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
We are delighted today to introduce the new Arbitrate.com, which has been re-built and re-designed from the ground up to offer a powerful set of updated features and capabilities. This...
By Amy Schmitz, Colin RuleIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Prof. Guillermo Jose Garcia Sanchez from the Texas A&M School of Law. Guillermo teaches courses on arbitration and international petroleum transactions,...
By Guillermo Jose Garcia Sanchez, Amy SchmitzThis article first appeared on the Securities Arbitration Alert ('SAA') blog, here. FINRA’s Office of Dispute Resolution Services (“DRS”) has again administratively postponed all in-person arbitration and mediation hearings, and...
By George Friedman