Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

The use of arbitration in the corporate world is being questioned, largely because the process often takes longer and is more expensive than the parties expected it to be. The arbitrator selected to manage and decide a commercial dispute has a fundamental impact on every aspect of the arbitral proceedings, including the time and cost. Unfortunately, there is insufficient information about arbitrator candidates available to help parties decide which arbitrator would best satisfy their expectations for a fair, swift and efficient process. This article suggests formalizing a process of obtaining party evaluations of arbitrators and making them available to new users of the process.

In-house views on arbitration are in a state of flux. Whereas in-house counsel historically tended to view arbitration as a welcome alternative to costly and protracted litigation with an unclear outcome, today lawyers who work in corporate law departments tend to be more cautious in recommending arbitration to their business clients. This caution against arbitration appears to stem from a gap between counsel’s expectation of what arbitration should deliver in terms of "reasonable" costs, duration, and outcome, and the reality, which is that arbitration can be so lengthy and expensive that clients find themselves wondering why they volunteered and paid to subject themselves to this process in the first place, even if they are ultimately the prevailing party.