Interviews with Our Editors: Albert Leung and Wenny Huang of the eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre

The eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre (“eBRAM”) in Hong Kong aims to elevate arbitration and mediation services through online dispute resolution (“ODR”) and LawTech facilities—eBRAM stands for Electronic Business Related Arbitration and Mediation. Since its founding in 2018, the dispute resolution landscape has experienced profound technological change, particularly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and the advent of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).

The Management Team of eBRAM includes Mr Albert Leung (Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer) and Ms Wenny Huang (Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Secretary General) who bring a wealth of experience in technology and international dispute resolution. We are delighted to welcome Albert and Wenny to the Blog.

1. Thanks for agreeing to this interview, Albert and Wenny. Could you share a bit more about eBRAM, your respective roles there, and how it seeks to differentiate itself from other arbitral institutions and legal technology providers?

   eBRAM is an institutional online dispute resolution centre, not a technology startup and not a conventional arbitral institution that simply happens to use online tools. We were established to combine the strengths of both worlds: institutional governance and advanced LawTech.

   What differentiates eBRAM is first and foremost our institution‑led model. We administer arbitrations and mediations under our own rules, with structured governance, dedicated committees, and institutional oversight. Technology at eBRAM is not an add‑on; it is embedded into the way cases are commenced, managed, and concluded, while remaining subject to clear procedural safeguards.

   Second, we are very deliberate about how we use technology. Our platforms incorporate tools such as secure video conferencing, real‑time transcription and translation, electronic signatures, and case management systems—but these are designed specifically for dispute resolution, not repurposed from general collaboration software. We do not use technology to replace arbitrators or mediators. Instead, we use it to remove friction, reduce cost, and make cross‑border proceedings more accessible and efficient.

   Third, our differentiation lies in trust and governance. Because we operate as a not‑for‑profit institution with a strong governance structure, users know that decisions about technology, data, and process are driven by institutional responsibility rather than commercial incentives. This is particularly important as new technologies, including AI, become more prevalent in legal services.

   Finally, eBRAM is deeply rooted in Hong Kong’s role as an international legal and dispute resolution hub, while remaining outward‑looking and collaborative across jurisdictions. Our work spans arbitration, mediation, LawTech services, and capacity building, all with the same objective: to modernise dispute resolution responsibly.

   In short, eBRAM is not trying to be the fastest or the flashiest. We are focused on being trusted, institutionally sound, and genuinely useful to the global dispute resolution community—and that philosophy informs both of our roles within the organisation.

    

2. Could you share more about eBRAM’s caseload, including any trends that you have noticed in the types of cases handled?

   eBRAM’s caseload has consistently reflected a strong emphasis on cross-border transactions and eCommerce-related disputes. While our initial focus was on small to medium-sized claims (under USD 100,000), we’ve observed a notable shift in recent years. Increasingly, our platform is being used to resolve high-value disputes, with some cases involving claims in the USD millions.

   This growth in demand has led our Secretariat to manage approximately 50 active cases concurrently on a daily basis. Thanks to the efficiency and accessibility of our ODR platform, we’ve been able to handle this volume effectively, despite operating with a lean team.

    

3. In 2021, eBRAM’s Chairman, Dr Thomas So JP, discussed with the Kluwer Mediation Blog how eBRAM could leverage the latest technologies to promote ODR. How have eBRAM’s ODR capacities developed since then, and which technology most excites you and eBRAM’s users?

   When our Chairman, Dr Thomas So JP, spoke with the Kluwer Mediation Blog in 2021, eBRAM was at an important inflection point. Since then, eBRAM’s ODR capabilities have developed significantly—both in depth and in breadth—and today we operate a fully institutional, end‑to‑end ODR ecosystem rather than a collection of standalone digital tools.

   First, over the past few years, our focus has been on moving beyond the concept of “remote hearings” to deliver true ODR. Parties can now manage the entire lifecycle of arbitration and mediation on our platform—from commencement and case administration, through document exchange and hearings, to the issuance and execution of outcomes—within a secure, institutionally-governed environment. This evolution has been accompanied by continuous refinement of our procedural workflows to ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of due process, confidentiality, or enforceability.

   Second, eBRAM’s LawTech services have matured into core infrastructure for dispute resolution professionals and parties, rather than add-ons. Our LawTech Service Portal integrates secure video conferencing, document management, electronic signatures, identity verification, and multilingual support into a single environment. These services are built to professional standards, with bank‑grade cybersecurity controls, international information security certifications, and data localisation in Hong Kong. For users, this addresses longstanding concerns around confidentiality, data protection, and reliability—issues that are particularly acute in cross‑border disputes. Importantly, these tools are not offered as generic productivity software. They are purpose‑built for dispute resolution and embedded within eBRAM’s institutional framework.

   Among the various technologies we have deployed, AI‑enabled real‑time transcription and multilingual translation has consistently generated the strongest positive feedback from our users. Real‑time transcription improves accuracy and transparency, while live translation allows parties, counsel, arbitrators, and mediators from different jurisdictions to participate more fully and effectively. What excites us most about this technology is not automation for its own sake, but its ability to enhance human decision‑making.

   We take a measured approach to emerging technologies such as AI, as addressed in more detail in response to question 5 below.

    

4. The Blog’s contributors have taken an interest in whether AI will leave those in the arbitration field jobless, especially arbitrators. To the extent that both of you can put aside your personal (human) biases against the current non-human minority in our field, would you like to weigh in on this?

