Published May 4, 2025 | Version v1
Publication Open

The Vanishing Third Party: Dispute Resolution Automation

Creators

  • 1. ROR icon University of Haifa

Contributors

  • 1. ROR icon University of Haifa

Description

This article discusses the automation of Dispute Resolution Automation (DRA) and its impact on the justice system and its users. In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models, for managing and resolving disputes. This development is expected to fundamentally alter the characteristics of both legal proceedings and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, which have traditionally relied heavily on human involvement in conflict resolution. The article examines changes in the legal system over the past decades, with a focus on the roots of the DRA phenomenon—the growth and expansion of online dispute resolution (ODR) and developments in the legal tech field. It reviews the history of ADR, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the transition to online procedures, and the evolving role of AI in this domain. Additionally, the article discusses the challenges and opportunities brought by the automation of dispute resolution, including impacts on efficiency, fairness, and legitimacy of the proceedings, and concerns about biases and lack of transparency in algorithm-based decisions. The article concludes with a call for comprehensive theory and research development to understand the implications of automation on the justice system and society as a whole.

Files

Vanishing Third Party.pdf

Files (940.7 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9af39e4041f64383da448a621a35bcf6
797.1 kB Preview Download
md5:d73633e105e813ebb50df3c6bb74da35
143.6 kB Download

Additional details

Funding

European Union
Horizon Europe ERC-2021-COG-101044195
European Commission
DRA - The 'Vanishing Third Party': Access to Justice, Procedural Justice and Substantive Justice in the Age of Dispute Resolution Automation 101044195

Dates

Accepted
2024-06-16

References

  • Ayelet Sela, The Effect of Online Technologies on Dispute Resolution System Design: Antecedents, Current Trends, and Future Directions, 21 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 633 (2017)
  • Ayelet Sela, Can Computers Be Fair? How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration, 33 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 91, 93 (2018)
  • David Freeman Engstrom, Post-COVID Courts, 68 UCLA. L. REV. DISCOURSE 246 (2020)
  • אביטל מנטוביץ' וארנה רבינוביץ-עיני "דיונים משפטיים בימי קורונה" משפט וממשל כד 283 (2022)
  • Suzanne E. Chiodo, Ontario Civil Justice Reform in the Wake of COVID-19: Inspired or Institutionalized, 57 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 801, 806–808 (2021)
  • ארנה רבינוביץ-עיני ואביטל מנטוביץ "זכות הגישה וגישה לצדק בבית המשפט של המאה ה-21" ספר אשר גרוניס 409, 417 (קרן אזולאי ואח' עורכים 2022)
  • איילת סלע והדר דנציג-רוזנברג "זכות הנוכחות מבעד למסך: מחקר תצפיות בדיוני מעצר מרחוק בתקופת הקורונה" משפטים נד (צפוי להתפרסם)
  • Tania Sourdin, What if Judges Were Replaced By AI?, 20 TURKISH POL'Y Q. 57 (2022
  • Benjamin Alarie, Anthony Niblett & Albert H. Yoon, How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect the Practice of Law, 68 U. TORONTO L.J. 106, 117–20 (2017)
  • DANIEL SUSSKIND & RICHARD SUSSKIND, THE FUTURE OF THE PROFESSIONS: HOW TECHNOLOGY WILL TRANSFORM THE WORK OF HUMAN EXPERTS 70 (2016)
  • Richard Susskind, The Future of Courts, THE PRAC. (2020), https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/remote-courts/the-future-of-courts
  • Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Trouble with the Adversary System in a Postmodern, Multicultural World, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV. 5 (1996)
  • Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts, 1 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAl STUD. 459 (2004)
  • עמוס גבריאלי, נורית צימרמן ומיכל אלברשטיין "הגישור הסמכותי: משפט בצל הגישור" משפטים כד 387 (2018)
  • ARTIN SHAPIRO, COURTS: A COMPARATIVE AND POLITICAL Analysis (1981) (להלן: SHAPIRO, COURTS)
  • פאינה מילמן-סיון וארנה רבינוביץ'-עיני "גישור בין פרוצדורה ומהות: על הפרטת הצדק ושוויון בעבודה" משפט וממשל יא 517, 536–537 (2008)
  • Michael McManus & Brianna Silverstein, Brief History of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States, 1 CADMUS 100 (2011)
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy & Ethan Katsh, The New New Courts, 67 AM. U. L. REV. 165, 174–75 (2017)
  • יובל סיני ומיכל אלברשטין "הסדרת שיקול הדעת בפשרה לפי סעיף 79א: בין ישוב סכסוכים ומשפט" משפטים נג
  • Devki Nandan, Role of Mediator, & What Are Its Advantages and Disadvantages of Mediation? (2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3625710
  • מרדכי (מוטי) מירוני "על מגבלות הפישור ועל בשורת הגישור" דין ודברים ו 487, 505–507 (2012)
  • מיכל אלברשטין "יישוב סכסוכים שיפוטי: אל תורת המשפט מעבר למחלוקת" דין ודברים יא17 , 31–42 (2018)
  • מיכל אלברשטין "צדק מהיר מול צדק נשגב: אנטומיה של יחסי פרקטיקה ותיאוריה ביישוב סכסוכים" עלי משפט ט 85, 104–107 (2011)
  • Owen M. Fiss, Against Settlement, 93 YALE L.J. 1073, 1075 (1984)
  • Richard Delgado et al., Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1985 WIS. L. REV. 1359, 1360–61 (1985)
  • Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 YALE L.J. 1545, 1601 (1991)
  • JEROLD S. AUERBACH, JUSTICE WITHOUT LAW? 11 (1984)
  • Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 YALE L.J 950, 996–97 (1979)
  • A. Welsh, Making Deals in Court-Connected Mediation: What's Justice Got to Do With it?, 79 WASH. U. L.Q. 787, 797–98 (2001)
  • Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-Opted or "The Law of ADR", 19 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1 (1991)
  • Tom R. Tyler, The Quality of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Outcome: Measurement Problems and Possibilities, 66 DENV. U. L. REV. 419, 436 (1989)
  • ערן גורן, ארנה רבינוביץ'-עיני ויאיר שגיא "נגישות למשפט בפשרות בתובענות ייצוגיות: תובנות אמפיריות על תפקיד היועץ המשפטי לממשלה" חוקים ח 249, 280 (2016)
  • יששכר רוזן-צבי, "ביזור מערכת השפיטה בישראל: התפקיד הנסתר של סדרי הדין" משפטים מו 717, 721 (2017)
  • Karni Perlman, Settlement Adjudication and Judicial Responsiveness: The Choice Between a Wide and a Narrow Model in THE RESPONSIVE JUDGE – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 61 (Tania Sourdin & Archie Zariski eds., 2018)
