Peter Rundle is amenable to being interviewed by counsel as they work their way through the selection of an appropriate arbitrator to hear their dispute. Most often, such interviews take place where the parties are charged with appointing their own arbitrators, who then select the chair. Whether Mr. Rundle is being considered for “wing” or chair - or as sole arbitrator - he generally adheres to the Interview Guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Counsel interested in interviewing Mr. Rundle should make themselves familiar with these guidelines.

Most arbitral institutions, including the American Arbitration Association and ICDR, authorize pre-selection arbitrator interviews. AAA Commercial Rule 20(a) provides:

“No party and no one acting on behalf of any party shall communicate ex parte with an arbitrator or a candidate for arbitrator concerning the arbitration, except that a party, or someone acting on behalf of a party, may communicate ex parte with a candidate for direct appointment pursuant to Rule R-14 in order to advise the candidate of the general nature of the controversy and of the anticipated proceedings and to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, availability, or independence in relation to the parties or to discuss the suitability of candidates for selection as a third arbitrator where the parties or party-designated arbitrators are to participate in that selection.”

See also, ICDR Article 14(6).

Whether sitting as a sole, wing or chair arbitrator, certain individual qualities are essential to the dispute resolution process. Among those characteristics are:

• Reputation for impartiality and integrity

• Respect for parties and their counsel

• Responsiveness & Diligence

• Process Management Skills & Experience

• Writing & Communication Talent

• Subject Matter Knowledge

• Technical Ability (ESI, Software, Cybersecurity, Etc.)

Choosing the right arbitrator to serve on a 3-person tribunal requires consideration of additional skills, or lack thereof. For example —

• Will abrasive or aggressive personality traits alienate other members of the panel?

• Will the wing arbitrator seek to advocate for the party appointing her? [Hugely detrimental conduct.]

• Does the arbitrator possess the soft skills necessary to highlight key business or industry issues and build panel consensus?

• Can the wing arbitrator defer as appropriate to the Chair, or will he feel compelled by background to “be in-charge”?