Arbitrator Accreditation common mistakes
Arbitrator Accreditation · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the tribunal's power to rule on its own jurisdiction as a final determination, and writing an award that dismisses a jurisdictional objection on the merits instead of ruling on it as a preliminary matter.
Candidates conflate competence-competence with the separability doctrine and forget that the jurisdictional ruling is itself reviewable by the supervisory court; they answer from general principle rather than the applicable statute or institutional rule.
What to do instead
Before answering, identify which law and which institutional rules govern, then state the two-step analysis separately: (1) the tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, and (2) that ruling does not preclude later court review. Practise writing a short model paragraph for each step.
Drafting procedural orders that fix a deadline without stating the consequence of non-compliance, then failing to address the resulting request for an extension or an unless order.
Candidates focus on the substantive dispute and treat procedural orders as boilerplate; they also overlook that procedural fairness requires the parties to know the consequences of default before an adverse step is taken.
What to do instead
Use a checklist for every procedural order: what is required, by when, by whom, what happens on default, and how a party may seek relief. Draft three orders (document production, witness statements, hearing bundle) with explicit default consequences.
Writing an award that recites the parties' submissions at length but gives only conclusory reasons for the decision on each issue.
Candidates manage word counts by summarising the case narrative, which feels productive, and then run out of space for the reasoning that the award actually turns on.
What to do instead
Adopt an issue-by-issue structure: for each issue state the competing positions in one or two sentences, the finding, and the reasons. Allocate roughly two-thirds of the drafting time to reasons. Practise a 1,500-word award with a fixed issue list.
Failing to deal with every head of claim and every counterclaim, leaving a gap that could support a challenge for failure to exhaust the mandate.
Candidates track the claimant's case as presented in the request and lose sight of amended claims, set-off defences, and relief that was pleaded but not argued at the hearing.
What to do instead
Build a dispositive matrix at the close of the hearing: rows for each claim, counterclaim and head of relief; columns for finding, reasons, and amount. Do not begin drafting until every row is filled, and cross-check the matrix against the final pleadings.
Confusing the seat of arbitration with the place of the hearing, and applying the procedural law of the hearing venue to questions of arbitrability or court supervision.
The two often coincide in practice, so candidates never had to separate them; exam fact patterns deliberately split them to test the distinction.
What to do instead
For every fact pattern, write down three separate items before analysing: the seat, the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and the law of the contract. Then check which court has supervisory jurisdiction and which law governs arbitrability.
Assuming an arbitration agreement in writing must be a signed contract, and concluding that a clause incorporated by reference or contained in an exchange of emails is invalid.
Candidates rely on domestic contract formalities rather than the international writing requirement, which is satisfied by recorded exchanges and incorporation by reference in many regimes.
What to do instead
Learn the writing requirement as a functional test: is the content recorded and accessible? Then apply the specific instrument (New York Convention, Model Law, or institutional rules) and note where stricter national form requirements may still apply.
Accepting an appointment without disclosing a prior professional relationship with counsel for one party, on the view that the relationship is too minor to matter.
Candidates apply a subjective test ('I can be impartial') rather than the objective test of what a reasonable informed party would perceive, and they underestimate the duty to investigate before accepting.
What to do instead
Use a conflicts checklist covering prior engagements, shared representation, social and family ties, and financial interests, and run it before accepting. When in doubt, disclose in writing and let the parties decide; document the disclosure in the file.
Continuing to act after a party raises a justified objection to the arbitrator, without informing the institution or the other party.
Candidates fear that stepping aside looks like an admission of bias, and they do not know the mechanism for a challenge or for resignation with the tribunal's consent.
What to do instead
Learn the challenge procedure step by step: notice, grounds, time limit, decision-maker, and the effect on the proceedings. Draft a short response to a challenge that neither concedes bias nor dismisses the objection.
Relying on a single remembered case name or article number without stating the proposition it supports or checking that it fits the facts.
Candidates memorise labels under time pressure and reproduce them as authority, which reads as confident but collapses under scrutiny when the proposition is misstated.
What to do instead
For every authority cited, write the proposition in your own words first, then attach the source. If you cannot state the proposition in one sentence, omit the citation and argue from principle. Limit yourself to authorities you can explain.
Spending disproportionate time on the first question and leaving later questions with skeletal answers, particularly the drafting task.
Candidates are anxious about the analytical question and over-invest in it, while the drafting task looks manageable and is deferred until too late.
What to do instead
Before starting, allocate minutes per question and per mark, and stick to them. Do the drafting task first or second, not last, and leave a fixed ten minutes for a completeness check against the dispositive matrix.