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy, The Legitimacy Crisis and the Future of Courts, 17 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT RESOL. 23, 33–35 (2015)
  • Tyler, The Quality of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Outcome, לעיל ה"ש 33; E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 L. & SOC'Y REV. 953 (1990)
  • Tom R. Tyler, What is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures, 22 L. & SOC'Y REV. 103 (1988)
  • Colin Rule, Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice, 16 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 277 (2020)
  • Margaret Hagan, Introduction to Design Thinking for Law, in LEGAL INFORMATICS 155 (Daniel M. Katz, Ron Dolin & Michael J. Bommarito eds., 2021)
  • Jie Zheng, The Development of ODR in E-Commerce Transactions, in ONLINE RESOLUTION OF E-COMMERCE DISPUTES 33 (2021).
  • ETHAN KATSH & JANET RIFKIN, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: RESOLVING CONFLICTS CYBERSPACE (2001) (להלן: KATSH & RIFKIN, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION)
  • Pablo Cortes, Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU: A Proposal for the Regulation of Accredited Providers, 19 INT'L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 1 (2011
  • Colin Rule, Technology and the Future of Dispute Resolution, 21 DISP. RESOL. MAG., no. 2, Winter 2015
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy & Ethan Katsh, Technology and the Future of Dispute Systems Design, 17 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 151, 196–97 (2012)
  • J. J. Prescott, Improving Access to Justice in State Courts with Platform Technology, 70 VAND. L. REV. 1993 (2017)
  • Eithan Katsh & Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Digital Justice: Reshaping Boundaries in an Online Dispute Resolution Environment, 1 INT'L J. ONLINE DISP. RESOL. 5 (2014)
  • Haitham A. Haloush & Bashar H. Malkawi, Internet Characteristics and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution, 13 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 327 (2008)
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Technology's Impact: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Accountability in Mediation, 11 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 253 (2006)
  • Ayelet Sela, Streamlining Justice: How Online Courts Can Resolve the Challenges of Pro Se Litigation, 26 CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 331 (2016)
  • Shannon Salter & Darin Thompson, Public-Centred Civil Justice Redesign: A Case Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, 3 MCGILL J. DISP. RESOL. 113 Sela
  • Salter & Thompson, A Case Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (2017)
  • J.J Prescott & Alexander Sanchez, Platform Procedure: Using Technology to Facilitate (Efficient) Civil Settlement, Selection and Decision, in JUDICIAL PROCESS AROUND THE WORLD: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES 30 (Yun-chien Chang ed., 2019)
  • FORDHAM L. REV. 2381 (2020)
  • Expanding Access to Remedies Through E-Court Initiatives, 67 BUFF. L. REV. 89 (2019)
  • Tania Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Principles: From Negotiation to Mediation (2014)
  • https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2723652
  • James E. Cabral et al., Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice, 26 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 241 (2012)
  • Ayelet Sela, E-Nudging Justice: The Role of Digital Choice Architecture on Online Courts, 2019 J. DISP.
  • Anjanette H. Raymond & Scott J. Shackelford, Technology, Ethics, and Access to Justice: Should an Algorithm be Deciding Your Case?, 35 MICH. J. INT'L L. 485 (2014).
  • Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, S.B.C 2012, C. 25
  • Katie Sykes et al., Civil Revolution: User Experiences with British Columbia's Online Court, 37 WINDSOR Y.B. ACCESS JUST 161 (2020)
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy, The Past, Present, and Future of Online Dispute Resolution, 74 CURRENT LEGAL PROBS. 125 (2021)
  • Maxime Cohen, Samuel Dahan & Colin Rule, Conflict Analytics: When Data Science Meets Dispute Resolution, 2 MGMT. BUS. REV. 86 (2022)
  • Tyler Technologies, Inc., Online Dispute Resolution: Empower Citizens to Resolve Their Own Disputes Online, Anywhere, Anytime — With Proven Technology (2017)
  • https://www.tylertech.com/Portals/0/OpenContent/Files/4080/Modria-Brochure.pdf
  • ABOUT JUSTICE42 (2017) https://www.justice42.com/en
  • WILLIAM L. URY, JEANNE M. BRETT, & STEPHEN B. GOLDBERG, GETTING DISPUTES RESOLVED: DESIGNING SYSTEMS TO CUT THE COSTS OF CONFLICT (1988)
  • LISA BLOMGREN AMSLER ET AL., DISPUTE SYSTEM DESIGN: PREVENTING, MANAGING AND RESOLVING CONFLICT 112–13, 171–73 (2020) (להלן: AMSLER ET AL., DISPUTE SYSTEM DESIGN)
  • Leah Wing et al., Designing Ethical Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Rise of the Fourth Party, 37 NEGOT. J. 49 (2021)
  • Avital Mentovich, J.J. Prescott & Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Are Litigation Outcome Disparities Inevitable? Technology and the Future of Impartiality, 71 ALA. L. REV. 893 (2020)
  • Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Is ODR ADR? Reflections of an ADR Founder from 15th ODR Conference, the Hague, the Netherlands, 22-23 May 2016, 3 INT'L J. ONLINE DISP. RESOL. 4 (2016)
  • https://doi.org/10.5553/ijodr/235250022016003001002
  • Nancy A. Welsh, ODR: A Time for Celebration and the Embrace of Procedural Safeguards, ADRHUB - CREIGHTON NCR (July 4, 2016), http://www.adrhub.com/profiles/blogs/procedural-justice-in-odr
  • ETHAN KATSH & ORNA RABINOVICH-EINY, DIGITAL JUSTICE: TECHNOLOGY AND THE INTERNET OF DISPUTES 1-21 (2017)
  • Renee Danser et al., Online Dispute Resolution of Low-Level Court Proceedings: Two Broken Field Experiments, One Unexpected Result (Feb. 4, 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4375081
  • J.J. Prescott, Assessing Access-to-Justice Outreach Strategies, 174 J. INST. & THEORETICAL ECON. 34 (2018)
  • How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations, PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS (Dec. 2021)
  • David Horton, Forced Remote Arbitration, 108 CORNELL L. REV. 137 (2022)
  • Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic, 54 FAM. L.Q. 181 (2020)
  • Victor D. Quintanilla, Kurt Hugenberg, Ryan Hutchings & Nedim Yel, Accessing Justice with Zoom: Experiences and Outcomes in Online Civil Courts 6-7 (2023)
  • https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/3088
  • Roni Factor et al., Videoconferencing in Legal Hearings and Procedural Justice, 18 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 1557 (2023)
  • Hybrid Hearings Improvement Initiative, NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS (2023)
  • https://issuu.com/statecourts/docs/hybridhearings_report_final_2024
  • סיון שחר, איילת סלע וארנה רבינוביץ'-עיני "בתי דין מנהליים מקוונים בישראל: המהפכה שבדרך, וממצאים אמפיריים ממקרה בוחן ראשון" (בהכנה)
  • John Zeleznikow, Using Artificial Intelligence to Provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support, 30 GRP. DEC. & NEGOT. 789 (2021)
  • DAVID FREEMAN ENGSTROM, LEGAL TECH AND THE FUTURE OF CIVIL JUSTICE (2023)
  • Damien Charlotin, Large Language Models and the Future of Law (Aug. 22 2023)
  • https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4548258.
  • RICHARD SUSSKIND, THE END OF LAWYERS?: RETHINKING THE NATURE OF LEGAL (2010)
  • RICHARD SUSSKIND, TOMORROW'S LAWYERS: AN INTRODUCTION TO YOUR FUTURE (2013)
  • M. Ethan Katsh, Communications Revolutions and Legal Revolutions: The New Media and the Future of Law, 8 NOVA L. REV. 631 (1984)
  • Siddharth Peter De Souza, The Spread of Legal Tech Solutionism and the Need for Legal Design, 13 EUR. J. RISK REGUL. 373 (2022).
  • ); Dana Remus & Frank Levy, Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law, 30 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 501 (2016)
  • Andrew Perlman, The Implications of ChatGPT for Legal Services and Society, THE PRAC. (2023)
  • https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/generative-ai-in-the-legal-profession/the-implications-of-chatgpt-for-legal-services-and-society
  • Chris Chambers Goodman, AI/ESQ.: Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in Lawyer-Client Relationships, 72 OKLA. L. REV. 149 (2019)
  • David Freeman Engstrom & Jonah B. Gelbach, Legal Tech, Civil Procedure, and the Future of Adversarialism, 169 U. PA. L. REV. 1001, 1009–12 (2020)
