If you are heading into a FINRA arbitration, the arbitrator list can feel like one of the most technical parts of the process. It is also one of the most important. In many cases, the people selected for the panel will shape how the hearing is managed, how evidence is viewed, and how close questions get resolved.
That is why ranking and striking arbitrators is rarely just a paperwork step. It is a strategic decision point that can affect the entire direction of the case.
In this post you’ll learn how the FINRA list process works, what ranking and striking actually do, which factors often matter when comparing candidates, where parties sometimes go wrong, and how a securities attorney may help evaluate the panel through a more informed lens. If you want a broader overview of how the panel gets built in the first place, this explainer on how panel composition can affect a FINRA case gives helpful background before diving into ranking strategy.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
FINRA arbitration awards are final and binding in most circumstances, and in a three-arbitrator case a majority vote is enough for an award; unanimity is not required. That reality often makes panel selection feel less like administration and more like case architecture. FINRA explains that it administers the forum but does not decide the outcome, which leaves the decision-making function squarely with the arbitrators.
The data also helps explain why parties focus heavily on panel composition. In FINRA’s 2025 dispute resolution statistics, customer claimant cases decided by all-public panels showed a higher percentage of cases with damages awarded than cases decided by majority-public panels in several recent years, including 2024 and 2025 year-to-date. Those figures do not prove that one panel type is “better” in every case, but they do suggest that panel composition can correlate with materially different outcomes. See FINRA’s 2025 dispute resolution statistics.
In plain language, striking means removing a listed arbitrator from your side’s consideration, and ranking means ordering the remaining names by preference.
For many investor cases over $100,000, FINRA sends three lists: one with 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators, one with 15 public arbitrators, and one with 10 non-public arbitrators. Each separately represented party may strike up to four on the chair-qualified public list, up to six on the public list, and up to all 10 on the non-public list. After that, each party ranks the remaining names separately on each list, with “1” as the first choice. FINRA’s Director then combines the rankings and makes appointments based on the parties’ combined preferences. FINRA describes this process on its official page about how parties select arbitrators.
For industry disputes, the exact list composition can vary by case type and governing code, so the details may look somewhat different. The core idea, though, is similar: parties are given a structured opportunity to shape the decision-maker pool through rankings and strikes under the applicable FINRA rules, including Rule 13404.
A lot of strategy conversations begin with the list itself, but the real process starts earlier. FINRA uses the Neutral List Selection System, often called NLSS, to randomly generate arbitrator lists from its roster. According to FINRA, the list selection algorithm is designed so arbitrators in the selection pool have an equal opportunity to appear on a list, and FINRA also screens for known conflicts before the lists go out. FINRA further notes that staff performs a final review for other known current conflicts that cannot be screened automatically. You can see that in FINRA’s pages on arbitrator selection and in FINRA’s 2023 report on the arbitrator list selection process and technology.
That background matters because parties sometimes assume the initial list is hand-picked. In general terms, it is more accurate to think of the process as randomized within filtered eligibility criteria, not individually curated for a particular result.
One of the most common mistakes is treating strikes and rankings as interchangeable. They are not.
A strike eliminates a person from your list entirely. A low ranking keeps the person in the pool, even if only near the bottom. If the panel ends up being built from names that survive everyone’s strikes, a poorly fitting arbitrator who remains on the list can still end up appointed if availability, overlap, and combined rankings line up that way.
That is why parties often separate candidates into rough buckets such as: