Law School the next day. And then we have the vibeodr.com hackathon where we're going to be using um, Claude code to build the next generation of odr. So if anybody is interested in this stuff and they want to get involved, come join us at Harvard or drop me an email and I'll get you Din.

Victor Lee: Great. Thanks again for joining us Colin. I really appreciate appreciate it.

Colin Ruhl: Thank you Victor.

Victor Lee: If you enjoyed this podcast and would like to hear more, please go to your favorite app and check out some other titles from Legal Talk Network. In the meantime, I'm Victor Lee and I'll see you next time on the ABA Journal Legal Rebels Podcast.

Narrator: If you'd like more information about today's show, please visit legalrebels.com legaltalknetwork.com subscribe via iTunes and RSS. Find both the ABA Journal and Legal Talk Network on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Or download the free apps from ABA Journal and Legal Talk Network in Google Play and itunes. The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders and subsidiaries. None of the content should be contained legal advice as always, consult a lawyer. I'm Kat Moon, co host of Talk Justice. Did you know that low income Americans don't receive meaningful legal help for 92% of their civil legal problems? This crisis is called the Justice Gap. Whether it's employment, consumer or medical debt, divorce and child custody, or landlord tenant disputes, these are serious problems. But there simply aren't enough legal aid lawyers to help everyone. So we must innovate. The Leaders Council of the Legal Services Corporation invites you to get in the know about all things access to justice by listening to Talk justice, where leaders and innovators come to discuss life changing projects, new technology and big ideas. Hear how lawyers, technologists and other professionals are helping address medical debt, neighborhood blight, natural disasters, domestic violence, and so much more by subscribing to Talk Justice.