Insights from the White & Case New York Arbitration Week Panel
THE AUTHOR:
Camille Esnou, International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case
Introduction
Trusting your arbitrators is arguably the most critical element of faith in the overall arbitration process. Parties look to appoint someone competent, independent, and hardworking – and ideally, attuned to the issues that matter most to them. In the age of AI, arbitrator selection takes on a whole new dimension, as it becomes increasingly informed by new tools and unprecedented data on arbitrators’ background, experience, and approach to key issues.
During this year’s New York Arbitration Week, White & Case presented a panel discussion on this very topic: “Selecting an Arbitrator in 2025.” Moderated by Surya Gopalan (White & Case), the panel brought together leading voices in the field, including Meredith Craven (Chevron), Ank Santens (White & Case), Rafael del Rosal Carmona (AAA-ICDR (American Arbitration Association – International Centre for Dispute Resolution) and Alexandre Vagenheim (Jus Mundi).
The Ideal Arbitrator Is Competent and Sensitive to the Issues That Matter in Your Case
First and foremost, panelists said, parties should consider candidates whose experience suggests that they will engage with the issues important to the parties thoughtfully, thoroughly and with the necessary rigor. And in a three-member tribunal context, parties seek party appointees that will be sensitive to the merits of the appointing party’s position and be able to persuasively advance it in tribunal deliberations. Institutions such as the ICDR, in contrast, concern themselves with appointing candidates who correspond to the parties’ stated needs and preferred expertise.
The Arbitrator Selection Process Involves Casting a Wide Net of Potential Candidates
Ms. Santens outlined her approach, shaped by her many years of experience sitting as both counsel and arbitrator – a vantage point that has given her special insight into what attributes are important to her in an arbitrator, including soft skills. Practically speaking, the arbitrator selection process is one of identifying a broad pool of candidates and then narrowing it down through case-specific criteria and informed feedback. Ms. Santens said that she has traditionally complemented this process by consulting external databases and, more recently, by making use of AI tools.
The aim is to cast as wide a net as possible – including by considering lesser-known, and/or diverse candidates – to mitigate bias and avoid defaulting to the most recently encountered individual, and instead to ultimately appoint the most suitable candidate.
The resulting group of potential candidates are then researched in greater depth. That research is typically more extensive in treaty cases, given the greater availability of public data, and is followed by a conflict check, examining existing relationships between the arbitrator and the parties, as well as between co-arbitrators. Ms. Craven noted that clients are typically guided by counsel in this process, but may draw on their own tools and information about arbitrators as an additional resource.
The selection process also shifts with the type and size of the dispute. Panelists observed that, at times, a less established, “hungrier” arbitrator with a few awards under their belt may be more desirable, as they may invest more time and energy in advance of the hearing – though senior arbitrators always remain valued and frequently appointed for their experience. Another important factor, Ms. Santens noted, that should not be overlooked is an arbitrator’s stance on damages, where valuation approaches can influence outcomes as much as the liability analysis.
As for the selection process at the institutional level, Mr. Carmona explained that the process is fairly similar, with emphasized weight on certain factors including cost efficiency (by considering arbitrator rates and expenses tied to the arbitration), and diversity considerations (the ICDR applies a 30% diversity goal, across gender, race, and ethnicity).
The Rise of Data-Driven and AI-Enabled Tools is Revolutionizing the Appointment Process
Parties now have access to increasingly sophisticated data-driven tools, including ones that aggregate and analyze past decisions and map conflicts. One such tool is Jus Connect, a “smart directory” for professionals developed by Jus Mundi. As Mr. Vagenheim explained, the tool uses extractive AI to pull data from available awards and from enforcement proceedings, and supplements it with data gathered through Jus Mundi’s institutional relationships. The platform aggregates this information to map arbitrators’, counsel’s, and experts’ experience, cases, industries, languages, and connections. Jus Connect also has a built-in conflicts checker tool. Looking ahead, Jus Mundi is building a more advanced “professional search” AI tool that would go a step further, beyond data consolidation to recommendation, by identifying potential arbitrators or professionals for a case. This tool remains under development, as it raises ethical questions still being considered about how data should be assessed and interpreted.
Institutions like the ICDR also rely on internal data-driven tools for arbitrator selection. As Mr. Carmona explained, their system scans resumes for expertise, monitors an arbitrator’s current caseload to assess bandwidth, and runs conflict checks. In response to a question from the audience on how arbitrators should draft their resumes, so that the tool picks up on their skills, he noted that the data-driven classification tool searches for related keywords – for example, “energy” would be linked to terms such as “oil and gas” and “renewables” – concluding that the level of detail in arbitrators’ resumes plays an increasingly important role.
Beyond Hard Skills, Soft Skills and Case Management Competence are Critical Traits
All panelists agreed that soft skills and case-management competence can be decisive to outcomes and, therefore, weigh heavily in the arbitrator selection process. Beyond competence and a perceived sensitivity to the appointing party’s case, panelists emphasized that arbitrator effectiveness involves emotional intelligence and procedural discipline. These qualities can materially influence the trajectory of deliberations and the costs of a case. Procedurally, Ms. Santens noted, an internationalist is ideal – and someone who will not tolerate procedural gamesmanship, is not prone to due-process paranoia, and avoids splitting the difference. At the institutional level, the ICDR considers post-case survey feedback sent to the parties and the case administrator in its ongoing roster management – where sustained negative evaluations may lead to roster suspension.
The panelists differed on whether arbitrator interviews should form part of the appointment process. While interviews can be valuable in assessing soft skills, it is crucial that they be undertaken with great care to avoid any impropriety or undue influence. Ultimately, soft skills valued most by panelists included “big picture” thinking, attention to detail, a strong work ethic, and a genuine interest in the appointment. Yet, these intangibles – often decisive – remain uncaptured. The closest attempt was Arbitrator Intelligence, an AI-based survey tool whose metrics offered glimpses into arbitrators’ document-production tendencies, depth of engagement with the record and other “intangibles,” but this tool was discontinued in 2024 after reaching a “financial and commercial ceiling.” No enduring system for tracking these qualities has therefore taken hold – though demand for more interpretive AI models is certainly strong, according to Mr. Vagenheim.
Conclusion
AI is here and its potential influence on the arbitrator selection process is significant. But while AI tools promise much, there are risks. While AI can systematize and expand access to vast amounts of data – and can surface new talent – it equally risks reinforcing repeat appointments if datasets favor those with the most visible records. As such, the onus is on institutions to keep datasets objective and transparent – and on users to interrogate AI outputs critically. These systems do not operate in a vacuum; humans remain in the loop and inevitably make the final call.
Interpreting data subjectively is not inherently undesirable – indeed, there is a real appetite for it. However, it raises difficult ethical questions: which data points should AI prioritize, and how much weight should each be given? And while there is growing demand for a tool that captures an arbitrator’s intangible qualities, no comprehensive system exists to do so today. Yet those very qualities often drive appointments, meaning that personal experience, old-fashioned word of mouth, and intuition remain essential, if not decisive, and may yet defy the increasing encroachment of AI-driven appointment tools.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Camille Esnou is an International Arbitration Fellow at White & Case. Camille worked on commercial and civil litigation matters as an intern at Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva and as a mini-pupil at barristers’ chambers 12 King’s Bench Walk and 11 South Square in London. Camille is UK and U.S.-trained, holding an LL.B. from Cambridge University and an LL.M. from New York University, and passed the New York State Bar exam.
The author thanks the panelists for reviewing this article for accuracy, and Birgit Kurtz and Juan Felipe Silva Bustamante of White & Case for their input on this piece.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
