When Arbitrator Intelligence promised to increase transparency, accountability, and diversity in arbitrator selection, it was celebrated as a welcome innovation. Now separated from its academic backing, however, it might accomplish the opposite. Arbitrator Intelligence could even facilitate the manufacture of deceptive arbitrator images – and it is already stifling diversity.
Since Arbitrator Intelligence’s Reports exist, counsel may feel obligated to consider them as part of counsel’s due diligence. Simply reading these error-laden Reports, however, sends counsel on a possibly wasteful errand to establish whether the arbitrator really is who Arbitrator Intelligence says. And that errand could ultimately be for nothing, as several of those about whom Reports are offered are not accepting appointments: they have retired or their current position renders them unable to accept arbitrator appointments.
If Arbitrator Intelligence is willing to misrepresent the appoint-ability of the arbitrators for whom it offers Reports, what other misrepresentations, errors, or omissions can buyers expect?
For more information, see Arbitrator “Intelligence” and the Mysterious Brown M&M, forthcoming University of Toledo Law Review, available for comment athttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3839008
This article first appeared on the Thomson Reuters Arbitration blog, here. One of the most interesting aspects of international arbitration are the applicable laws. For me, what makes international arbitration stand out as...By Frederico Singarajah
In 1925, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted to ensure the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements due to a national policy favoring arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism....By Brittany Munn