Preview Page

One deep-seated similarity between litigation and arbitration is the importance that experienced counsel attach to the attributes and characteristics of those who will decide questions of fact and make rulings of law. There is, however, this crucial difference: For all the efforts of trial counsel to seek small, advantageous influence, the law struggles mightily, and generally successfully, to prevent judicial forumshopping; and limitation on voir dire is an often-discussed reform of civil litigation.

In arbitration, by contrast, something akin to forum-shopping (the search for a panel with the array of experience and skills sought by the parties) is not only permitted but encouraged. Much rides on the issue of arbitrator selection—not only because the single arbitrator or panel will function both as judge and jury, but also because, absent the kinds of prejudicial misconduct that can justify statutory vacatur of an award, the work of the arbitrator is substantially insulated from judicial supervision or review. This distinctive characteristic of arbitration contributes significantly to the speed, efficiency and cost advantages that this process offers. Careful, thoughtful, effective participation in arbitrator selection is an important element keeping the equation in balance.