Master of the Rolls Predicts Humans Will Accept AI Judges for Small Disputes on Economic Grounds
Delivering the John Lehane memorial lecture to the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 18 August 2026, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, predicted that humans will "come to accept, on economic grounds, machine-enabled resolution of small disputes" at first instance. Sir Geoffrey, who is retiring this autumn, argued the legal community "urgently" needed to debate where the line falls between "machine-made" and "machine-assisted" judicial decisions. Sir Geoffrey pointed to the growing use of LLMs (large language models) by judges and cautioned that, as confidence in tools such as Harvey or Legora grew, economic and time pressures could lead to judicial approval of machine recommendations without adequate scrutiny. He observed that responsible guidance issued by judiciaries globally already cautions that judges remain personally responsible for decisions whether AI-assisted or not, but acknowledged some judges may be tempted to use LLMs outside that guidance. As a concrete example of the direction of travel, Sir Geoffrey cited the American Arbitration Association's International Centre for Dispute Resolution, which announced last December an AI arbitrator for two-party, document-only construction disputes up to a certain value. That model uses a "human in the loop": the AI evaluates claims and prepares draft awards, but a human arbitrator reviews the reasoning and evaluates the decision to safeguard due process. Sir Geoffrey noted the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts is working to draw up broadly agreed principles on what is acceptable in machine-made or machine-assisted decisions in commercial and arbitration cases. He said there was "probably no rule of law problem" with judges using AI for legal research, but flagged that the same tools are capable of answering the ultimate question in a dispute, creating a blurring of the line between assistance and decision-making.
Why this matters
These remarks from one of England's most senior judges carry significant weight precisely because they frame AI adjudication not as a distant theoretical possibility but as an economically inevitable step, at least for lower-value disputes. The endorsement of the "human in the loop" model as commercially viable signals that arbitration institutions are already ahead of courts in testing AI-assisted adjudication, which will shape how disputes clauses and arbitration agreements are drafted. The frank acknowledgement that time pressure may erode meaningful human review raises serious due process questions that regulators, judiciaries, and parties to commercial contracts will need to resolve. For City firms whose practice depends on the integrity and predictability of English dispute resolution, the pace and shape of this shift will directly affect how clients value London-seated arbitration and the English courts as a forum of choice.
On the Ground
Disputes and arbitration practices at City and US firms will face immediate client questions about which dispute resolution mechanisms remain insulated from AI adjudication, making forum selection and dispute-clause drafting a live advisory issue. Technology and AI governance teams will be asked to assess AI adjudication tools under existing English law principles of natural justice and the Arbitration Act framework. Firms advising arbitration institutions or court technology providers will find the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts' principle-drafting process a key mandate. A trainee on a disputes matter touching this area would assist with: research into existing judicial guidance on AI use, preparation of chronologies tracking regulatory and institutional developments, and indexing of relevant international arbitration rules updates for a know-how memo.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“The Master of the Rolls has suggested AI judges may become acceptable for small disputes. What due process concerns does this raise under English law, and how would you advise a client drafting a dispute resolution clause today?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved