Do Baltic law firms use AI in dispute resolution? Yes – but lawyers define the outcome

As of 2026, leading Baltic law firms, including Motieka & Audzevičius in Lithuania, systematically use AI and legal technology in evidence review, legal research, and case management. Industry data shows that 37% of legal professionals now use generative AI, up from just 12% two years earlier. However, in high-stakes litigation and international arbitration, lawyers continue to define case outcomes through judgment, advocacy, and strategy.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping many industries, and legal services are no exception. Across the Baltic States, leading law firms increasingly deploy modern legal technology to improve the speed, structure, and efficiency of dispute resolution.

But in commercial litigation and arbitration, technology does not replace lawyers. It supports them.

For businesses facing commercial conflict, shareholder disputes, regulatory exposure, or international arbitration, the decisive factor remains legal judgment: knowing what matters, what to challenge, when to negotiate, and how to protect commercial interests under pressure, even as AI in law and legal practice in the Baltics becomes more advanced.

At Motieka & Audzevičius, we treat technology as a tool that strengthens execution, while outcomes continue to depend on strategy, advocacy, and experience.

Why the Baltics are well-positioned for legal innovation

The Baltic region is widely recognised for digital maturity, efficient public institutions, and openness to innovation, and the broader digitalization of law. Lithuania ranks 17th out of 69 countries in the IMD World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2025, having climbed five positions in a single year. Estonia ranks 26th and Latvia 31st in the same index.

According to the European Commission’s Digital Decade 2025 report, Lithuania scored 87.9 on digital public services for citizens, well above the EU average of 82.3, and 92.5 on digital services for businesses, against an EU average of 86.2.

The legal infrastructure reflects the same direction:

• Lithuania’s electronic court portal e.teismas.lt has enabled electronic filing and document submission in civil and administrative cases since 1 July 2013, with certain criminal procedures also managed electronically from 1 January 2020 (Lithuanian Courts).
• In the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index 2025, the third edition of the index, covering 197 economies, Baltic states are classified in Group A (GovTech leaders), the highest maturity tier reserved for countries scoring 0.75 or above out of 1.0.
• The Baltic States operate highly advanced digital public-service and e-justice ecosystems, supported by integrated platforms for electronic identification, court access, digital filings, and online public administration services.

For clients, this environment means access to legal advisors who combine traditional legal expertise with modern operational capability. Businesses in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia increasingly expect outside counsel to deliver not only strong legal analysis but also responsiveness, transparency, and efficient dispute management.

How do law firms use AI in dispute resolution?

Leading Baltic firms typically use AI and legal technology tools in four targeted, practical areas.

1. Evidence review and document analysis

Complex commercial disputes often involve very large volumes of emails, contracts, financial records, and multilingual evidence. Advanced tools help legal teams identify relevant materials faster and organise them more effectively.

The shift is measurable: according to Everlaw’s 2025 eDiscovery Innovation Report, 42% of legal professionals using generative AI save between one and five hours per week, equivalent to roughly 260 hours per year per practitioner, about 32.5 full working days reclaimed for higher-value work.

2. Legal research

AI-assisted research tools accelerate access to case law, as part of AI in law and legal practice in the Baltics, procedural authorities, and comparative legal materials across multiple jurisdictions. This improves speed, but legal interpretation remains the responsibility of experienced counsel.

3. Case management

Technology improves coordination across internal teams, experts, external counsel, and management stakeholders, particularly in cross-border matters where speed and consistency are critical. Modern matter-management platforms reduce status-update overhead and create a single source of truth across complex international teams.

4. Scenario planning

Structured analytics support decision-making around settlement, litigation timing, or procedural options. Some firms now use predictive models to estimate timelines or outcome distributions for similar past matters. However, final strategic decisions remain lawyer-led and business-driven.

Can AI replace dispute resolution lawyers?

No.

Serious disputes involve uncertainty, incomplete facts, shifting commercial priorities, and opponent behaviour that cannot be reduced to automated outputs. Clients do not retain counsel merely to process information – they retain lawyers to exercise judgment.

That includes deciding:

• whether to litigate or negotiate,
• how aggressively to proceed,
• which arguments are persuasive before a specific tribunal,
• what risks matter commercially,
• how to preserve negotiation leverage,
• when settlement is preferable to escalation.

These are strategic decisions shaped by experience, advocacy skill, and commercial understanding. Technology can assist. It cannot replace this role.

It is also worth noting that under the EU AI Act, the use of AI in judicial decision-making is treated as a high-risk activity, and AI systems intended to influence the outcome of legal proceedings must meet strict transparency, oversight, and risk-management requirements (European Commission – AI Act Service Desk).

Why does human judgment still win cases?

In litigation and arbitration, many decisive moments happen outside any algorithmic process.

A witness performs unexpectedly. A tribunal reacts to tone rather than theory. An opponent reveals weakness during cross-examination. A procedural move creates settlement pressure. A business priority changes overnight.

Experienced disputes lawyers know how to respond when matters become dynamic and unpredictable. That is why sophisticated clients continue to prioritise counsel with proven disputes experience, especially in high-value or sensitive matters, even as AI in dispute resolution in the Baltics becomes more widely used.

Artificial intelligence also lacks inherently human cognitive and psychological characteristics that inevitably form part of judicial reasoning. Courts do not decide cases through pure logic alone: credibility assessments, contextual understanding, proportionality, procedural fairness, and even subtle human perception often influence outcomes. Because AI systems process patterns rather than genuinely understand human context, they may incorrectly minimise or exaggerate the importance of certain facts, legal arguments, or evidentiary elements within a dispute.

This is also reflected in how lawyers themselves view AI. The same Everlaw research identifies the leading concerns about AI use in legal work as data privacy and confidentiality (56% of respondents), cost (47%), the need for better professional education (34%), and the risk of AI hallucinations (31%). These are exactly the risks that experienced human counsel is best positioned to manage.

AI, regulation, and responsible legal practice

As AI adoption grows across Europe, including AI in law, responsible use matters as much as innovation.

The European Union AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases:

• 2 February 2025 – prohibitions on unacceptable-risk AI (e.g. social scoring, manipulative AI) take effect.
• 2 August 2025 – rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models begin to apply.
• 2 August 2026 – the bulk of high-risk AI obligations start applying.
• 2 August 2027 – full roll-out, including high-risk AI in regulated products.

For law firms, the AI Act reinforces existing professional duties relating to confidentiality, security, and responsible supervision. Clients should expect any serious law firm using AI tools to maintain strong standards on:

• legal privilege and client confidentiality
• data protection (GDPR compliance)
• quality control and human review of AI outputs
• human oversight of AI-supported decisions
• regulatory compliance with the EU AI Act and national bar association rules

Used responsibly, technology improves service delivery. Used carelessly, it can create legal and reputational risk. Lithuania has already seen several cases in which procedural submissions, including cassation appeals, referred to non-existent case law, potentially linked to the use of generative AI tools. In some instances, courts referred these circumstances to the Bar Association for professional assessment. These examples demonstrate that, even when AI tools are used, ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of legal arguments remains with the lawyer.

Why businesses choose Baltic law firms for complex disputes

The Baltic legal market combines several advantages that matter in disputes:

• commercially minded legal teams with international training
• strong cross-border experience across the EU and CEE region
• multilingual capability (typically English, Russian, besides native languages)
• efficient communication culture
• high digital readiness, supported by a mature e-justice infrastructure
• a pragmatic, problem-solving approach to dispute strategy

For regional and international businesses, these factors are valuable in litigation, arbitration (including ICC, SCC, VIAC, and Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration proceedings), investigations, and urgent risk situations.

How Motieka & Audzevičius approaches modern disputes

Our law firm advises businesses in complex commercial litigation, international arbitration, shareholder conflicts, and other high-stakes disputes. Our dispute resolution practice is consistently recognised by leading international directories, including Chambers and Partners, The Legal 500, Global Arbitration Review, and Lexology, with our disputes team ranked Band 1 by Chambers Europe in Lithuania.

We use technology where it creates a genuine advantage, for example, improving speed, organisation, and case execution.

But our clients retain us for something technology cannot provide: strategic judgment, persuasive advocacy, and decisive action when pressure is highest.

That distinction matters.

The future of dispute resolution in the Baltics

Disputes are becoming more data-heavy, more international, and more commercially sensitive. Technology and the digitalization of law in Baltics will continue to play a larger role in how matters are managed.

But the core principle is unlikely to change modern tools may support disputes, lawyers still define outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do Baltic law firms use AI?

Yes. As of 2026, many leading Baltic law firms, including Motieka & Audzevičius, use legal technology for document review, legal research, workflow automation, and case management. Adoption is highest in firms handling international arbitration and large-scale commercial litigation, where data volumes are significant.

Can AI win a lawsuit or arbitration?

No. Outcomes depend on legal merits, evidence, advocacy, negotiation strategy, and decision-making by courts or tribunals. AI tools can help legal teams prepare more efficiently. Still, no jurisdiction in the Baltics – or in the EU more broadly – permits AI to act as a decision-maker in litigation or arbitration. Under the EU AI Act, AI systems that influence judicial outcomes are treated as high-risk and must meet strict oversight and transparency requirements.

Is AI useful in commercial litigation?

Yes, particularly in evidence-heavy disputes where speed and organisation are critical. Common use cases include contract analysis, fact chronology building, multilingual document review, and case-law research. Practitioners using generative AI report saving 1–5 hours per week on average, which translates to roughly 32 working days per year.

Who should businesses contact when facing a dispute in Lithuania?

Businesses facing litigation, arbitration, shareholder conflict or urgent commercial disputes in Lithuania should engage experienced disputes counsel as early as possible, ideally before formal proceedings begin. Early-stage strategy often determines case outcomes. Motieka & Audzevičius advises businesses on dispute strategy, risk assessment, and procedural planning, and represents clients in litigation processes across Lithuania and the wider Baltic region. Contact our dispute resolution team.

Does the EU AI Act affect how law firms can use AI?

Yes. The EU AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases through August 2027. It sets transparency, risk-management, and oversight requirements for AI systems used in professional services, with prohibitions on unacceptable-risk AI already applying since 2 February 2025. Law firms must combine AI Act compliance with their existing duties on legal privilege, confidentiality, and GDPR data protection.