  • Marc Galanter, Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 95 (1974).
  • Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?: A Study on the Example of International Arbitration, 36 J. INT'L ARB. 539 (2019)
  • Danielle Keats Citron, Technological Due Process, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 1249 (2008)
  • Drew Simshaw, Ethical Issues in Robo-Lawyering: The Need for Guidance on Developing and Using Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, 70 HASTINGS L.J. 173 (2019)
  • Monica Zalnieriute & Felicity Bell, Technology and the Judicial Role, in THE JUDGE, THE JUDICIARY AND THE COURT: INDIVIDUAL, COLLEGIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL DYNAMICS IN AUSTRALIA 1 (Gabrielle Appleby & Andrew Lynch eds., 2021)
  • Milan Markovic, Rise of the Robot Lawyers?, 61 ARIZ. L. REV. 325 (2019)
  • Harry Surden, Machine Learning and Law, 89 WASH. L. REV. 87 (2014)
  • Frank Pasquale, A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation, 87 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1 (2019)
  • Dru Stevenson & Nicholas J. Wagoner, Bargaining in the Shadow of Big Data, 67 FLA. L. REV. 1337 (2016)
  • Tania Sourdin, Judge v Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making, 41 UNSW L.J. 1114 (2018)
  • Cary Coglianese & Lavi M. Ben Dor, AI in Adjudication and Administration, 86 BROOK. L. REV. 791 (2021)
  • Alicia Solow-Niederman et al., The Institutional Life of Algorithmic Risk Assessment, 34 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 705 (2019)
  • Sandra G. Mayson, Bias In, Bias Out, 128 YALE L.J. 2218 (2019)
  • Sam Corbett-Davies et al., Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness, in KDD '17: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 23RD ACM SIGKDD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING 797 (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08230https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098095
  • Teresa Scassa, Administrative Law and the Governance of Automated Decision-Making: A Critical Look at Canada's Directive on Automated Decision-Making, 54 U. BRIT. COLUM. L. REV. 251 (2021)
  • DAVID FREEMAN ENGSTROM ET AL., GOVERNMENT BY ALGORITHM: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES (2020), https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ACUS-AI-Report.pdf
  • Vivi Tan, Online Dispute Resolution for Small Civil Claims in Victoria: A New Paradigm in Civil Justice, 24 DEAKIN L. REV. 101 (2019)
  • Australian Government – Attorney-General's Department, AMICA – An Online Dispute Resolution Tool https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/families/family-law-system/amica-online-dispute-resolution-tool.
  • Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Ethan Katsh, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Dispute Resolution: The Age of AI-DR, in ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE 471 (Mohamed Abdel Wahab, Daniel Rainey & Ethan Katsh, eds. (2021)
  • Neel Guha et al., LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models, in CONFERENCE ON NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS, DATASETS AND BENCHMARKS TRACK (2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4583531#
  • Daniel Martin Katz et al., GPT-4 Passes the Bar Exam, 382 PHIL. TRANSACTIONS ROYAL SOC'Y A. (ISSUE 2270)
  • Parikh M. Pakih et al., Judge Juan Manuel Padilla Garcia, ChatGPT, and a Controversial Medicolegal Milestone, 75 INDIAN J. MED. SCI. 3 (2023)
  • Yogesh K. Dwivedi et al., "So What if ChatGPT Wrote it?" Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI For Research, Practice and Policy, 71 INT'L J. INFO. MGMT. 1 (2023)
  • Matthew Dahl et al., Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models, 16 J. LEGAL ANALYSIS 64 (2024)
  • European Commission For The Efficiency Of Justice (CEPEJ), European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment
  • GDPR: Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regards to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Advancement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1
  • President's Executive Order (EO) on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (14110) (October 30, 2023)
  • Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828
