Arbitration · Choosing the Neutral
The arbitrator is the most consequential choice in the proceeding.
In litigation, the judge is assigned. In arbitration, the parties choose the decider. That choice shapes everything that follows: the preliminary hearing, the scope of discovery, the conduct of the hearing, and the quality of the award. It warrants more diligence than most parties give it.
01 — Selection Criteria
Six things counsel weigh when evaluating a neutral.
- 01
Subject-matter fit
The most common selection mistake is choosing a credential (years of practice, institutional affiliation) over substantive fit. An arbitrator who has heard hundreds of contract disputes may be poorly equipped to evaluate source-code evidence, parse a cybersecurity incident report, or assess the technical opinions of competing AI experts. Subject-matter fit means the arbitrator can engage with the technical record without relying entirely on expert translation — and can spot when an expert's opinion is reliable versus when it is advocacy dressed as analysis.
- 02
Neutrality and appearance of impartiality
Arbitrators are obligated to disclose any relationship — professional, financial, or personal — that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect their impartiality. The AAA Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes establishes the disclosure obligations and disqualification standard. Counsel should evaluate not only disclosed relationships but the broader network: prior representations, law firm ties, academic affiliations, and published positions on contested legal questions. Opposing counsel will scrutinize the same record; disclose proactively.
- 03
Availability and scheduling discipline
An arbitrator who accepts more matters than their calendar can absorb produces scheduling delays, last-minute continuances, and awards that arrive long after the hearing record has grown cold. Ask directly: how many active matters does the arbitrator currently have? What is their typical award turnaround after a merits hearing? Do they maintain hard deadlines for briefing and production? An arbitrator who manages their docket with discipline is a material advantage in a proceeding where speed matters.
- 04
Award-writing discipline
A reasoned award is a document that must explain what was decided and why — in terms that the losing party (and, if challenged, a reviewing court) can follow. Award-writing quality varies widely. Request sample awards or publicly available awards written by the arbitrator. Assess whether the reasoning is clearly organized, whether the analysis is responsive to the actual arguments presented, and whether the factual findings are traceable to the record. A well-reasoned award is the arbitrator's primary deliverable — it warrants the same due diligence as any written work product.
- 05
Technical fluency for technology and cyber matters
In disputes involving source code, algorithmic systems, digital forensic evidence, or cybersecurity incident analysis, technical fluency is not optional. An arbitrator who does not understand how software executes, how a network intrusion is traced, or how AI training data affects model outputs will struggle to evaluate competing technical narratives — even with expert witnesses on each side. Look for an arbitrator who has published in the technical field, holds relevant credentials, or has an active practice that keeps them current in the subject matter.
- 06
Vetting the record
The AAA strike-and-rank process surfaces candidates; the vetting happens before you rank them. Review the arbitrator's JAMS profile (or equivalent), any published decisions, their publication record, fee schedule, and availability. Interview references who have appeared before them — both winning and losing counsel. Ask whether the arbitrator controlled the hearing room, whether preliminary and pre-hearing orders were clear and timely, and whether the award addressed the arguments actually presented.
02 — One Such Neutral
An example of what that profile looks like in practice.
Daniel B. Garrie is one neutral whose profile aligns with the criteria described above, particularly in technology, cybersecurity, AI, e-discovery, and complex commercial matters. He has served as a neutral — mediator, arbitrator, and discovery referee — across a broad range of disputes over two decades of practice. His arbitration work spans sole-arbitrator and tri-panel seats in domestic and international proceedings across JAMS, SIAC, LCIA, HKIAC, CPR, and AAA by party stipulation.
His technical credentials — active practice in cybersecurity forensics, published scholarship on AI governance, e-discovery, and source-code disputes, adjunct faculty at Harvard, Cardozo, and Rutgers in technology law — reflect the kind of subject-matter fluency that distinguishes a qualified neutral in technical proceedings. His court-appointment record (over one hundred appointments as Special Master) reflects the same adjudicative discipline that experienced AAA arbitrators bring to the seat.
Counsel considering whether Daniel fits the matter can review his credentials in detail and obtain the model stipulation language to consent him into a pending AAA proceeding.
- CredentialsReview Daniel's credentials →Panel admissions, court appointments, scholarship, and practice-area detail.
- Consent into an AAA matterModel clause & stipulation language →Ready-to-adapt language for naming Daniel in a new agreement or a pending AAA proceeding.
03 — Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about arbitrator selection.
How does the AAA strike-and-rank process work?+
The AAA provides each party with a list of proposed neutrals. Each party may strike unacceptable candidates and rank the remaining names. The AAA appoints the highest-ranked name that is mutually acceptable. If no name is mutually ranked, the AAA appoints. Parties may also agree by joint stipulation to designate any qualified neutral — whether on the AAA roster or not — without going through the list process.
What should I ask an arbitrator's references?+
Ask how the arbitrator managed the preliminary hearing and pre-hearing orders: were they clear, timely, and proportionate? How did the arbitrator handle contested evidentiary issues? Did the arbitrator ask questions that showed engagement with the technical record? Was the award well-reasoned and responsive to the arguments presented? How long did the award take after the close of the hearing record? References from both winning and losing counsel are more informative than one-sided endorsements.
Does subject-matter expertise always outweigh other criteria?+
Not always, but it should be weighted heavily in technical disputes. A generalist arbitrator of unimpeachable neutrality and excellent process management may be preferable to a narrow specialist with scheduling problems or known positions on contested legal questions. The goal is a balanced assessment across subject-matter fit, neutrality, availability, and award discipline — not optimization of any single factor.
What are the most common arbitrator selection mistakes?+
Selecting on reputation or institutional affiliation alone, without evaluating subject-matter fit. Failing to research disclosed relationships and the broader professional network. Not checking references from opposing counsel who appeared before the arbitrator and lost. Underweighting availability — an arbitrator who is perpetually over-scheduled produces avoidable delay. And treating the selection as a low-stakes administrative step rather than a strategic decision with long-term consequences for the proceeding.
Can both sides agree on the same arbitrator?+
Yes, and in many proceedings this is the most efficient path. If both sides identify a neutral they trust and are willing to accept, they may jointly designate that person to the AAA by stipulation. The AAA then proceeds with the agreed-upon arbitrator, subject to the standard disclosure and confirmation process. A joint designation skips the strike-and-rank process entirely.