By Subbaiah KG and Unnat Akhouri
In online arbitration, where parties never meet the neutral in person, trust relies entirely on the process. Here, perceived fairness becomes as critical as actual fairness, and any suggestion of bias can erode confidence in the outcome and entire process of dispute resolution.
The Perkins Eastman ruling (2019) had a clear bearing on this as well. The court held that unilateral appointment of arbitrators, regardless of contractual clauses, violates the principle of neutrality. In short, control by one party undermines legitimacy.
At CADRE, we’ve addressed this challenge right from the start. Our arbitrator assignment system is rules-based, automated and auditable. It is designed to eliminate discretion, avoid conflicts, and instill trust through transparency.
The Two-Tier Model: Qualification First, Assignment Second
We follow a two-stage process: filter for fit, then assign using impartial and objective algorithms. This ensures that every assignment meets both technical relevance and procedural fairness.
- Structured Filtering: Identifying Qualified Neutrals
Before assignment begins, we apply objective filters to shortlist neutrals best suited to the case. These include domain expertise, professional credentials, experience level, language compatibility, geographic relevance, and current caseload. This ensures that only eligible and appropriately skilled neutrals proceed to the assignment phase.
- Automated Assignment
Once the filtered pool is ready, assignment is handled by one of two algorithmic models. The first is a round-robin approach, which distributes cases sequentially to ensure even allocation when all candidates are equally qualified. The second is a min-cost max-flow model, which considers factors like workload, availability, and specialization to match cases efficiently. Both processes ensure neutrality throughout the process.
Built for Oversight and Trust
Every assignment is logged and time-stamped, with selection policies formally reviewed thereby making the process verifiable. Any permitted intervention requires documented justification and a clear audit trail.
Upcoming Innovations: Fairness and Technology
We continue to invest in the evolution of our selection model with future-facing capabilities, including:
- Preference modeling (where allowed under applicable rules)
- Neutrals’ performance and feedback tracking
- Dynamic mapping based on case type and complexity
Conclusion
At CADRE, the way arbitrators are assigned is rooted in a clear objective: uphold procedural fairness through structure, not discretion. By applying consistent eligibility filters and relying on predefined algorithms, we aim to ensure both sides engage with the process on equal terms.