   Humans are inherently emotional and influenced by contextual factors, making it challenging to ensure complete neutrality in their judgments and analyses—an issue that AI effectively addresses by complementing human limitations. For example, in a marine casualty collision dispute, an arbitrator with a shipowner’s background may understand the shipowner party better. That is because humans tend to be influenced by emotions and contexts (such as previous experience), even if he/she does not intend to be. Human arbitrators easily have subjective biases. The diverse backgrounds, local customs, personal experiences, and public stances of the parties involved may either align or conflict with those of the arbitrator. This can lead the arbitrator to unconsciously favour or disregard certain evidence. Although unintentional, such biases may ultimately result in inconsistent arbitral awards across similar cases.

   Technology or AI can effectively offset these flaws: it conducts objective analysis based on laws and similar cases without subjective interference, provides unified references via similar rulings, verifies evidence to avoid omissions, and reduces subjective discretion to supplement human judgment limitations.

    

5. Another related hot topic is the use of AI by arbitral institutions, including for internal processes and case management. Could you share with us whether AI is used in eBRAM’s operations and whether you have any plans to (further) explore the adoption of AI in your workflows?

   The use of AI by arbitral institutions is indeed one of the most closely watched developments in our field. From our perspective, the key question is not whether AI should be used, but how it can be used responsibly within an institutional framework that safeguards trust, due process, and human judgment.

   At eBRAM, we already make targeted and deliberate use of AI in our operations, in areas that support efficiency, accessibility, and procedural quality rather than adjudicative decision‑making. Most notably, AI is embedded in our real‑time transcription and multilingual translation capabilities, which are now routinely used in online mediations, arbitrations, and hearings. We also use AI‑assisted technologies to support case administration and workflow efficiency, such as organising large volumes of documents, improving searchability within case materials, and supporting internal knowledge management.

   As an institution, we are acutely aware that AI adoption raises legitimate concerns around transparency, data security, bias, and accountability. For that reason, our approach has been intentionally cautious and incremental.

   Looking ahead, we do intend to further explore the adoption of AI in our workflows, but always in a manner consistent with our institutional role. Our current focus is on areas where AI can:

   - Improve process efficiency and cost‑effectiveness;
   - Enhance user experience and accessibility, particularly in cross‑border cases;
   - Support case management and administrative functions; and
   - Reduce friction without altering the substantive decision‑making role of neutrals.

   What we are not pursuing is the use of AI as a substitute for legal reasoning, neutrality, or discretion. In our view, and in eBRAM’s institutional judgment, AI should augment dispute resolution, not automate justice.

    

6. What are the next steps on the horizon for eBRAM’s continued growth?

   Looking ahead, eBRAM’s next phase of growth is guided by a clear objective: to deepen the role of trusted, institution‑led ODR and LawTech as a core component of modern dispute resolution.

   First, we will continue to strengthen and refine our end‑to‑end ODR capabilities. This means further enhancing the integration between procedural rules, case administration, and technology so that online arbitration and mediation are not merely digital replicas of physical processes, but purpose‑designed for efficiency, accessibility, and fairness.

   Second, we see significant opportunity in sector‑specific and use‑case‑driven ODR frameworks. Different industries—such as healthcare, sports, digital trade, and technology‑enabled services—have distinct dispute profiles and expectations.

   Third, we will continue to expand our LawTech infrastructure in a measured and responsible manner. This includes further investment in tools that support case management, multilingual proceedings, secure document handling, and digital execution of outcomes.

   Finally, capacity building remains essential. eBRAM will continue to invest in training, professional engagement, and collaboration with legal practitioners, arbitrators, mediators, and institutions both locally and internationally. Widespread adoption of ODR depends not only on platforms, but on confidence, competence, and shared professional standards.

    

7. Final question. In your view, what are the key challenges to the increased adoption of ODR and LawTech?

   One of the most persistent challenges is trust. Users need confidence that online processes are secure, fair, and enforceable. This includes concerns around data protection, cybersecurity, confidentiality, and procedural integrity. Institutions have a critical role to play here: trust in technology often flows from trust in governance.

   A second challenge is cultural and behavioural change. While acceptance of online hearings has grown significantly, there remains hesitation—particularly in higher‑value or more complex disputes—about fully digital processes. Changing long‑standing professional habits requires not only reliable technology, but also clear institutional leadership and demonstrated success over time.

   Third, regulatory and legal fragmentation across jurisdictions can slow adoption. Differences in legal frameworks, enforcement regimes, and professional rules mean that ODR solutions must be carefully designed to operate across borders without compromising legal certainty.

   Finally, the rapid evolution of technology itself presents a challenge. Innovations such as AI offer substantial potential, but also raise questions around transparency, accountability, and ethical use. Institutions must strike the right balance between innovation and restraint—ensuring that technology enhances dispute resolution without undermining human judgment and neutrality at its core.

   In our view, the future of ODR and LawTech will be shaped less by speed of adoption and more by quality of integration. Sustainable growth depends on aligning technology with legal principles, professional values, and user expectations. eBRAM’s approach is therefore intentionally evolutionary rather than disruptive. By combining institutional governance, legal expertise, and carefully deployed technology, we aim to support the continued modernisation of dispute resolution in a way that builds confidence, promotes access to justice, and meets the practical needs of a global, digital economy.

Thank you very much for your time and invaluable insights, Albert and Wenny.

This interview is part of Kluwer Arbitration Blog’s “Interviews with Our Editors” series. Past interviews are available here.