botminds.aiBook a walkthrough
SearchLitigation & Dispute Resolution

Arbitrator Selection Research

Arbitrator selection that reads each candidate's awards and writings for their own view, checks each disclosure against both parties' corporate families, and puts a source behind every rank on the ballot.

Watch it workBook a walkthrough
Open the seven-name list and follow it to the ballot ↓
Watch with transcript →
The problem

A dissent dropped from the reading, a parent missing from the disclosure

The institution's list lands with names the partner half knows and a short window to answer. An associate searches award reporters and journals, reads late into the night, and calls colleagues who once appeared before a candidate. A tribunal's award gets quoted as one member's view, and the dissent that mattered is the first thing dropped.

Disclosures name a company, rarely its group, so a tie to the other side's parent or to its counsel surfaces after the ballot is in, when a challenge is the only remedy left. Ranks get settled on a call with the client, and a year later nobody can say why a name was struck.

Built forArbitration partnersAssociatesConflicts counselClient general counsel

The Problem Today

Counsel has days to strike and rank a list of strangers, and the research still runs on calls and memory.

15 days
to strike and rank an arbitration institution's candidate list published
68,000+
arbitrators, counsel and experts in the largest network published

Researched by hand today

  • Awards
  • Articles
  • Disclosures
  • Rankings
  • Hours per name, under deadlineEach candidate read award by award by an associate
  • Ties to a parent missedChecked against the company named, not its group

The Solution

  1. Each award read for its roleOnly sole awards, orders and dissents count as a candidate's own view
  2. Views placed on the issuesEach candidate's own words placed on the questions that decide the case
  3. Conflicts checked both waysEach disclosed tie matched to both parties' groups and counsel
  4. Strike and rank, signedEach rank explained with its sources; the partner signs

Built-in controls

  • Agents propose; they never strike, sign or submit a ballot
  • Only conflicts counsel clears a conflict
  • Published sources only, kept from the other side

What You Get

Firms go into the hearing with a tribunal they chose for reasons they can show the client.

4 hours
of associate research for seven names, down from about 30 our estimate
  • A memo the client approvesEach rank and strike footnoted to its source
  • A record of who decidedEach ballot version kept with its reason
  • Views from their own wordsSole awards, orders, dissents and writings, each quoted
From the list to the signed ballot

Arbitrator selection on nine screens, as counsel works down the list

Each screen does one part of the research, in the order a list is worked, and names who relies on it.

  1. 01Candidates and their sources

    Each candidate's published record gathered, with the gaps still open

    How it works

    • The institution's list goes in with each candidate's disclosure statement
    • Awards, CVs, articles, speeches and appointment lists gathered from approved sources only
    • Coverage per name, with gaps such as 2 awards known but unpublished

    AssociateKnows on the first day what exists for each name and what is missing, without a week spent in reporters and journals.

  2. 02Published awards reader

    Each award read for the candidate's role: sole, presiding or dissent

    How it works

    • Records the outcome, damages against the claim and months from hearing to award
    • Highlights the cited paragraphs and folds the rest of the award
    • Counts sole awards, orders and dissents as the candidate's own view: 29 of 64
    • A sole award at 71% of claim, issued 4.1 months after the hearing

    AssociateStops quoting a co-arbitrator's award as the candidate's own opinion, and surfaces the dissent a late-night read used to drop.

  3. 03Stated views on the issues

    Stated views placed on the issues that decide the dispute, by quotation

    How it works

    • Three issues: termination for cured under-reporting, certainty of lost profits and breadth of document production
    • Each candidate placed between two ends, such as material in itself and cure matters
    • Placed only from their own words: writings, sole awards and dissents
    • 20 views placed; one candidate has no stated view on termination

    Arbitration partnerSees where each name stands on the questions that decide the case, with the line to quote.

  4. 04Disclosures and the conflict check

    Each disclosed tie matched to both corporate families and both counsel

    How it works

    • Parents, subsidiaries and sister companies checked three levels deep
    • Also matched against both counsel and both party-appointed co-arbitrators
    • Each relationship classed against the published conflict lists, looking back three years
    • 23 of 23 checked: 2 touch the claimant's group, 1 touches the firm

    Conflicts counselCatches a tie to the other side's parent that the disclosure named only through two affiliates, before the ballot goes back.