  • משרד החדשנות, המדע והטכנולוגיה עקרונות מדיניות, רגולציה ואתיקה בתחום הבינה המלאכותית (2023)
  • Noam Kolt, Algorithmic Black Swans, 101 WASH. U. L. REV. 1177 (2024).
  • Maxi Scherer, International Arbitration 3.0 – How Artificial Intelligence Will Change Dispute Resolution?, in AUSTRIAN YEARBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 503 (Klausinger et al. eds., 2019)
  • Samuel Dahan & David Liang, The Case for AI-Powered Legal Aid, 46 QUEEN's L.J. 415 (2021).
  • Ari Ezra Waldman, Power, Process, and Automated Decision-Making, 88 FORDHAM L. REV. 613, 619 (2019)
  • Dave Orr & Colin Rule, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution (2017)http://www.newhandshake.org/SCU/ai.pdf.
  • H. Westermann, J. Savelka & K. Benyekhlef, LLMediator: GPT-4 Assisted Online Dispute Resolution, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ICAIL 2023 WORKSHOP ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE CO-LOCATED WITH 19TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AI AND LAW (2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16732v1
  • Koreen Millard & Murray Richardson, On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping, 7 REMOTE SENSING 8489 (2015)
  • Anthony G. Greenwald et al., Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test, 74 J. PERS. & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1464, 1465–66 (1998)
  • Jerry Kang et al., Implicit Bias in the Courtroom, 59 UCLA L. REV. 1124, 1169–86 (2012)
  • Carol Izumi, Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Mediator Neutrality, 34 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 71 (2010)
  • Gilat J. Bachar & Deborah R. Hensler, Does Alternative Dispute Resolution Facilitate Prejudice and Bias? We Still Don't Know, 70 SMU L. REV. 817, 829–30 (2017)
  • Solon Barocas & Andrew D. Selbst, Big Data's Disparate Impact, 104 CALIF. L. REV. 671 (2016)
  • Anupam Chander, The Racist Algorithm?, 115 MICH. L. REV. 1023 (2017)
  • MICHAEL KEARNS & AARON ROTH, THE ETHICAL ALGORITHM: THE SCIENCE OF SOCIALLY AWARE ALGORITHM DESIGN 10-11 (2019)
  • Chengyu Fang et al., "AI Am Here to Represent You": Understanding How Institutional Logics Shape Attitudes Toward Intelligent Technologies in Legal Work, 37 MGMT. COMMC'N. Q. 941 (2023)
  • קרני פרלמן "שופט מגשר? על שפיטה הסדרית ובין מצוי לרצוי במשפט הישראלי" משפט ועסקים יט 365 (2015)
  • Ryan Calo, Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap, 3 U. BOLOGNA L. REV. 180 (2018)
  • Gizen Yalcin et al., Perception of Justice by Algorithms, 31 A.I & L. 269 (2023)
  • Jamie Condliffe, AI Is Learning to See the World – But Not the Way Humans Do, MIT. TECH. REV. (June 30, 2016), https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/06/30/159029/ai-is-learning-to-see-the-world-but-not-the-way-humans-do/
  • Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making, 83 PUB. ADMIN. REV 1 (2023)
  • Heike Felzmann et al., Towards Transparency by Design for Artificial Intelligence, 26 SCI. ENG'S. ETHICS 3333 (2020).
  • FRANK PASQUALE, THE BLACK BOX SOCIETY: THE SECRET ALGORITHMS THAT CONTROL MONEY AND INFORMATION (2015)
  • Theo Araujo et al., In AI We Trust? Perceptions About Automated Decision-Making by Artificial Intelligence. 35 AI & SOC. 611 (2020)
  • https://slate.com/technology/2015/01/black-box-society-by-frank-pasquale-a-chilling-vision-of-how-big-data-has-invaded-our-lives.html
  • https://slate.com/technology/2015/01/black-box-society-by-frank-pasquale-a-chilling-vision-of-how-big-data-has-invaded-our-lives.html
  • Sarah Lebovitz, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Natalia Levina, To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis 33 ORG. SCI. 126 (2022)
  • Daniel N. Kluttz, Nitin Kohli & Deirdre K. Mulligan, Shaping Our Tools: Contestability as a Means to Promote Responsible Algorithmic Decision Making in the Professions, in AFTER THE DIGITAL TORNADO: NETWORKS, ALGORITHMS, HUMANITY 137 (Kevin Werbach ed., 2020)
  • Karen McGregor Richmond et al., Explainable AI and Law: An Evidential Survey, 3 DIGIT. SOC'Y 1 (2024)
  • Emilio Ferrara, Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies, 6 SCI no. 3 2023 at 2-3
  • Helen Nissenbaum, Values in Technical Design, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ETHICS lxvi (Carl Mitcham ed., 2005)
  • CATHY O'NEIL, WEAPONS OF MATH DESTRUCTION: HOW BIG DATA INCREASES Barocas & Selbst, Big Data's Disparate Impact
  • David Lehr & Paul Ohm, Playing with the Data: What Legal Scholars Should Learn About Machine Learning, 51 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 653 (2017)
  • Min Kyung Lee et al., Procedural Justice in Algorithmic Fairness: Leveraging Transparency and Outcome Control for Fair Algorithmic Mediation, 3 PROC. ACM HUM-COMPUT. INTERACT. 1 (2019)
  • Jumpei Komoda, Designing AI For Courts, 29 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 145 (2023).
  • Joshua D. Blank & Leigh Osofsky, Automated Legal Guidance, 106 CORNELL L. REV. 179 (2020).
  • Jessica Fjeld et al., Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-based Approaches to Principles for AI, 1 BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER INTERNET & SOC'Y (2020),https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/principled-ai?fbclid=IwAR0TbxO1xBRYypSjYNBi2G4YgVK28IuA01BsNyRLXgltGwnQ4zpxk4nKpcY
  • Natali Helberger et al., Who is the Fairest of Them All? Public Attitudes and Expectations Regarding Automated Decision-Making, 39 COMPUT. L. & SEC. REV. 1 (2020)
  • https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence-ai-judicial-guidance
  • https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf.
  • Avital Mentovich, J.J. Prescott & Orna Rabinovich-Einy, Legitimacy and Online Proceedings: Procedural Justice, Access to Justice, and the Role of Income, 57 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 189 (2023)
  • David T. Newman, Nathnael J. Fast, & Derek J. Harmon, When Eliminating Bias Isn't Fair: Algorithmic Reductionism and Procedural Justice in Human Resource Decisions, 160 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAV. & HUM. DECISION PROCESSES 149 (2020); ‏Helberger et al., Who is the Fairest of Them All?,
  • Georgiana Juravle et al., Trust in Artificial Intelligence for Medical Diagnoses, 253 PROGRESS BRAIN RSCH. 263 (2020)
  • Alexandra D. Kaplan et al., Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Meta-Analytic Findings, 65 HUM. FACTORS 337 (2023)
  • Christopher Starke et al., Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature, 9 BIG DATA & SOC'Y 1 (2022)
  • Matthew Katsaros, Jisu Kim & Tom Tyler, Online Content Moderation: Does Justice Need a Human Face?, 40 INT'L. J. HUM. COMPUT. INTERACTION 66 (2022)
  • Benjamin Minhao Chen, Alexander Stremitzer & Kevin Tobia, Having Your Day in Robot Court, 36 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 127 (2022)
  • ; Min Kyung Lee, Understanding Perception of Algorithmic Decisions: Fairness, Trust, and Emotion in Response to Algorithmic Management, 5 BIG DATA & SOC'Y 1 (2018)
  • Anna Fine et al., Content Analysis of Judges' Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment Tools, 24 CRIMINOLOGY CRIM. JUST. L. & SOC'Y. 31 (2023)
  • איסי רוזן צבי "פרוצדורה ומהות: חשיבה מחודשת על קטגוריות ישנות" פרוצדורות 45, 56–69 (טליה פישר ויששכר רוזן-צבי עורכים 2014)
  • יששכר רוזן צבי הרפורמה בסדר הדין האזרחי: מורה נבוכים (מהדורה שלישית – דיגיטלית, 3.2024).
  • TOM R. TYLER & YUEN J. HUO, TRUST IN THE LAW: ENCOURAGING PUBLIC COOPERATION WITH THE POLICE AND COURTS THROUGH (2002)
  • Frank E.A Sander & Stephen B. Goldberg, Fitting the Forum to the Fuss: A User-Friendly Guide to Selecting an ADR Procedure, 10 NEGOT. J. 49 (1994).
  • Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Dispute Resolution, in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH 596 (Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer eds., 2010)
  • Procedure and Courts, in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH 679 (Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer eds., (2010)
  • Nancy A. Welsh, Bringing Transparency and Accountability (with a Dash of Competition) to Court-Connected Dispute Resolution, 88 FORDHAM L. REV. 2449 (2020)
  • ROBERT H. MNOOKIN & LEE ROSS, BARRIERS TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION (1995).
  • TOM TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW (2006)
  • Ernest M. Thiessen & Joseph P. McMahon, Jr., Beyond Win-Win in Cyberspace, 15 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 643, 643 (1999).
  • Noam Ebner & Elayne E. Greenberg, Strengthening Online Dispute Resolution Justice, 63 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'y 65 (2020)