Arbitrator “Intelligence” and the Mysterious Brown M&M

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

Katherine Simpson

Dr. Katherine Simpson, FCIArb., is an arbitrator based in the US and London, United Kingdom (33 Bedford Row Chambers). She has served as sole arbitrator in international disputes conducted under the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and has conducted virtual hearings. She has been involved in over…