  5. 05Candidates side by side

    Candidates in columns, each value opening the passage it came from

    How it works

    • Rows for licensing outcomes, the three issues, conflicts, damages, time to award and availability
    • Each value links to an award paragraph, article page or disclosure line
    • The strike-and-rank ballot runs along the bottom, a reason under each rank

    Arbitration partnerPuts seven people on one screen, every value backed by a passage she can open before she ranks anyone.

  6. 06Strike with a reason

    A strike that records its reason and the award paragraph behind it

    How it works

    • Strike from a column head, or move a name up or down
    • The cited paragraph opens above the reason box
    • The reason is recorded under the partner's name and the ballot reorders
    • At most 2 strikes without the practice head's approval

    Arbitration partnerStrikes the candidate whose own sole award found for a licensor against a diagnostics licensee on the same theory, and leaves the reason on file.

  7. 07Strike-and-rank ballot

    A ballot that stays unsigned until the client approves the strikes

    How it works

    • Each rank and strike shown with its reason, sources and who decided
    • Checks beside the signature: conflicts cleared, strikes within the limit, client approval
    • 7 of 7 ranks and strikes carry a reason with a source
    • The associate returns the signed form; agents never submit it

    Arbitration partnerSigns once the conflict check, the firm's strike limit and the client's approval are in place, each shown beside the button.

  8. 08Selection memo to the client

    A client memo footnoting every rank and strike to its source

    How it works

    • One page, with 14 footnotes, all to published sources
    • Drafted from the current ballot: recommendation, why each rank, why each strike
    • The conflict ties set out in plain words, each footnoted to its disclosure line
    • The partner approves sending; the client approves the strikes

    Client general counselReads why each name sits where it does, in a page she can follow, and approves the strikes before the ballot goes back.

  9. 09Who ranked and why

    Every ballot version kept, with who changed it and why

    How it works

    • Four versions so far; version 1 is the ranking agent's proposal, labeled as one
    • The associate moved a slow candidate down: median 11.4 months to award
    • The partner's two strikes, as versions 3 and 4, each with its reason
    • An activity log of people and agents, kept 7 years after the award

    Practice support managerCan answer, a year on, why a name was struck and who decided, from a record that cannot be edited.

Seven names on one presiding-arbitrator list, and where each one landed

One licensing dispute, read from 64 published awards and 31 articles and speeches.

CandidateLicensing awards, licensor–licenseeMedian damages and time to awardOn the ballot
Candidate 13–241% of claim, 7.5 monthsRanked 2
Candidate 24–058% of claim, 4.8 monthsStruck over a sole award on the same under-reporting theory
Candidate 33–147% of claim, 9.1 monthsRanked 4; two appointments by the claimant's affiliates, disclosed
Candidate 42–333% of claim, 6.2 monthsRanked 1
Candidate 51–152% of claim, 11.4 monthsRanked 5; no stated view on termination
Candidate 62–144% of claim, 5.9 monthsStruck after her former firm advised the claimant's parent
Candidate 71–238% of claim, 8.3 monthsRanked 3

A dissent counted, a presided award set aside, two affiliates, one parent

What the readers and the checker found on this list that a rushed read tends to pass.

A dissent read as her own view

Candidate 3 dissented on lost profits, asking to test the model against products actually launched. It counts as her view though the tribunal ruled the other way.

A presided award kept apart

Candidate 4 presided over a unanimous award on cured reporting breaches. It is not counted alone; her own 2024 article says the same.

Two affiliates, one parent

Candidate 3's disclosure named two companies that appointed her in 2023 and 2025. The checker matched both to the claimant's parent: two appointments in three years.

The firm's own appearance

The firm appeared before candidate 5 once, in 2022. That is below the threshold of more than three times in three years.

Around the ballot

Six more screens behind the comparison, the conflict check and the form

The passages, the questions and the rules behind the comparison.

