Picking an arbitrator can look procedural on the surface. A list arrives. Names get reviewed. Strikes and rankings go in. Then the case moves forward.
In reality, that stage often influences the entire shape of the arbitration: how discovery is handled, how hearing time is managed, how credibility issues are viewed, and how comfortable each side feels with the process itself. In forums like FINRA, the selection system is structured, but party choices still matter a great deal. FINRA’s current rules use a random list-selection algorithm, then allow parties to strike and rank the names that remain on separate lists. The Director then combines those rankings to appoint the panel, making every effort to appoint the highest-ranked available arbitrators from the parties’ combined lists. FINRA and FINRA’s arbitrator-selection overview.
If you want a fuller overview of how list generation, strikes, and panel makeup work together, this more detailed explainer on how panel composition and list selection can shape the case gives helpful background before diving into the mistakes below.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
One of the most common mistakes is assuming the real fight starts later.
It often starts here.
Arbitrators do more than hear testimony and sign an award. They shape scheduling, resolve procedural disputes, decide evidentiary issues, and influence whether a proceeding feels efficient or chaotic. FINRA describes arbitration as a process in which arbitrators decide cases on the facts and merits, while also handling motions and hearing management along the way. FINRA’s arbitration-process overview.
That practical authority matters because arbitration outcomes are usually hard to unwind. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may vacate an award only on limited grounds, including issues like corruption, fraud, certain misconduct, or “evident partiality.” Ordinary dissatisfaction with how the case was handled generally is not enough. 9 U.S.C. § 10.
Here’s what this often means in real life: if a party treats selection casually, it may be stuck with a decision-maker whose case-management habits, tolerance for motion practice, or approach to witness credibility makes the rest of the arbitration feel very different from what that party expected.
In general terms, parties that approach this phase carefully often look beyond biography lines and ask questions like: