As an observer in the Arbitration Writing Lab, I expected something formal and intimidating, especially without any prior experience in law. Instead, a 20-page AI-generated text landed on my desk. The professor instructed us to extract the key terms needed for an arbitration case. As I skimmed through the pages, I picked out words like “substantive,” “controversy,” “Sweden,” and “arbitrator,” but ran out of time before I could bring them into a coherent text. As an observer, I didn’t see this as a failure. The students, however, managed to complete the task on time.
From Feb. 16 to 26, the AUA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Clinic, in collaboration with the Master of Laws (LL.M.) faculty, held its first Arbitration Writing Lab, conducted by professor Davit Khachatryan. Arbitration, which is used to resolve disputes outside of court, seemed like the kind of field where every word carries weight. The lab offered a hands-on approach to arbitration, focusing on practical drafting skills.
It consisted of five two-hour sessions where students practiced preparing arbitration documents, using clause design to draft requests, answers, procedural applications and tribunal correspondence. Throughout the sessions, Khachatryan provided mock cases, giving students practical training under time constraints. Each task lasted roughly 30 to 40 minutes and was completed both individually and in pairs, simulating real arbitration conditions.
“Arbitration is about procedure and efficient legal writing skills that are crucial to making your case and winning the dispute,” Khachatryan said. Arbitration is a heavy paper-based process with a very rich procedure as it requires drafting the case under a tense deadline. “My aim is to share the skills and experience that I have managed to accumulate during the past years with the students and practicing lawyers,” he added, emphasizing the importance of intensive drafting.
Initially designed for 12 participants, the lab ultimately accepted 15 students. Khachatryan noted that his goal was to provide detailed feedback to each participant. Increasing the number further would have reduced the program’s effectiveness. All 15 selected participants were women. Khachatryan noted that it is an emerging trend among Armenian women, “men don’t want to dedicate their spare time to activities like this.”
Anahit Sukiasyan, a junior law student from the Russian-Armenian University, said she enrolled because she had never encountered such a comprehensive, practice-oriented course in arbitration.
“We worked on preparing key procedural documents, including a Request for Arbitration and an Answer to the Request, and explored procedural tools such as interim measures and document production,” she said.
Despite the heavy workload, Khachatryan also included engaging references to Armenian cinema to illustrate arbitration concepts.
“Mr. Khachatryan managed to strike the perfect balance between a playful presentation and serious work,” Sukiasyan said. “On the one hand, vibrant presentations with references to cinema and culture; on the other, full-fledged drafting of legal documents based on real cases.” Indeed, a musical performance from “Our Yard” was the last thing I expected to see in this lab.
Madlin Odian, an AUA LL.M. first year student, emphasized the program’s practical focus, noting that it differed significantly from theory-heavy courses, which can become repetitive over time.
“Here, there was a chance to test our knowledge through drafting,” she said. “By doing so, I better understand what I need to study further and where I feel confident or not.”
Odian added that the initial assignments were the most challenging because she was still exploring her own writing style.
“Seeing other people’s work really helped, especially since we often worked in pairs or groups,” she said.
The question of AI use also surfaced during the lab. Khachatryan cautioned against relying on such tools in arbitration, highlighting the potential risks associated with confidentiality and data security.
Sukiasyan pointed to the final session as one of the most impactful moments of the course. “Perhaps the most memorable was the final class, dedicated to document opening,” she said. “It was then that I realized that in arbitration, unlike in a regular court, facts and evidence play a key role, and the process of proof is structured according to completely different principles.” She spent a long time with her team discussing which documents would be beneficial for them to request and what strategy the opposing side would most likely adopt.
Khachatryan acknowledged that the course could not cover the full scope of arbitration practice but was designed to prioritize its most essential elements. “What we managed to cover was roughly 40 to 60 percent of what happens in the arbitration writing process.” He focused on the most important aspects and provided short reading materials so as not to overwhelm the students, especially since they had writing assignments between sessions. “I know it was exhausting both for them and for me, but it was also rewarding.”
I was the only person in the classroom without a background in law, but by the end of the lab I had gained a solid understanding of the arbitration process and observed how others learned. to draft arbitration cases. By the end of the course, when certificates were handed out and Khachatryan asked whether the students would feel confident taking on an arbitration case, their answer was yes.
Events related to arbitration expand beyond the Writing Lab. On April 27-28, AUA hosted Yerevan Arbitration Colloquium 2026, an advanced forum on arbitration law and practice in commercial and investment disputes, featuring leading practitioners and scholars of the field. In addition, the LL.M. with ADR Clinic will hold an Arbitration Summer School from June 22-25, that welcomes law students and legal professionals.