A presided award, set asideA partial award candidate 4 presided over, on a cured reporting breach. A unanimous tribunal view is not counted alone.
A question for the institutionThe checker drafts a question on other appointments by the claimant's group. It asks; the partner approves sending.
The passage behind a valueClick any cited value on the comparison and its source opens: here page 13 of a 2024 article, in the candidate's own words.
Damages and speed, by candidateThe lower rows give the median share of the claim awarded and the months from hearing to award: 33% to 58%, and 4.8 to 11.4 months.
What the institution receivesThe form as it goes back carries the strikes and the numbers only. Reasons stay inside the firm.
The group's ballot policyAt most 2 strikes without the practice head, a reason and a source for each strike, and client approval before signing.

Conflicts counsel clears the check, and only the partner strikes and signs

The person who ranks does not clear conflicts, and the client approves each strike.

Associate
Sees
The sources, the award readings and the proposed ranks
Signs
Proposes ranks in a note and returns the signed form
Conflicts counsel
Sees
Each disclosed relationship matched to both families and both counsel
Signs
Clears the conflict check; ranking stays with the partner
Arbitration partner
Sees
The candidates side by side and the ballot with its reasons
Signs
Strikes, ranks, approves the client memo and signs the ballot
Client general counsel
Sees
The selection memo, footnoted, and nothing else
Signs
Approves the strikes before the ballot goes back
Practice support manager
Sees
Sources, roles and retention
Signs
Proposes setting changes to the practice head
Who prepares what

Research prepared by agents, and each strike and rank left to the partner

What each agent prepares, and the decision it leaves to counsel.

Source collector

Finds each candidate's published awards, rulings, CV, articles, speeches and institution appointments, and notes what is known but unpublished.

  • Uses approved sources only
  • Never contacts a candidate
Award reader

Reads each award for its outcome, damages against the claim, time from last hearing to award and the candidate's role, cited to the paragraph.

  • Never treats a tribunal's award as one member's view
Views agent

Places each candidate's stated views on the dispute's issues from their writings, sole awards and dissents, each with a quotation.

  • Never infers a view without a quotation
Conflict checker

Checks each disclosed relationship against both parties' corporate families, both counsel and the co-arbitrators, and classes it against the published conflict lists.

  • Never clears a conflict: conflicts counsel does
Ranking agent

Proposes the strike-and-rank ballot, each rank explained with cited awards and writings.

  • Never strikes, signs or submits
Memo agent

Drafts the client memo from the current ballot, each statement footnoted.

  • Never sends; the partner approves

Arbitrator selection, asked before the next list arrives

What is arbitrator selection research?

Arbitrator selection research profiles each candidate on an institution's list from their published awards, rulings and writings, so counsel can strike and rank on evidence. Here agents read each award for the candidate's role, place stated views on the issues, check each disclosure against both parties and propose a cited ballot.

How do I research an arbitrator's past awards without misreading them?

Read each award for the role the candidate held. A sole award, a procedural order signed alone or a dissent is the candidate's own reasoning; a unanimous award they sat on belongs to the tribunal. Only the first kind counts as the candidate's view.

What does the conflict check cover beyond the company a disclosure names?

The corporate families on both sides, three levels deep: parents, subsidiaries and sister companies, plus both counsel and both party-appointed arbitrators. Conflicts counsel clears the check before the partner signs.

Can a candidate or the institution see our research?

The research uses published sources only and stays inside the firm. Agents do not contact a candidate or the institution, and the form that goes back carries the strikes and the numbers alone.

What if we disagree with how an award was read?

The associate can agree with a reading or correct it, for example a role or an outcome recorded wrongly. The correction is logged under their name and the views resting on it are checked again.

Does it decide who we strike?

No. The ranking agent proposes a ballot with a reason and sources for each rank. The arbitration partner strikes, ranks and signs, the client approves the strikes, and the associate returns the signed form.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

More for litigators and arbitration counsel

All 8 solutions →
Cite Checking

No fabricated or overruled case reaches the court under your name, and every fix has a person behind it.

1-min filmDeposition Summary

A day of paralegal summarising done in minutes, every line cited.

1-min filmCase Chronology

A fact chronology in a day, not weeks, each entry linked to its source.

1-min film

See which name you would strike
from their own sole awards.

Send a candidate list your group has already answered, and watch each name read from its own awards, checked against both sides and ranked with its sources.

Book a walkthroughBrowse solutions