The Fourth Party in ADR: Technology as Mediator

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has long relied on human judgment, empathy, and trust. Over time, however, the growing complexity of disputes and the global scale of commercial interactions have highlighted the need for faster, more transparent, and more accessible processes. This is where technology has begun to play a transformative role not by replacing human mediators or arbitrators, but by supporting them in delivering efficient, data-backed, and cost-effective outcomes.

The Changing Nature of ADR and the Rise of the “Fourth Party”

Traditionally, ADR involves three participants: two disputing parties and a neutral third party (the mediator or arbitrator). This structure has been remarkably effective in achieving voluntary settlements. Yet as disputes become more complex and cross-border, purely human-led systems face challenges such as delays, high costs, and limited access for minor claimants.

The idea of technology as a “Fourth Party” in dispute resolution was first introduced by Ethan Katsh and Janet Rifkin in the 1990s. It refers to technology acting as an active participant in the resolution process, assisting rather than replacing the existing players. Today, advanced tools can handle document management, case triage, communication scheduling, and even provide analytical insights drawn from precedent.

However, this evolution is not about technology replacing dialogue; it is about enhancing the resolution process itself, shortening timelines, improving accessibility, and reducing costs. AI-driven tools can also help break down language barriers in cross-border disputes by providing real-time translation and making the process more accessible to non-English speakers and parties with diverse linguistic backgrounds. These efficiencies create more opportunities for meaningful conversation and timely closure, rather than replacing human interaction altogether.

Consider the practical impact: a small business owner in Japan disputing a contract with a supplier in Brazil no longer needs to navigate language barriers or incur translation costs that might exceed the dispute’s value. AI-powered platforms can facilitate communication between both parties in their native languages, democratizing access to dispute resolution for those previously excluded by linguistic and economic barriers. This technological assistance enables parties to focus on substantive issues rather than procedural obstacles, fostering more productive dialogue and faster resolution. In this way, technology serves as an enabler of human interaction, not a substitute for it.

The Future Division of Labor: Human-Technology Partnership in Mediation

Technology, on the other hand, provides speed, consistency, and procedural reliability. When used together, the strengths of both human judgment and technological support can offset each other’s weaknesses. For example, digital case management platforms can flag inconsistencies or bottlenecks, while mediators interpret these signals in light of human behaviour and context.

This complementary relationship will fundamentally reshape the mediator’s role. Rather than being burdened with time-consuming administrative tasks such as scheduling sessions, managing documentation, tracking deadlines, or organizing case files, human mediators will be freed to focus on what they do best: navigating the complexities of human conflict. Technology can efficiently handle routine processes such as sending automated reminders, generating standard correspondence, maintaining audit trails, and compiling case histories. This allows mediators to dedicate their cognitive and emotional resources to the intricate work of understanding underlying interests, reading non-verbal cues, managing power imbalances, and facilitating genuine dialogue between parties.

Moreover, human mediators will serve an increasingly vital role as ethical guardians and emotional anchors in technology-augmented processes. While algorithms can analyze patterns and suggest procedural steps, they cannot grasp the nuanced moral dimensions of a dispute or recognize when a vulnerable party needs additional support. Mediators will provide the essential ethical oversight to ensure fairness, identify potential biases in automated recommendations, and make judgment calls about when to deviate from standard procedures based on unique human circumstances. Their capacity for empathy, cultural sensitivity, and moral reasoning becomes even more valuable in a landscape where technology handles the mechanical aspects of dispute resolution.

Rather than serving as a substitute, technology acts as an aide streamlining the administrative and analytical aspects of dispute resolution so that mediators can focus on what truly matters: understanding motivations, fostering communication, and ensuring equitable outcomes. The integration of smart contracts self-executing agreements with terms coded directly into blockchain systems offers transformative potential for automated dispute resolution. These digital contracts can automatically enforce agreed-upon terms, trigger payments, or initiate arbitration protocols when predefined conditions are met, enabling efficient resolution of straightforward, rule-based disputes without human intervention. However, while smart contracts excel at handling clear-cut transactional disagreements, human mediators remain essential for navigating the complex emotional, ethical, and nuanced dimensions of conflict that require empathy, judgment, and creative problem-solving.

Global Trends and Data-Driven Insights

Globally, technology’s integration into ADR is not a distant idea but a growing practice. The European Union’s Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform has processed over 3 million consumer disputes, with a success rate of nearly 70%. Singapore’s Community Justice and Tribunals System use automated negotiation before mediation to resolve a significant proportion of small value claims digitally. The UK’s Civil Money Claims platform uses algorithmic tools to help judges and litigants manage cases more efficiently.

These examples demonstrate that while technology cannot independently mediate disputes, it plays an essential supporting role, accelerating case processing and broadening access to justice without compromising fairness.

In India, similar initiatives have begun to take shape. Platforms such as Sama, Presolv360, and CAMP have facilitated online mediation and arbitration across sectors such as fintech and e-commerce. Sama alone has managed over 700,000 disputes, achieving settlement rates above 60%. While this progress is promising, ODR adoption remains limited compared to jurisdictions such as Singapore. Key challenges include uneven digital literacy, infrastructure disparities, and scepticism around algorithmic fairness.

Legal Recognition and Institutional Evolution

The Indian legal framework has gradually evolved to accommodate technological participation in dispute resolution. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, recognizes electronic communications and digital awards. The Mediation Act, 2023, further strengthens this approach by explicitly validating online and hybrid mediation.

At the international level, frameworks such as the UNCITRAL Technical Notes on ODR (2016) and the Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019) reinforce the legitimacy of technology-assisted settlements. Indian courts have also embraced digital transformation through e-filing, virtual hearings, and online evidence submission, a clear indication of judicial openness to tech-driven processes when fairness, confidentiality, and party autonomy are protected.

Market Perception: Balancing Trust and Transparency

Surveys of arbitration professionals and legal departments reveal cautious optimism about technology in ADR. Most stakeholders view it as a facilitator that simplifies logistics and analysis, but not as a decision-maker. Concerns around algorithmic bias, data privacy, and lack of transparency persist, particularly in jurisdictions where ethical frameworks for AI or automation remain underdeveloped.

In India, user confidence in ODR is growing, driven primarily by technology’s ability to reduce time and cost. The country’s leading ODR platform, SAMA, has resolved over 50,000 cases, with 65% settled within just three weeks a stark contrast to traditional litigation that can drag on for years[1]. In a pilot program with e-commerce marketplace Snapdeal, ODR achieved a 50% success rate in resolving customer complaints. Business Standard, and as of 2024, SAMA has resolved over 35 lakh (3.5 million) disputes across banking, insurance, and e-commerce sectors. [2]ICICI Bank has resolved approximately 50,000 low-ticket retail loan default cases through ODR since adopting the mechanism three years ago, demonstrating the scalability and effectiveness of technology-enabled dispute resolution in the financial sector.[3]

Despite these promising results, mediators and users consistently emphasize the need for human oversight. Indian dispute culture is deeply relational, emphasizing empathy, compromise, and qualities of social context that technology cannot replicate. Thus, while technology can enhance efficiency and accessibility, fairness and legitimacy in ADR will continue to depend on human discretion and moral judgment.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

The integration of technology in ADR presents challenges that must be addressed carefully rather than dismissed as limitations:

• Algorithmic Bias: Automated systems learn from existing data, which may contain structural biases. Regular audits and transparent methodologies are necessary to maintain neutrality.
• Data Security: Platforms must comply with data protection laws, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and ensure encryption and responsible data storage.
• Accessibility: Digital platforms must accommodate users across varying levels of technological familiarity, with multilingual interfaces and mobile-friendly designs.
• Ethical Oversight:  Clear accountability for system outcomes must be established among developers, mediators, and service providers.

Collaborative, Not Competitive: The Future of the Fourth Party

Looking forward, technology’s role in ADR can be visualized across three models:

1. Collaborative Model: Technology supports mediators through data analysis, scheduling, and procedural management while decision-making remains human-led.
2. Automated Model: For low-value, repetitive disputes (such as consumer refunds), automated negotiation tools can deliver swift, cost-effective outcomes.
3. Hybrid Model: A balance between the two where mediators retain authority, and technology enhances efficiency and documentation.

These frameworks are already being tested in different jurisdictions. The real question is not whether technology can become a “Fourth Party,” but whether it should. At present, its function is best described as a helper and an intelligent assistant that enables human decision-makers to work more effectively.

Conclusion

The evolution of ADR into a technology-supported framework marks a natural progression toward accessible justice. The “Fourth Party” does not replace the human element; it reinforces it. Technology’s most significant contribution lies in enabling faster resolutions, reducing costs, and making justice systems more inclusive.

India’s legal ecosystem, backed by the Mediation Act, 2023, and platforms like SAMA, CAMP, and Presolv360, is on the cusp of a more profound digital transformation. Yet, actual progress will depend not on how advanced the technology becomes, but on how responsibly and inclusively it is deployed.

In the end, empathy and fairness remain human virtues. Technology may enhance the process, but the heart of dispute resolution will always beat to a human rhythm.

[1] https://www.onlinelegalindia.com/blogs/odr-service-providers/

[2] https://thebetterindia.com/357644/sama-legal-tech-startup-resolves-civil-disputes-through-online-dispute-resolution-odr/

[3] https://law.asia/banking-disputes-litigation-alternatives/